What Would a Truthful Campaign Advertisement Look Like?

© Marketoonist.com

Ready to throw a brick at your television yet over the latest wave of commercials in this election cycle? Me, too. They seem transparent enough, which may be why I find them so distasteful and deceiving. What would an honest ad look like, I wonder, and would it not be a refreshing alternative to the current disguising of agendas?

One of the more insidious advertising campaigns here in Colorado revolves around Initiative 97, where a grassroots public effort led to this measure making it onto the ballot. It would greatly restrict the places where oil and natural gas extraction could take place on non-federal lands. Most of the concern centers on potential health effects upon, and disaster risks borne by, those residential neighborhoods in rural and suburban districts. It would require a drilling location "setback" of 2,500 feet, or greater, from vulnerable parks, creeks, and homes. Scientific studies have suggested adverse public health consequences among populations close to drilling sites; and there have been documented explosions and fires associated with the industry that have resulted in worker deaths.

Naturally, the industry side is not in favor of further constraints, and of course they resort to fear-mongering to incentivize voters to reject Initiative 97. The recurring television ad features a stern-looking female spokesperson warning that the inevitable result of the passage of 97 will be greatly decreased revenue for public schools, fire and police, as well as lost jobs. Their argument is that the "setbacks" would "set back" the economy. This is the same rhetoric we have always heard, as if we believe the fossil fuel industry cares one whit about your safety, your education, or whether you are employed or not. The overwhelming number of these energy companies are not based in Colorado. Heck, some are not even based in this country, as Canadian corporations make ever-increasing inroads into natural resource extraction here in the U.S. and elsewhere. Most of the "jobs" they profess to be creating are open to applicants from all over, not reserved for Coloradans.

Well, maybe we are not as well educated as we would like to imagine, if anyone seriously believes the claims made in this advertisement. It must be a strategy that works, at least in part, or the advertising agencies would not adopt it, and the industry would not endorse it as their platform. That is perhaps the scariest part of it all: that anyone falls for it.

Ok, so what would a more honest approach be? Permit me a little artistic license if you will, but I think it would go something like this: An actual executive in the industry would present the following narrative.....

"We, as executive officers and shareholders, are addicted to the obscene profits we generate through fracking and other fossil fuel extraction methods. We greatly appreciate the generous federal, state, and local subsidies we receive in addition to those profits. We know we could make even more money were it not for those pesky environmental and public health regulations that we have to abide by. It is therefore necessary for us to make large expenditures on lobbyists and public advertising, even creating faux "green" organizations like Protect Colorado and Coloradans for Responsible Energy Development (CRED). Oh, we also have to constantly battle competition from renewable, vastly safer energy sources like solar and wind. That takes money, too. So, you see we need relaxed regulation, not increased regulation, if we are to make up the deficits we perceive in our bottom line. Your health, safety, employment status, and recreational opportunities are not our problem. You want heat, fuel, electricity, and telecommunications at low prices? That we can do for you, if you vote no on Initiative 97. Thank you, from here in the back of my limousine/inside my corner office suite/favorite golf course."

I am not holding my breath that any industry, candidate, or other interest group is going to stop lying and hiding their agenda any time soon, but I would find it more difficult to object to their posturing if it was put forth in an honest manner. Hey, what do they have to lose, right?

Frack Off

© Propublica.org (Canada)

I was already aggravated by the incessant television commercials here in Colorado that are promoting fracking, a method of natural gas and oil extraction that uses pressurized chemicals to fracture bedrock in order to "free" the desired natural resource. This week, we get Gale Norton (yes, that Gale Norton) stumping for Protect Colorado, the greenwashed front for the oil and natural gas industry. This raises my degree of ire even higher.

Gale Norton is the former Secretary of the Interior. You heard me correctly, this woman once oversaw the National Park Service, BLM, and other public land management bodies. Even when she was appointed by George W. Bush to serve as the 48th Secretary of the Interior (2001-2006), her ties to the energy lobby elicited vocal criticism.

She also served as Colorado's State Attorney General, 1991-1999, and has returned here where she is apparently her own corporation, Norton Regulatory Strategies. She also served as general counsel to "Royal Dutch Shell Unconventional Oil, 2007-2010. She was a member of Shell’s global legal leadership team, and handled legal, regulatory and governmental issues for Shell’s oil shale and in-situ oil sands projects, primarily in Colorado and Alberta." That according to her Norton Regs website.

Norton has managed, successfully, to greenwash herself, masquerading as someone who truly cares about the environment and sustainable energy, thanks in large part to her former employment overseeing public lands. No wonder Protect Colorado finds her to be such a perfect spokesperson.

Understand that we are treated to at least one pro-fracking television commercial in prime time every single night. It is the industry's right, of course, to exercise their free speech. They are paying handsomely for the chance to broadcast their message, but that is exactly my point. They can afford to make their case publicly, night after night. Not so for any group opposing them. Just because you are the loudest voice, doesn't mean you should be the only voice.

It is common courtesy to allow both sides to have their voice in debate of an issue. In my opinion, it should be the law. On issues as contentious as this one, both views should be granted equal time to make their case. This is also why the Supreme Court case of Citizens United needs to be overturned. The essential outcome of that decision was the "money equals free speech" doctrine that now dominates public discourse, certainly skewing the course of said discourse.

Advocacy groups involved in issues of free speech need to brainstorm another way to circumvent Citizens United until we get a constitutional amendment stripping corporations from the overwhelming advantage they have in the court of public opinion on issues like fracking that threaten public and environmental health.

Can you imagine where we would be today if oil and natural gas corporations were not so greedy in pursuit of profit, seeking from day one the elimination of competing, renewable, energy industries like solar and wind? It isn't just energy, either. The automobile industry has steadfastly opposed funding for public transit, while garnering huge government subsidies and outright bailouts. The cotton, pulp and paper, and plastics industries have all convinced us that hemp is a drug threat needing regulation if not prohibition, when in reality hemp is nothing but a more durable and preferred alternative in the manufacture of products from clothing to acid-free paper.

Back to Norton and her spokesperson role. We have apparently not yet graduated as a culture from the era of snake oil salesmen and other con artists. In fact, we are now appointing them to office and allowing them to swindle our faith in those who govern. It is up to us not only as consumers, but as citizens, to do a background check on those who purport to have our best collective interests at heart.

Of Birds and Blades

I like birds, I really do. I am also a strong proponent of renewable energy like solar and wind power. Imagine my dismay at finding many of my birding friends denouncing the huge wind farms popping up all over the place these days. Ok, the objections are mostly concerning the location of the big turbines, but the arguments are not going to end well if taken out of context as the press is prone to do.

There are two problems that occur to me immediately. One, if “environmentalists” first object to traditional energy sources like coal, gas, and oil, but then start whining about commercial pursuit of alternative energy, they lose credibility and are dismissed as “NIMBYs” (Not in my Backyard). Secondly, if we invest too heavily or too quickly in a technology that demonstrates itself to have severe detrimental side effects, then we are back to square one on all fronts.

No question, oil, coal, and gas involve truly horrific extraction procedures and equally risky transportation methods. Time and again we have seen the outcome in the form of petroleum-soaked pelicans, black beaches, mountain-top removals, and other disasters. Virtually anything is better than that. A recent online article and chart from Mother Jones purports to show that wind turbines kill just a few birds compared to the mortality inflicted by…..cats.

Naturally, any bird fatalities attributable to humans, or their pets, is intolerable to many in the birding community. Here is another article, in PDF file format, that offers statistics on bird fatalities associated with cell phone towers. There seems to be no end to the number of ways we are killing our fauna, including automobiles, airplanes, and wanton executions at the end of (insert random weapon here).

I am not saying I am in favor of preventable slaughter. There are alternative designs for wind-driven devices that harness power. Raymond Green has created one that looks promising. The roadblocks to its manufacture at any scale will undoubtedly come from the companies making money with the status quo. That is what must change: Our corporate addiction to whatever is making money at the cost of everything else. We need industries to be flexible to accommodate new findings and better ideas that benefit humanity as a whole, and are sustainable.

I will continue supporting wind energy, and promote safer designs. I will also always love cats, but agree that they should be kept indoors, and/or walked on a leash. I will also continue opposing the stock market as the driving force of our society. It is driving alright, driving down wages, driving through consumer rights, and driving our natural environment to hell. I’m all ears when it comes to an alternative to that.

Cash for Clunkers

I try and avoid political hot potatoes on what should be strictly a nature blog, but this government program is aimed at mitigating extravagant fuel consumption, and it also points to a part of human nature that is a bit disturbing.

Even ardent supporters of President Obama’s policies and initiatives seem to be raising eyebrows at this popular program designed to replace “gas-guzzlers” with more fuel-efficient vehicles. One criticism is that the bar is set so low (one needs to only improve their miles per gallon by less than a factor of ten) it is really going to have a negligible effect. An improvement of fifteen or twenty miles per gallon in performance would seem to be a better threshold to qualify for federal funding help.

My criticism has much more to do with our American sense of entitlement to a personal vehicle. Why are my tax dollars being used to subsidize your car? I should at least be allowed to borrow it now and then if I have a financial stake in it. Never mind that I don’t drive (I can, I have a license, but I find it so nerve-wracking as not to want to bother), it is the principle of taking from the collective community to give to the individual that I find offensive.

President Obama would have been far wiser to use those funds to greatly expand public transit across the nation, including commuter rail lines. His reluctance to do so points out how pathologically isolated we have become. We can no longer tolerate “others” on the bus ride to the office, let alone any other destination. Even if we do climb aboard a coach, we plug our ears with MP3 players, bury our face in a book, or stare out the window. Whatever happened to striking up a conversation? Flirting? Sharing?

No, we would rather go into financial debt for our very own personal, mobile space than have to deal with “strangers” any more than we already do. I could go on about how some drivers need to be taken off the road no matter what kind of vehicle they are behind the wheel of, or how distracted, sleep-deprived, and angry the average operator of a car has become, but mostly I am simply saddened by our collective disdain for interacting with each other in public.

Tomorrow I take the bus, like every weekday morning, from South Deerfield to the UMass campus in Amherst. I will enjoy joking and conversing with the fine ladies and gentlemen that share that commute. I encourage you to explore your own transit options and make the most of them, both economically and socially.