The problem with global warming, some environmentalists believe, is “global warming.” The term turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes, according to extensive polling and focus group sessions conducted by ecoAmerica, a nonprofit environmental marketing and messaging firm in Washington.

Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”

EcoAmerica has been conducting research for the last several years to find new ways to frame environmental issues and so build public support for climate change legislation and other initiatives. A summary of the group’s latest findings and recommendations was accidentally sent by e-mail to a number of news organizations by someone who sat in this week on a briefing intended for government officials and environmental leaders.

Asked about the summary, ecoAmerica’s president and founder, Robert M. Perkowitz, requested that it not be reported until the formal release of the firm’s full paper later this month, but acknowledged that its wide distribution now made compliance with his request unlikely. The research directly parallels marketing studies conducted by oil companies, utilities and coal mining concerns that are trying to “green” their images with consumers and sway public policy.

Environmental issues consistently rate near the bottom of public worry, according to many public opinion polls. A Pew Research Center poll released in January found global warming last among 20 voter concerns; it trailed issues like addressing moral decline and decreasing the influence of lobbyists. “We know why it’s lowest,” said Mr. Perkowitz, a marketer of outdoor clothing and home furnishings before he started ecoAmerica, whose activities are financed by corporations, foundations and individuals. “When someone thinks of global warming, they think of a politicized, polarized argument. When you say ‘global warming,’ a certain group of Americans think that’s a code word for progressive liberals, gay marriage and other such issues.”

The answer, Mr. Perkowitz said in his presentation at the briefing, is to reframe the issue using different language. “Energy efficiency” makes people think of shivering in the dark. Instead, it is more effective to speak of “saving money for a more prosperous future.” In fact, the group’s surveys and focus groups found, it is time to drop the term “the environment” and talk about “the air we breathe, the water our children drink.”

“Another key finding: remember to speak in TALKING POINTS aspirational language about shared American ideals, like freedom, prosperity, independence and self-sufficiency while avoiding jargon and details about policy, science, economics or technology,” said the e-mail account of the group’s study.
Mr. Perkowitz and allies in the environmental movement have been briefing officials in Congress and the administration in the hope of using the findings to change the terms of the debate now under way in Washington.

Opponents of legislation to combat global warming are engaged in a similar effort. Trying to head off a cap-and-trade system, in which government would cap the amount of heat-trapping emissions allowed and let industry trade permits to emit those gases, they are coaching Republicans to refer to any such system as a giant tax that would kill jobs. Coal companies are taking out full-page advertisements promising “clean, green coal.” The natural gas industry refers to its product as “clean fuel green fuel.” Oil companies advertise their investments in alternative energy.

Robert J. Brulle of Drexel University, an expert on environmental communications, said ecoAmerica’s campaign was a mirror image of what industry and political conservatives were doing. “The form is the same; the message is just flipped,” he said. “You want to sell toothpaste, we’ll sell it. You want to sell global warming, we’ll sell that. It’s the use of advertising techniques to manipulate public opinion.” He said the approach was cynical and, worse, ineffective.

Frank Luntz, a Republican communications consultant, prepared a strikingly similar memorandum in 2002, telling his clients that they were losing the environmental debate and advising them to adjust their language. He suggested referring to themselves as “conservationists” rather than “environmentalists,” and emphasizing “common sense” over scientific argument. And, Mr. Luntz and Mr. Perkowitz agree, “climate change” is an easier sell than “global warming.”

Those of us who post to this blog and others in the global warming debunkification (okay, I made that word up) movement are used to being ignored - or (usually) politely being humored first, and then ignored - but this experience from last week I thought was worth noting in the blogosphere.

Last week the Heartland folks referred a reporter to me from a Midwestern weekly newspaper, who had some questions about a greenhouse gas inventory her county was compiling and where she could expect public policy to go next. I had no idea where her sentiments were on the issue, but I gave her straight feedback based upon examples I’d seen elsewhere. What she did with it after that was up to her, and I did not care much either way what she did, given my past experience with environmentalist journalists.

Turns out she sought to do a balanced article, but her editor would have none of it. I usually like to name names with things like this, but I assume the reporter wants to keep her job so I will refrain. This is what she emailed me:

Paul:
Thank you so much for your responses. I did a story, but my editor removed all references to debate about climate change, global warming or whatever they are calling it now. He didn’t tell me, which is unusual when removing such a huge chunk of a story, but I just discovered it today after it didn’t appear in our print edition. It is online, but is not as I wrote it. I’m so sorry. I will still try to get both sides of all issues out. That’s all I can do. Thank you, and again, I apologize.

Read more here.

Despite dire predictions about the impact of climate change on Australia’s iconic Great Barrier Reef, researchers have found that badly-damaged coral has managed to repair itself. Scientists say, although this is a heartening discovery, the threat of global warming to the world’s largest coral system has not diminished.

Scientists have warned that the Great Barrier Reef - which stretches for more than 2,500 kilometers down Australia’s northeast coast - is likely to bear the brunt of warmer ocean temperatures. A major concern has been the bleaching of coral, where the sensitive marine organisms wither under environmental stress caused by increased water temperature, pollution or sedimentation.

An unexpected discovery at the southern end of the reef has provided some rare good news for researchers. Researchers found that coral in the Keppel Islands off Queensland, which was damaged by bleaching in 2006 and then smothered by seaweed that overgrew the reef, has managed to repair itself.

Laurence McCook from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority says the sudden disappearance of that stifling band of seaweed helped spark the recovery. “Although the reef was covered in this massive bloom of a particular seaweed, that seaweed experienced a quite spectacular, unusual die-back,” he explained. “Now, that gave the corals a kind of a second chance, if you like. And, the second factor was that the corals really took that chance, showing spectacular growth and in particular re-growth from surviving fragments of coral tissue.”

Another key factor was the pristine condition of the sea, with pollution now controlled by restrictions on fishing and controlling the runoff of soil and pesticides from farms on the mainland. Experts say to see reefs bounce back from mass coral bleaching in less than a decade is highly unusual. Like other coral systems, the Great Barrier Reef is facing a range of environmental threats. Scientists say their capacity to recovery from damage inflicted by warmer waters, for example, will be critical to its future health.

The Great Barrier Reef is one of Australia’s premier tourist attractions. It covers an area bigger than Britain and is the largest living structure on earth and the only one visible from space. Read more here.

The UK’s only wind turbine manufact­uring plant is to close, dealing a humili­ating blow to the government’s promise to support low-carbon industries. Vestas, the world’s biggest wind energy group, said today that it would close its Isle of Wight facility, which employs about 700 people and makes blades for wind farms in the US.

The group had planned to convert the factory in Newport so it could make blades for the British market, but said this morning that the paralysis gripping the industry meant that orders had ground to a halt. Such low demand could not justify the investment, Ditlev Engel, the chief executive, told the Guardian.

He said the group would consult with the workers for the next two to three months, adding that there was a glimmer of hope investment in the plant could still go ahead if orders picked up soon. Engel said last week’s budget, which increased subsidies available for offshore wind farms, as well as recent moves to free up the sluggish planning process, could boost the industry but it was too early to say whether orders would pick enough to rescue the plant. “The government has tried to improve the situation,” he said. “Whether it’s enough I don’t know.”

In early March, Gordon Brown convened a low-carbon industrial summit aimed at finding ways to help low-carbon manufacturers lead the UK out of recession. Vestas representatives attended the meeting. Engel said the group was in “constant dialogue” with the government and had informed it of today’s move. He admitted that no aid or assistance had been offered by Whitehall to try to save the plant. But he reserved his fiercest criticism for local politicians who he said were holding up projects, particularly onshore, giving the UK one of the lengthiest planning processes for developers wanting to build wind farms anywhere in the world.

“Since last summer, the order intake in the UK market has dropped significantly. Therefore it would be very difficult to substantiate the investment as we had already planned. “The UK has large wind resources and it’s a priority for the government but the orders didn’t move. That’s why we’re telling employees that we’re not reinvesting there.

“We are waiting to see in the coming period if the government initiative announced last week will get the market to move again. At least it gives some hope but it’s too early to tell.” Engel said the weakness of the pound had also had an effect, making it more expensive to build wind farms in the UK, but the major problem lay in planning application. “It is extremely time consuming and extremely complicated. Some of our developers, customers, will tell you it is so difficult. In the UK nimbyism is a huge challenge. This is outside of Whitehall territory.

“People talk about big offshore parks. Why not put in onshore parks? The cost of installation is half compared to offshore.” The Isle of Wight facility will stop making blades in June. The R&D department, which employs about 150 people, will remain open. Engel admitted that if Vestas makes its skilled workers redundant but sees a pick-up in orders later in the year, it would be harder to reopen the plant because it would have to find a new skilled workforce.

See story here. See Watts Up With That recount with some examples of wind turbine problems here.

Michigan affiliate’s chief meteorologist slams disingenuousness of MSNBC’s ‘Future Earth’ special; GE’s financial stake in cap-and-trade passage. NBC Universal and its networks have been criticized for the global warming alarmism it parades on a regular basis. However, now the criticism is coming from its own affiliates.

Prior to its April 26 airing on MSNBC, shows on NBC had been promoting the first part of the climate special “Future Earth” - an MSNBC program that used computer animation to show the possibilities of a polar icecap melting. That prompted Bill Steffen, a meteorologist for NBC’s Grand Rapids, Mich. affiliate, to call out MSNBC for that special.

Steffen challenged several premises of “Future Earth: Journey to the End of the World,” on his WoodTV.com blog. Steffen debunked the entire series premise that is posted on the MSNBC Web site: “Find out why Earth’s climate machine - the North Pole - is melting alarmingly fast. Learn about our planet’s future, and how you can stop its decline.”

“First, the North Pole is not ‘Earth’s Climate Machine,’” Steffen wrote. “There is far more heat and area in the Tropics than at the North Pole. Second, YOU can’t stop its decline (assuming it’s declining)! Nature is big - you personally are insignificant compared to nature. Don’t you wish you had the power to control icecaps! If you don’t mind some profanity, check out George Carlin’s take on ‘Saving the Planet.’ Third, MSNBC does not know ‘our planet’s future.’”

Steffen rebutted claims of the MSNBC special saying that ice in the Antarctic has actually been expanding and that polar ice melting alone would not cause sea level to rise as depicted in the “Future Earth.” “Keep in mind that if the Polar icecap (without Greenland) melted, it would hardly cause sea level to rise, because the icecap is currently displacing water in the Arctic Ocean,” Steffen wrote.

Steffen also pointed out, as many others have, the financial stake NBC Universal’s parent company General Electric (NYSE:GE) has invested in cap-and-trade becoming law. One last point, “MSNBC is owned by General Electric,” Steffen wrote. “GE is already making money off the issue with their Carbon Credit Master Card (link from ‘Treehugger,’ no less).  Here’s CNN’s story on the new credit card.”

Steffen even showed how much GE has spent lobbying for environmental causes, originally reported by the Washington Examiner on March 3. “Interesting note:  In the fourth quarter of 2008 as GE/NBC stock fell 30 percent, GE spent $4.26 million on lobbying - that’s $46,304 each day, including weekends, Thanksgiving and Christmas,” Steffen wrote. “In 2008, the company spent a grand total of $18.66 million on lobbying. Reviewing their lobbying filings, GE’s specific lobbying issues included the ‘Climate Stewardship Act,’ ‘Electric Utility Cap and Trade Act,’ ‘Global Warming Reduction Act,’ ‘Federal Government Greenhouse Gas Registry Act,’ ‘Low Carbon Economy Act,’ and ‘Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act.’ Do you think this ‘big business’ is just concerned about the environment?”

Read more here.

Mr. Global Warming himself, Al Gore, was the star witness Friday in the House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing Democrats’ cap-and-tax global warming bill. The bill—recently introduced by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Hollywood) and Edward Markey (D-Kennedywood)—is labeled the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009,” which is as Orwellian a name as the “Employee Free Choice Act,” which is of course the way to deny secret ballots to employees in union elections. 

This bill should be named the “Al Gore Enrichment Act.” House Republicans will have a chance to do better than their Senate colleagues did in January, when no tough questions were asked.  Here are a few questions Gore should have been aslewd to answer in the hearing:

1. You are a partner in the venture capital firm of Kleiner-Perkins and a co-founder of the United Kingdom-based investment firm of Generation Investment Management, each of which stands to gain financially from greenhouse gas regulation. Please describe any other financial interests that you have in any other businesses that stand to profit from greenhouse gas regulation.

2. In October 2008, the New York Times Magazine featured a cover story on how Kleiner Perkins had invested $1 billion in 40 companies that would profit from new environmental and energy laws and regulations. What will be your share of any profits from these ventures?

3. How much of your own money have you contributed to Kleiner-Perkins, Generation Investment Management and other businesses that stand to profit from greenhouse gas regulation? If you have not contributed significant amounts of your own capital to these businesses, what, then, is your role in them? Are you a lobbyist? Are you the face of their public relations efforts?  Is your job to run around scaring politicians and the public into enacting greenhouse gas regulation?

4. Is Kleiner-Perkins’ business plan to have you press for legislation and regulation favorable to its clients in order to make them more attractive and available for sale to the public, at which time Kleiner-Perkins would cash out, leaving the public invested in not-ready-for-prime-time companies that have dubious financial prospects and that are dependent on taxpayer subsidies?

5. Your co-founder with Generation Investment Management is former Goldman Sachs partner David Blood. Goldman Sachs is lobbying for global warming legislation and is a part owner of the Chicago Climate Exchange, where carbon credits from cap-and-trade legislation would be traded. Do you or Generation Investment Management stand to benefit in anyway from these relationships?

6. Generation Investment Management’s web site says the firm provides investment advice to clients. Who are Generation Investment Management’s clients and how do they stand to profit from upcoming environmental and energy legislation and regulation? Will these clients share their profits with you and/or Generation Investment Management?

7. When you left public service in January 2001, your personal net worth was perhaps $2 million. In 2007, your personal net worth was reported to be on the order of $100 million. How much of this fortune is related, directly or indirectly, to your advocacy of legislation to reduce “global warming”?

8. When you testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January, why did you not disclose to the Committee and to the public your relationships with Kleiner-Perkins and Generation Investment Management? Generation Investment Management’s web site says, “Integrity and honesty are the bedrock of our business. We demand the highest ethical standards in our work and in our personal lives.” In light of this statement, how to you explain your failure to inform the Senate Committee of your financial conflicts of interest?

9. You travel all over the world in jets and limos, own a houseboat, use 20 times more electricity than the average American, and stand to make a fortune that most millionaires would envy. Yet you tell Americans to downsize their lives, such as by limiting their travel, using less heat and air conditioning, and drying their clothes outside on a clothesline. Describe for us, in detail, your personal “carbon footprint.”

10. If you are wrong about humans causing catastrophic global warming, will you give all the money you “earned” from your alarmism back? See post and comments here.

Recently, much has been written by those searching for economic lessons learned or not learned from the 1930s Depression years. I look at those years and see a political and historical template for the crafting of energy policies as proposed by the Obama administration, its supporters and business beneficiaries.

Those Depression years saw the collaboration of industry and government. The place was Europe. The color was not green, but black. The tide of totalitarianism in Italy spilled over from the 1920s until halted by World War II.  In his 1936 book “Fascism and Big Business,” Daniel Guerin details the mechanisms used by government and big business to profit by mutually beneficial schemes imposed upon the populace by government edict. Another form of a government/business/military alliance concerned President Eisenhower in 1961 when he warned of the “military-industrial complex.”

A big enough business entity (especially if it is “too big to fail") can influence (lobby) the government to pass legislation favorable to it and unfavorable to its competitors. In turn, the government receives financial support from the favored businesses and is enabled to advance its own social agendas. Too late does business realize that it has become an instrument of government policy.

The current Troubled Assets Relief Program and automobile manufacturers’ bailout programs bear the heavy hand of governmental dictates. The Obama administration is proposing the rationing of energy by making it more expensive to the taxpayer. Whether in the form of a direct carbon tax, a tax-and-charade (cap-and-trade) scheme or energy deprivation, the net effect is to increase the costs of production and consumption.

The administration is already treating climate change legislation as creating a new revenue stream. Any hypothetical influence on the climate is treated as a moot point. Business is being offered taxpayer money as a source of subsidized rewards to become “green.” The government, guided by business and other lobbyists, sets the definition of “green,” and then enacts laws or imposes regulations forcing consumers to purchase these sanctioned products, bringing profits to the chosen businesses. This creates a profitable positive feedback mechanism for all involved, except the hapless consumer.

Enron was early to realize the profit potential from alternate energy. Now manufacturers of all sizes, and institutions of all sorts, are eager to color themselves green to capture a bit of government subsidy. Green is the new black.

In homage to a “Day” and movement the related hysteria about which has been, as Chico Escuela would say, Berry Berry Good to Government Agencies!, “The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today released a new user-friendly internet tool that allows the public to view simulations of sea level rise. Released in honor of Earth Day, this program is designed to help people understand the potential impacts of climate change on sea levels.”

It’s called The Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM)-View.

What a sonorous if rather stilted, thoughtful yet of course at the same time purely coincidental acronym they have chosen. Oh to have been in the breakout committee meetings on that one.

Now, this has no grounding in science or probabilities, let alone feasibility, and therefore really offers nothing in the way of “helping people understand” anything but, yes, it is “potential”, as in not impossible given that little to nothing is. It’s “potential” like, say, those porcine hordes threatening to go airborne out of my tucchus.

What’s going on these days makes the old Red-scare look quite tame—what’s the difference between these PlayStation stunts and “I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party...”?—but particularly given their relative groundings in reality. Sadly, no, at long last they have left no sense of decency.

See post here.