Shell & Canwest bring you an "Information feature"
Submitted by Ben Liadsky on Wed, 2010-02-10 12:55
We've been chatting the past couple days, here in the office, over an interesting full page ad...err...news article...err..."special information feature on climate change" that has appeared in the Ottawa Citizen (and the National Post, Calgary Herald, Montreal Gazette, Vancouver Sun, and possibly others) the past couple of weekends.
Indeed, it is quite unclear what this thing is. It looks like a regular newspaper article, has nice pictures, is seemingly well-written, and would appear to be written by a legitimate journalist. Yet, something isn't quite right.
The full title reads "New Energy Future: The Energy Challenge and Environmental Responsibility." So far so good. I'm intrigued really - until the next line that is: "A six-week Canwest special information feature on climate change, in partnership with Shell Canada."
Yes, the good people at Shell Canada with all their expertise on climate change are graciously giving us SIX WEEKS of their time to educate us, the general public, on climate change - and all the great things they do.
Shell Canada, a subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell, is one of Canada's largest oil firms and has close to 1/3 of the firms total resource base tied up in the oil sands.
It would appear then that these committed environmentalists at Shell Canada have in essence invested one third of their company's potential success in the Alberta Tar Sands, one of the single biggest producers of greenhouse gases in the world. Meanwhile, the Athabaska River, has seen pollution levels rise as a direct result of oil sands operations - some of which were conducted by Shell (Click here for more information).
Reading this Shell *cough* article though I was surprised to learn that this was all a myth. Found at the bottom of the article was this gem:
"MYTH BUSTER
MYTH: Shell’s oil sands mining operations are polluting the Athabasca River.
REALITY: Shell staff chemist Brad Komishke says this belief overlooks oil sands geology. Despite the fact oil sands have been leaching naturally into the river for the past 10,000 years, Shell ensures its operations don’t add a drop to that. “We contain all the process water and rain water on our sites to make sure they don’t flow into the river.”
Fair enough to assume that the Shell staff chemist would say that the Athabasca River is not being polluted. Now, let's read the counter point...except...ah yes, there isn't one.
A hallmark of journalism is to show both sides of the story to provide balance and therein lies the real problem. It is one thing to present this as an ad. It is another to present this as journalism, which is what Shell is attempting to do. In no way does this look like an ad. Furthermore, Brian Burton is no journalist ("My goal is to advocate successfully for my clients in the court of public opinion" reads his linkedin profile).
Canwest, which calls itself a news organization, should know better - a "Special information feature on climate change" - fancy words by Shell for shameless self-promotion.
- Ben Liadsky's blog
- Login to post comments
Support Sierra Club Canada Foundation
and Receive a Charitable Tax Receipt!
Comments
What kind of papers are
Marketing Environmetal Ideas
Shell has, long ago, realised that marketing is what matters, not facts. We the people that understand the issue of Climate change cannot think that if we throw fats at people, they will drop all their luxuries and comforts and cut the emmissions inherent in our lifestyles. We have been marketed into the consumer society as it stands. To get out will need marketing.
I watched two exellent ads on CNN the other day. One not environmental, it talked about the wonders of modern drilling techiques that enabled fewer oil dereks with the inference that this somehow was good for the environment (great marketing, move the goal posts), the other by a train frieght advert with lots of different images of people breathing interspersed with facts about less pollution from train transport. It ended with the phrase "good news for people that breath". Great.
We have to market the benefits and the facts, the future investment. Otherwise people will not let go of their security blanket.
Yes, but marketing this way costs $$$
David, I totally agree with you. Marketing is what matters. Us campaigners do our best, but the fact is that we're up against big oil money, and that's the challenge. A full page ad in the Globe and Mail costs in the range of $30 000-50 000 (depending on whether you want colour or not, and which section the ad is in). That amount of money is not an issue for companies like Shell.
Even cute animated videos that go viral on YouTube cost a lot to produce, etc. (If anyone reading this wants to volunteer, by all means, get in touch!)
The best bet organisations like ours have of raising the funds to do things like this is growing our membership. Sierra Club Canada doesn't receive any funds from government, and charitable foundations that can afford to (and are willing to) fund such high-profile ad-based campaigns are few and far between. So by all means, spread the word and tell anyone you know who cares about the environment to join the Club. If everyone gives a little, it really helps a lot.
Marketing
Hi There
I will join, but how can I help as well as simply sending money?
Here is a quote from the Gaurdian Newspaper in the UK
"A secretive group linked to a leading European chemical company has joined the campaign to defeat Barack Obama's green agenda, taking the fight beyond the traditional players – the big oil and coal firms – the Guardian has learned.
The previously unknown Coalition for Responsible Regulation Inc (CRR) is at the forefront of a strategy to strip the Obama administration of its powers to regulate greenhouse gas emissions should Congress fail to act on climate change."
Now we have Big Oil, Coal and Chemical.
Your comment about YouTube as a means of maketing is great, I know it costs money but creating clever marketing that will go viral hits young people and gets information across.
The environment movement does have allies with money, the Insurance companies have realised that with Climate Change their business will become untennable in many parts of the world. Also, as the Sustainable Energy Sector gets bigger, they will have more money.
My question would be, how do we create an alliance between these groups to provide effective marketing.
Although to be honest, sometimes I get depressed and think of the recent interview with James Lovelock (Gaia theory) where he said that human beings are not intelligent enough to respond to the environmental problems so the planet will solve them and it will not be pretty.
Finding Funds for the Environmental Movement