Changing Perceptions of Global Warming

When I started examining climate change or global warming and its likely impact on the practice of Public Relations, I was thinking of the green policies being adopted by business and governments to offset their carbon emissions.

I set out to analyse these policies and wondered whether the action being taken by the above organisations was not similar to the Corporate Social Responsibilty programmes that took the corporate world "by storm" in the 1980's and 90's - a rebirth of CSR of sorts.

However, along the way, the debate appears to have taken a different turn. While a number of governments including the UK were drafting policies on climate change, some scientists were questioning whether global warming was really a result of human activity.

I also came across literature that alleged that some scientists and grass root organisations had been paid by some oil companies (or bribed) to maintain a certain position in the debate. This got me thinking about lobbying and the question of legitimacy when it comes to lobbying.

If those who claim that global warming is real are to be believed then the environmentalists appear to have succeeded in what can be described as a powerful public affairs campaign. Many governments, big corporations and individuals have finally agreed that global warming is the greatest threat facing mankind and they've started doing something about it. Any story that mentions global warming appears to be news headline material these days.

What I am still doubting however is the spirit in which these green policies aimed at offsetting carbon emissions are being taken. Are they really doing it genuinely or are they doing it in order to deflect public scrutiny like the CSR programmes? Some people refer to them as "greenwash". How would do you describe them?

The Smoke Screen

I attended a lecture yesterday by a visiting speaker from the Not for profit sector (NGO'S) and I was struck by some issues that she revealed about the sector - some may be obvious.

NGO's because of their political "leanings" do not qualify to be categorised as Charities. Therefore they do not receive any funding from the government. This means they have to do their work on really tight budgets.

So how do they manage to run huge international campaigns successfully without an enormous pool of funds?

According to the honourable speaker, one of the biggest tactics used by NGO's is by creating a "smoke screen". Here the limited available resources are used to position the campaign in key media or target areas that are bound to attract the attention of the authorities concerned. The smoke screen magnifies the issue and forces the authorities to act. I interpreted this "smoke screen" tactic as an exaggeration of the problem.

This got me wondering whether this global warming debate is not a "smoke screen" created by environmentalists who have for years been campaigning for global action. If you've been reading this blog, you may agree with me that it has been very successful.

Victory for Environmental Campaigners

The climate change debate in the UK entered a new phase this week with the introduction of a draft climate change bill. The bill calls for an independent panel to set ministers a carbon budget every five years, in a bid to cut emissions by 60% by 2050.

The opposition Tories have already outlined their "green proposals" and over the weekend EU leaders agreed to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20% by the year 2020.

As some analysts have suggested, climate change looks set to become a vote issue come the next election. Politicians seem to believe that the public is concerned about the threats posed by global warming and want to see them do something about it - a belief that appears to be shared by big businesses as well.

This belief seems to be fuelled by the belief that the public is more aware and concerned about their environment, thanks to abundant information available from the media and the internet. Information about issues that were in the past viewed as too technical for people outside the scientific community to grasp, can now be found on the internet explained in simple terms.

It can be argued that this has given the public some power of sorts. They have now joined environmentalists in questioning activities that are deemed environmentally unfriendly or unethical.

I think the moves being taken by governments and politicians to address environmental issues proves that business leaders and politicians alike feel threatened by those who question their use of power and ethics. Should we say thanks to successful lobbying by environmental campaigners?

Now the Tories want Greener Skies

So the Tories are proposing a "green tax" specifically targeting frequent fliers to combat climate change. The proposals include levying VAT or fuel duty on domestic flights and a green air miles scheme. The proposal has however been rejected by the airline industry. Virgin says the taxes would damage the UK economy, while British Airways has described the proposal as an "extremely blunt instrument".

Low Cost airline Easyjet on the other hand while dismissing air passenger duty as "probably the worst tax ever invented" gave a cautious welcome to the idea of a "per flight" tax, saying it would help to sideline airlines using "dirty" aircraft. Could it be a tactical reaction because they operate domestic and short haul flights that have been criticised for their unenvironmentally friendly nature?

Well like i speculated in previous postings, being seen to care about the environment is indeed becoming very fashionable and it appears it will soon determine who leads us by becoming a vote winner - that's if we really care.

And it appears Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander has quite rightly noticed that if you want to capture the media's attention nowadays, just come up with a "green" proposal. As he put it " the Tories are more interested in making a headline".

The Great Global Warming Swindle

After dedicating plenty of time researching about global warming and attempting to examine how it is likely to affect the practice of PR, my enthusiasm has been dampened by a documentary on Channel 4 this evening.

The Great Global Warming Swindle featured high profile climate scientists rubbishing recent evidence by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC that concluded that human activity is to blame for global warming.

According to the scientists featured on the Great Global Warming Swindle, the climate will and has always changed. And it happens naturally, NOT as a result of human activity or indeed carbondioxide.

So why would a panel of over two thousand top scientists who constituted the IPCC make such an alarming conclusion? According to Tim Ball a Professor Climatology at the the University of Winnipeg, their conclusions were politically driven. "Pure propaganda", he added. " The alarm was raised by climate scientists with a vested interest to get funds for research"

Nigel Calder a former Editor of the New Scientist attributes the hype to the emergence of "Environmental Journalists" who are biased and very eager to cover over dramatised evidence inorder to keep their jobs.

Professor Richard Lindzen of the department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology attributes the "alarm" to the rise of the environmental movement. According to him "Whenever you have a problem which involves the interaction of science with politics and where there are advocates, like the Environmental movement there’s a kind of battle for the public mind, and you are inevitably going to try and simplify the science as much as possible".

The Great Global Warming Swindle also features Patrick Moore, a Co-founder of Greenpeace who attributes the climate change hype to the rise of anti-globalisation, anti-capitalist and anti-American movements.

What is worrying according to these experts is the political backing that the alarmists have succeeded in winning. The US which had for a long time been adamant appears to have succumbed to pressure from the environmentalists. And Climate science is now the most funded area; an estimated 4 billion US dollars is pumped into the sector annually in the United States alone.

And just as I was beginning to wonder who could have paid these experts to challenge a panel of over 2000 top world scientists, they one by one denied having received any penny from any oil company inorder to take the positions they've taken. "It's pure science", they argue.

So it is a great global warming swindle! why the fuss then? why are corporations taking it upon themselves to offset their carbon emissions? Why are heads of state and government of the European Union (EU) meeting this evening in Brussels to agree on binding goals to tackle climate change?

Whoever raised the alarm, whether it was the environmentalists or the media or the scientific community must be nodding their heads with satisfaction because their public relations campaign has succeeded in getting the attention of the media and most importantly action from governments worldwide.


The provocative documentary left me wondering why Channel 4 chose not to feature any opposing view - I mean the view of those who believe cimate change is the biggest threat facing mankind.

Ethical Communication or Greenwash?

It appears even PR trainers are taking climate change seriously. They too seem to have realised that climate change can sell a company's image and are taking advantage of the media hype surrounding the debate.

Today I came across an advert for a Seminar organised specially for PR practitioners by the Ethical Corporation, an independent publisher and organiser. The conference which should have started on the 6th March 2007, is scheduled to feature speakers from top Global companies offering advice and tips on dealing with climate change.

While the conference organiser refers to the course as "Ethical Communication", a cynical colleague of mine refers to it as Greenwash.

Whichever way you choose to describe it, here are some of the interesting topics and questions raised that caught my attention;

"1. Consumer reaction to climate change campaigns
2. Carbon Offsets: Act now to secure the high ground - and lower financial risk
3. Carbon offsets: What are they? How do you use them? What do you get back?
4. An offset strategy can benefit your company as well as the climate. Just for a start, it can reduce your financial risk. It can also establish you as an environmental leader, and enable you to truly differentiate your products and services. Equally important, offsets can help you build trust and goodwill with your consumers, as well as enabling you to become a consumer education resource.
5. Carbon neutrality: How can you make sure your strategy presents you as environmental leader - and avoid falling into the trap of developing a costly, complicated, fashion accessory?
The nuts and bolts of an offset programme:
6. Corporate reputation and climate change: Is your good name at risk?
7. Remember how fast people scorned fur coats. And the huge demos against animal testing and sweatshops? Is climate change next on the list for activists? And if so, what can you do to make sure your business isn't accused of being part of the problem, rather than part of the solution?
8. After all, global warming is now headline news - and consumer awareness is on the way to building critical mass.
9. Will consumers punish companies that contribute to climate change and reward the ones that don't?
10. What happens when consumer concern over climate change turns into action?
11. How much is your good name worth? And what's the cost of a bad one?
12. Greenwash - when a good name turns sour: How do you prevent it?

The Denial Industry; Is this type of Lobbying legitimate?

The other day I was discussing Exxon and the spoof Al Gore video. Today I came across an article in The Guardian newspaper (published on 19th September 2006), that exposes what it describes as the denial industry - a network of fake citizens and scientific bodies that have allegedly been funded by the oil giant to claim that science of global warming is inconclusive.

Here's the list of over one hundred organisations allegedly funded by Exxon on this website set up environmental activists.

Exxonsecrets.org

It can be argued that this demonstrates how PR is playing a central role in the climate change debate. Campaigning and pressure groups are becoming some of the most important groups with whom companies need to have open dialogue with. And some companies are buying these "groups" inorder to be seen to have the necessary grassroot support.

It also perhaps emphasises lobbying as a powerful Public Relations tool with the need to get the backing of key stakeholders in an issue. But most importantly raises the issue of the legitimacy of lobbying as a campaign tool.

Is it legitimate for corporations to pay scientists and other grass root organisations to back their campaigns against certain policies that are deemed a threat to their businesses?