environment

The industry-funded former civil rights group Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) continues to bash environmentalists, to the benefit of the energy industry. In July 2008, CORE, the conservative High Impact Leadership Coalition (HILC) and the pro-drilling front group Americans for American Energy pushed for increased domestic oil and gas production, under the banner "stop the war on the poor." Now, CORE and HILC have a campaign called "don't freeze us out," which supports "a Bush administration auction in Utah of oil and gas leases, some near national parks." Environmentalists, including Robert Redford, are urging President-elect Barack Obama to overturn the already-completed auction. CORE's Niger Innis vowed, "We are not going to stand by as Robert Redford tries to slow the flow of home heating fuel from the Rockies and drive up home heating prices to millions of Americans in his lust for environmental headlines." Innis "also recently appeared at a press conference in Washington ... in support of the Americans for American Energy Act sponsored by Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah." CORE has received funding from ExxonMobil.

Energy Secretary-designate Steven Chu "seems about as climate friendly as they come," writes Josh Harkinson, but "more industry friendly than his rhetoric suggests." As the director of the Energy Department-funded Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Chu helped broker "the largest university-industry alliance in U.S. history, the $500 million Energy Biosciences Institute." The biofuels research institute involves the Berkeley lab, two public universities and oil giant BP. Chu pitched BP's deal to the UC-Berkeley Academic Senate, one-third of whose members voted against it. Chu also promoted the institute on campus, saying "money" was the only reason more biofuels research wasn't already underway. The university's compromise agreement gave BP half of the seats on the board governing the institute. As Energy Secretary, Chu will likely "face pressure to partner with corporations in pursuing technological solutions to climate change," notes Harkinson. "As the incoming Obama administration prepares to spend liberally to develop cleaner sources of energy, the structure of corporate-government partnerships will determine how the profits of that research return to taxpayers, and how rigorously scientists evaluate the downsides of controversial technologies such as biofuels."

David Roberts, an environmental writer for Grist.com, has written a great critique of the coal industry's "clean coal" campaign, pointing out that "it's an obvious scam -- easily exposed, easily debunked. Just because it's obvious, though, doesn't mean the media won't fall for it. Indeed, the entire 'clean coal' propaganda push is premised on the media's gullibility."

Roberts notes, as have others, including a recent report by the Center for American Progress (CAP), that "the companies funding 'clean coal' PR aren't spending much on carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) research." They have therefore made no progress in reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that make coal a potent cause of global warming. The concept of "clean coal" was invented to answer concerns about global warming, and its advocates play a rhetorical game of bait-and-switch on precisely this topic. When pressed about how coal can be clean, Roberts observes, "they revert to the other definition of 'clean' -- the notion that coal plants have reduced their emissions of traditional air pollutants like particulates and mercury (as opposed to greenhouse gases)."

Consumer Reports WebWatch's Beau Brendler is questioning SaveTheFrog.com, a new Web site by the Discovery Channel's Animal Planet and the Clorox bleach company. The site purports to educate people about environmental concerns related to the planetwide disappearance of frogs. As Brendler points out, however, "What the Web site doesn't detail is the Clorox company's environmental record over the last couple of decades. It has been less than stellar." Brendler also points out that the domain for SaveTheFrog.com is registered to Fleishman-Hillard, one of the world's largest PR firms. "We know Clorox is trying to position itself as a 'health and wellness' brand, and that their new green image campaign prompted the Sierra Club's Florida chapter to complain about a deal the parent organization did with Clorox," he writes. "Corporations do this kind of thing. But what's a little troubling is the way Animal Planet, part of an organization that's a well-known and respected producer and broadcaster of documentary films on, among other subjects, the environment, has treated the Clorox frog site. Animal Planet's site can't seem to make up its mind whether SaveTheFrogs.com is an advertisement or editorial content."

There's nothing quite like a hotly contested election. The candidates have their devoted supporters and angry detractors. Then there are vigorous debates over the issues, while some people question the integrity of the entire process.

We speak, of course, of the Falsies Awards.

Part of the coveted AwardsThis year marks the Center for Media and Democracy's (CMD's) fifth annual Falsies Awards. The Falsies are our attempt to shine an unflattering light on those responsible for polluting the information environment over the past year. We're happy to report that more people -- nearly 1,450 -- voted in this year's Falsies survey than ever before! We're also bestowing special recognition on one of this year's "winners."

Falsies recipients can collect their prizes -- a pair of Groucho Marx glasses, our two cents and a chance to atone for their spinning ways by making a detailed public apology -- by visiting CMD's office in Madison, Wisconsin. This year's Gold and Silver Falsies go to masters of war deception, while the Bronze Falsie recognizes a massive greenwash campaign. The first-ever Lifetime Achievement Falsie goes to a serial corporate front man, while a determined (if at times laughable) attempt at nation re-branding wins dishonorable mention. Then there are the Readers' Choice Falsies and Win Against Spin Awards, nominated by our survey participants.

As scientific warnings about the potential risks of climate change intensify, governments realize they need to at least be seen as responsive to global warming concerns. But, behind the scenes, many of the world's richest countries are dragging their feet. Some are promoting unproven measures designed to insulate the coal and energy industries from change. Others want to use the global warming crisis as an opportunity to promote nuclear power. Most are balking at committing to substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, despite having signaled their intention to do just that a year ago. To help explain the issues and uncover the behind-the scenes lobbying, the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) is launching the Climate Change portal within the SourceWatch wiki.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) conferences -- huge events, attracting some 10,000 people -- aim to create a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires at the end of 2012. Official conference documents are often hard to find and often full of mind-numbing jargon. As a result, it's hard for journalists to track what's going on and harder still for citizens to know what their governments are doing. Between now and the COP15 December 2009 meeting in Copenhagen, CMD staff and citizen editors will build SourceWatch articles on climate change issues, profile the players in the UNFCCC negotiations and unmask corporate and government greenwashing.

One current priority is a series of profiles on the policies and performances of the key richest countries. If you would like to lend a hand, just register on SourceWatch and check out this page on our Climate Change portal. Thanks for your participation!

CNN has announced that it will cut its entire science, technology, and environment news staff, a move that Christy George of the Society of Environmental Journalists called "disheartening." Other networks have also been slashing science and environmental jobs, including NBC Universal's The Weather Channel; the Gannett media chain, which slashed roughly 1,800 jobs this week at newspapers around the country; and Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine, which recently eliminated its bureau in Cape Canaveral, Florida, where NASA launches its rockets and shuttles. "The energy and environment beat, in particular, will likely continue to gain importance and relevance as the 21st century unfolds," writes Curtis Brainard. "Yet one can't help but feel dismayed by CNN's decision or that this industry, at least for the time being, is sadly deteriorating."

At a December 2 "wonky event" on the "future of energy policy" sponsored by Third Way, there was a remarkably "wide range of groups represented around the table," writes Kate Sheppard. In addition to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and several people with "close ties to the next administration," there were representatives from "renewable energy companies and industry groups, fossil-fuels industries, labor groups, big green groups, think tanks, and local government agencies." American Petroleum Institute president Jack Gerard argued, "As we make this transition to a ... more clean energy future, we hope people remember the important role of the basic fuels like oil and gas. ... We're significant players in terms of the innovation." Reid challenged Gerard's "innovation" claim -- "perhaps having heard that ExxonMobil ... only spent 1 percent of its massive 2007 profits on renewable energy," speculates Sheppard. Gerard countered, "British Petroleum is one of the key players in the solar sector, Chevron and others are big into wind, ExxonMobil spent a lot of time on battery development for electric cars."

On December 2 and 3 in San Francisco, "international business representatives will discuss their use of water." The $1900 conference -- titled "Corporate Water Footprinting" -- gives major corporations an opportunity to "announce their new efforts to promote 'water neutrality,' the claim that they can return to local aquifers every drop of water taken for business." Speakers at the conference include executives from Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, MillerCoors and GE. Coca-Cola has already announced plans to become "the most efficient company in the world in terms of water use in the beverage industry," and eventually "water neutral." Yet some scientists question the very concept of water "neutrality." Jeff Conant of Food and Water Watch argues that the phrase is hypocritical marketing. "Multinational corporations like Coke and Nestle would like us to think that they are doing their best to protect our water," he writes, but "these corporations produce non-essential sugary products with the single-minded goal of generating profit. ... Currently, 12 percent of the world's population uses 85 percent of its water," and "lack of clean drinking water leads to nearly 250 million cases of water-related disease each year and between 5 and 10 million deaths." In related news, Canadian environmental groups have filed a complaint against Nestle, saying the company's ads calling bottled water "the most environmentally responsible consumer product," among other "eco-friendly" claims, are misleading.

Following the election victory of Barack Obama, veteran Democratic Congressman John Dingell has been ousted as chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce by Henry Waxman. Prior to the vote, the director of the Safe Climate Campaign, Dan Becker, described Dingell as having been the single biggest obstacle for over thirty years to forcing major U.S. car companies to build more fuel-efficient cars. "Mr. Dingell," Becker said, "is literally married to General Motors." Dingell's wife, Debbie Dingell, is Executive Director of Public Affairs and Community Relations for General Motors and Vice Chairman of General Motors Foundation. She was recently described as the company's "most familiar face in Washington." While she doesn't directly lobby members of Congress or the administration, the New York Times reported that "she makes the case for the company, the auto industry and the state of Michigan in public and in private."