Category: Propaganda

Categories
Norway Predatory delay Propaganda

New words! “Petroganda” and “oilsplaining”

I just listened to a Drilled podcast – The Black Thread Pt 2: Petroganda, and you should to.

It’s a nice investigation of the way Statoil (since rebranded as Equinor) has a virtual death grip on Norwegian culture and “common sense.” Nobody says “Gramsci” or “hegemony”, but maybe they should. Nice interview with the Statoil Veep of Communications too.

Here’s a definition

The term “petroganda” was coined by journalist and Drilled founder Amy Westervelt to describe the fossil fuel industry’s approach to the information ecosystem, an approach that goes far beyond simply “disinformation,” which Westervelt describes as just the most visible symptom of this problem. In this context “petroganda” is defined as: The intentional warping of information ecosystems by corporate interests, such that everything from the basic building blocks of information—university research, surveys, white papers—to public-facing campaigns crafted by PR and advertising experts are driven by a profit or power motive as opposed to the desire to understand and communicate.

“Petroganda” is perhaps a little clumsy, and is hardly new (but then, they don’t claim it is). It’s simply the way that the oil companies (and in Australia it was/is the coal companies) go for full spectrum dominance – making sure they are in people’s minds and hearts from a very young age. The usual stuff – museums, sponsoring sports and cultural stuff, games for the kiddies etc etc. And it creates what one interviewee calls “oilsplaining” – whenever she raises Statoil’s carbon emissions she gets all the oily talking points, from people who don’t think they’ve been indoctrinated at all…

I quite like Emily Atkin’s

of oilsplaining, drawing on (of course) Rebecca Solnit’s “mansplaining.”

Oilsplaining,” our word for when some random dude who doesn’t fully understand climate change explains the benefits of fossil fuels to you .

See also

The Fossil Fuel Industry Hasn’t Come Up With a New Story in 100 Years, Why Do Climate Folks Find It So Hard to Keep Up?

2023 academic article “The language of late fossil capital.”

And my piece about Shell and its corporate propaganda, from late 2015. On existentialism, guilt, Godard and … Shell’s corporate framing strategy

A Statoil guy talking about climate change in 1980.

March 21, 1980 – chair of Statoil board acknowledges the “social cost” of the “CO2 problem”

Categories
Academia Propaganda

“Books, books, and more books”: a key climate delayer technique

The battle for the public mind is never-ending. And one of the key weapons remains… wait for it… books.

This below is inspired by reading Royce Kurmelovs’ review of a new tiresome pronuclear abundance tome that makes utterly baseless allegations about the funding behind “Friends of the Earth.” (Full disclosure, Royce is a friend, we’ve collaborated in the past and I had a very minor role in the research of this review).

A book is a “hook” – the author(s) get, er, booked, to appear on radio shows, tv programmes. The book is excerpted in newspapers, which are then quoted by columnists in papers and by politicians in parliament. The book can be the excuse for a tour of cities. The book gets you on podcasts. The book can get turned into instagram posts and tiktok videos.

None of this is new, but it is worth remembering.

Two particular (albeit American) examples should be part of any intelligent media-observer’s toolkit.

The first is the statement by Julian Simon about what the “conservative” movement needed. This from Jane Meyer tells you what you need to know.

His father evidently lost his mother’s fortune, motivating Simon to make his own. On Wall Street, he became a hugely successful partner at Salomon Brothers, where he was an early leader in the lucrative new craze for leveraged buyouts. But what neither Olin nor Simon had was influence over the next generation. “We are careening with frightening speed towards collectivism,” Simon warned.
Only an ideological battle could save the country, in Simon’s view. “What we need is a counter-intelligentsia. … [It] can be organized to challenge our ruling ‘new class’ — opinion makers,” Simon wrote. “Ideas are weapons — indeed the only weapons with which other ideas can be fought.” He argued, “Capitalism has no duty to subsidize its enemies.” Private and corporate foundations, he said, must cease “the mindless subsidizing of colleges and universities whose departments of politics, economics and history are hostile to capitalism.” Instead, they “must take pains to funnel desperately needed funds to scholars, social scientists and writers who understand the relationship between political and economic liberty,” as he put it. “They must be given grants, grants, and more grants in exchange for books, books, and more books.”
Under Simon’s guidance, the Olin foundation tried to fund the new “counterintelligentsia.” At first, it tried supporting little-known colleges where conservative ideas — and money — were welcome. But Simon and his associates soon realized that this was a losing strategy. If the Olin foundation wanted impact, it needed to infiltrate prestigious universities, especially the Ivy League.

Mayer 2016 (emphasis added).

    The second is the Joan Peters debacle. Somebody wrote a book, published under her name in 1984, about how there weren’t any Palestinians in the 19th century – “a land without people for a people without a land” stuff, and the US academics lapped it up. Then along came Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky… I URGE you to read Chomsky’s account, here.

    The beauty of the book technique is that – if it comes from a ‘reputable’ publisher – it gives any old bullshit argument a heft, a solidity, it doesn’t deserve. It sells copies (publisher happy) and the author gets exposure, and bandwidth gets taken up, nonsense talking points get repeated and regurgitated, no matter how many times the book is “demolished” (see Chomsky above)

    See also

    “Why are they lying to our children?” – what a 40 year old propaganda campaign can tell us about today (and tomorrow’s) cultural battles. #Climate #CorporatePropaganda
      Categories
      Australia Predatory delay Propaganda

      October 2, 2014 – Low emission technologies on their way, says Minerals Council of Australia

      On this day, 9 years ago, yet another promise of imminent “low emissions technologies” was made…

      2014 INDUSTRY LEADERSHIP TO DEVELOP LOW EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES Statement from Brendan Pearson, Chief Executive, Minerals Council of Australia The Minerals Council of Australia today announced the establishment of an industry-led Leadership Roundtable for the development of Low Emissions Technologies for Fossil Fuels. The Roundtable will be chaired by Mr Stewart Butel, Managing Director of Wesfarmers Resources Limited, Chair of COAL21* and a Director of the Minerals Council of Australia. Membership will include senior representatives from the coal, oil and gas, and power generation industries, research organisations, federal and state governments and the Global CCS Institute.The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 400ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

      The context was that although Tony Abbott was now Prime Minister (though not for much longer, it turned out!), the fossil industry still felt the need to say the right things.

      What I think we can learn from this

      Endless promises. It would be funny if it were not tragi.

      What happened next

      The usual – nothing substantive.

      What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

      Categories
      Agnotology Denial Propaganda United States of America

      September 14, 1993 – scientists suffer backlash (not outa thin air though)

      Thirty years ago, on this day, September 14, 1993, the New York Times reports on industry efforts to intimidate scientists into shutting up.

      As the Clinton Administration prepares to announce in the next few weeks a plan for controlling waste industrial gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, conservatives and industry groups have mounted a renewed assault on the idea that global warming is a serious and possibly catastrophic threat.

      Stevens, W. 1993. Scientists Confront Renewed Backlash on Global Warming. New York Times, September 14.

      The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

      The context was that Clinton had already lost the BTU energy tax battle and was trying to recover some reputation by proposing other forms of CO2 legislation. But crucially those members of the coalition that had defeated the BTU were not downing weapons, they were up for another fight, to consolidate the break, as they say in tennis…

      What I think we can learn from this is that at-will lose the opponents of action are gonna keep coming at you. And they learn from both their defeats and victories…

      What happened next

      The industry goons’ next famous victory was rendering Kyoto meaningless before it even happened.

      What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

      Categories
      Australia Coal Greenwash Propaganda

      January 12, 2008 – Australian mining lobby group ups its “sustainability” rhetoric #PerceptionManagement #Propaganda   

       

      Fifteen years ago, on this day, January 12, 2008,

      NEW South Wales Minerals Council CEO Nikki Williams (later to head up the Australian Coal Association)  called on the industry “to get on the front foot in selling its sustainability message.” (see here)

      The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419.

      The context was that Australia was in the grip of another awareness of its fragility and of serious trouble ahead.  Mining companies were understandably looking to burnish their images with the usual bag of tricks – sponsorships of sports teams, tree planting and the like. Doing it as individual companies is expensive and open to easy sneering. Getting your trade association to do it helps you a) spread costs and b) gain more “respectability,” at least in the eyes who choose not to see what their eyes can see.

      What I think we can learn from this

      We live in a propaganda-ised society. A major function of trade associations is to pump out propaganda when it is needed, to deflect, slow or soften the actions of the state.  See that Chomsky fella, or Alex Carey.

      What happened next

      Lots of propaganda.  Lots of lobbying. The Rudd government spent two years faffing and selling its arse. Its “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” was a farce. Then the Gillard government had to try to pick up the pieces. Meanwhile, the emissions climbed and people got (rightly) cynical about how much politicians would prance and preen while doing nowt.

      What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

      References

      Carey, A. 1997 Taking the Risk out of Democracy: Corporate Progaganda versus Freedom and Liberty. University of Illinois Press.

      Categories
      anti-reflexivity Denial Predatory delay Propaganda United States of America

      March 4, 2003 – Republicans urged to question the scientific consensus…

      On this day in March 4 2003, the Luntz memo was exposed. Frank Luntz was a Republican communications PR guru, and his memo advocated continued casting of doubt.

      In the words of the Guardian’s reporter

      The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has “lost the environmental communications battle” and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases. 

      “The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science,” Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.”

      The broader context is that the Bush administration having already reneged on promises to reduce carbon dioxide and pulled the US out of Kyoto needed to continue its perception management, and that’s what Luntz was proposing, as part of the broader war, to keep people in the dark, ignorant, confused, demoralised and it’s been a very successful effort. So here we are.

      Why this matters. 

      We need to see how “common sense” (in the Gramscian sense) is endlessly confected and defended…

      And here’s the memo, btw

      LuntzResearch.Memo.pdf (sourcewatch.org)

      What happened next?

      Luntz changed his tune, but the damage was done. And the emissions continue to climb. 

      Categories
      Agnotology anti-reflexivity Coal Fossil fuels Greenwash Predatory delay Propaganda

      February 26, 2014 – Advanced Propaganda for Morons

      On this day, eight years ago, Peabody Coal started an advertising campaign called “Advanced Energy for Life.” Because as the dirtiest fossil fuel, coal had a serious image problem, and therefore needed to conflate itself with notions of energy poverty.

      Why this matters

      What they’re trying to do when they do this is insinuate that anyone who is opposed to the burning of ever more coal somehow wants people in Africa to die young, after a miserable impoverished life.

      What you’ll find, of course, is that the many of same people who are protesting about environment also would like debt relief (cancellation), democratisation technology transfer and all the rest of it.

      But Peabody would rather have you believe that all environmentalists are racist Malthusian assholes all the time. Now, it is indisputable that some environmentalists historically and down into this present day, racist assholes, and explicitly and unashamedly others, confused or ignorant, and of course, most buy into the myths of it being possible to have everything for everyone and there being no trade offs.

      What happened next

      One of Australia’s briefer Prime Ministers, Tony Abbott, used the “coal is good for humanity” line when opening a coal-fired power station later that year.

      Peabody is making money at the mo’, because gas prices have spiked and so coal is competitive. For now.

      Further reading.

      The truth behind Peabody’s campaign to rebrand coal as a poverty cure | Coal | The Guardian

      I’d recommend an article by James Meek in the London Review of Books about Scottish offshore wind energy and who is building the towers and the kits and under what conditions. But I digress. 

      What happened next

      Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s later that year when opening a coal mine, use one of the Peabody talking points. Coal is good for humanity. So that’s When for pee buddies, PR people, 

      Peabody has, of course, entered bankruptcy proceedings chapter 11, I think. But that doesn’t mean that they’re not that some people aren’t making money. It just means that times are tough for call my heart’s bleeding.

      Categories
      Propaganda United States of America

      Feb 5, 1974 – Energy security, meet anti-Arab sentiment #propaganda

      On this day, February 5 1974, the American Electric Power (AEP) ran the first of its advertising, cartoon campaigns, with Arab sheikhs, holding the US to ransom (Sethi, 1977). 

      This is of course, part of the first energy shock, as it’s known, which had started in late 1973. With basically a quadrupling of petroleum prices and actual shortages at petrol pumps in the developed world, because the energy producer cartel OPEC, decided to punish those countries who had supported Israel in the Yom Kippur War. (This is not to say that there had not been concerns about energy before late 73.) 

      What’s interesting is that the oil companies were able to, or keen to shift the blame and tap into, frankly, long established anti-Arab sentiment in the United States. 

      Why this matters 

      We need to understand that issues around energy and energy security are visceral. And that those who are benefiting like to find someone else for the anger, fear, uncertainty to be pinned on. A bit like the tactic of the drill sergeant in Full Metal Jacket, who picks on one soldier as the scapegoat, as the lightning rod. 

      What happened next? 

      President Nixon announced Project Independence which was going to see a huge growth in domestic energy production, especially coal. Prices sort of stabilised, but then we had in the 70s stagflation, the collapse of the Bretton Woods global consensus, . And by the end of the 70s, thanks to the dedicated efforts of some think tanks and politicians, and good luck, (but they were in the right place at the right time, which isn’t always easy) we have the coming of what we now call neoliberalism. This is, of course, antithetical to any form of collective provision or planning, which is what you would have needed to deal with a collective action  problem like climate change, but here we are. This is not to say that the AAP advert is responsible for all of that, to the removal of any doubt

      Btw, AEP kept going with their campaign.  See also this advert on 31st July 1974

      An Unlikely 1970s-Era Environmentalist

      References

      “Feb 5 1974 first advert in AEP campaign with the two sheiks appears in the “New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and 69 dailies and 192 weeklies in the area served by American Electric Power System’s group of companies.” Sethi, S. 1977. Advocacy Advertising and Large Corporations: Social Conflict, Big Business Image, the News Media and Public Policy. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, p.115.

      Categories
      Agnotology anti-reflexivity Greenwash Predatory delay Propaganda United States of America

      Jan 15 1971: greenwash before it was called greenwash #propaganda

      On this day in 1971, at the conference of the “Economic Council of the Forest Products Industry” in  Phoenix Arizona some chap called Richard W. Darrow gave a speech “Communication in an Environmental Age”

      “We will do those things that earn us attention and gain us understanding, or we will live out the remainder of our professional lives in the creeping, frustrating, stultifying, stifling grasp of unrealistic legislative restraints and crippling administrative restriction. A public that ought to understand us – and thank us for what we are and what we do – will instead clamor for our scalps.”

      There was, as you can see, a real panic in business circles. The fear was that previously quiescent ‘citizens’, at first cowed by so-called “McCarthyism”[it pre-dated that drunk] and then stupefied by consumerism – might actually get up on their hind legs. If they demanded real regulation, real control, so the planet didn’t get turned into an uninhabitable slagheap, then the fun times (for business) would be over. In 1971, before neoliberalism, before pervasive computing, before all the other wonders that the last 51 years have brought us, such fears were legit.

      What has happened since? The kinds of “public relations” “professionals” Darrow represented have honed their game. Seven months later, the Powell Memorandum and the rise of the neoliberal think tanks. The crushing of labour unions, the spectacularisation of everything (to go all Debord for a minute). Greenwash, the constraining of imagination, the destruction of hope. Yeah, it’s not looking good for our species, is it?

      “Source: Conley, J. (2006) , ENVIRONMENTALISM CONTAINED: A HISTORY OF CORPORATE RESPONSES

      TO THE NEW ENVIRONMENTALISM. PhD thesis   

      Conley, 2006: p69-70.  

      Conley continues – “Having established a special unit to provide services on environmental health issues in 1966, Hill & Knowlton became a leading advocate and provider of environmental PR in the 1970s and beyond.”

      See also

      Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies by Noam Chomsky

      Taking the Risk out of Democracy by Alex Carey

      Global Spin by Sharon Beder

      This isn’t just a battle of “ideas”: this gets very ‘kinetic’

      The War against the Greens: The Wise-Use Movement, the New Right, and Anti-Environmental Violence by David Helvarg

      FT 12th January 2022  Activists target public relations groups for greenwashing fossil fuels