One of the things I liked most about the Creative Review “green issue” was its admission that it couldn’t solve everything in one go (note my British turns of phrase), but that it was committed to getting its house in order and that the changes it made for its green issue—like the biodegradable polybag and recycled paper stock—weren’t just a gimmick but the first steps toward a sincere promise to address ecological concerns. To quote the article “CR and the environment” on page 36:

However, we know that this isn’t enough. There are a lot more aspects that we should consider including…

You can imagine my disappointment to get the new issue and see that the cover is back (no biodegradable polybag) and the indicia specifying the paper as Galerie One Silk, which doesn’t appear to be recycled, instead of the Cyclus Print (100% PCW) named in the last issue. It’s also a double issue, with “over 100 extra pages”.

Almost as disappointing is the “green issue” from one. a magazine produced by New York’s One Club, a non-profit dedicated to “the recognition and promotion of excellence in advertising”. They must have a different definition of “excellence” than I, as their awardees for their green issue include GE’s clean coal greenwashing, Diesel’s “global warming ready” clothing line, and BP’s Helios campaign which features a LEED-certified gas station as it’s centerpiece (or “branding beacon” as the Senior VP of Global Brand Marketing and Innovation calls it). Yes, a LEED-certified fucking gas station. Even BP’s ad agency Ogilvy & Mather admit the idea was:

Let’s take an existing gas station site and re-wrap it in an eco-friendly way.

Maybe just bulldoze it next time? I mean, it’s like they do this just to see if anyone notices how screwed up it is. They were probably giggling the whole time.

Speaking of “beacons”, the only light at the end of the tunnel was an article in the Creative Review by Tom Wnek about how the ad industry is (partially) to blame for everything from global warming to obesity called, “How Did We Get To Be The Bad Guys?” It offers a pretty good analysis of how “selling the sizzle, not the steak” has gotten us into some hot water. The next issue promises a part two on how to get out of this mess… Promises, promises.

Over the last six years, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have written the most authoritative study on Climate Change to date. It has been penned by over 800 scientists and reviewed by an additional 2500 from over 130 countries and represents the very best science we have on the subject. The Summary for Policymakers (pdf) is available online. In brief, the findings were:

1. “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.” (p.4)
2. There’s a 90% chance that humans have caused it. (p.3)
3. Emissions are so out-of-control that warming will “continue for centuries” even if they’re stabilized. (p.12)

I’ll let you take a moment to go through the fives stages of grief before we move on. By move on, I mean, introduce the other team. Yes, coming out on the other side—against the report—is a well-oiled machine of energy companies, PR hatchet men, and legislative puppets.

ExxonMobil (via one of their “unbiased third party” think tanks, American Enterprise Institute) has already gotten caught offering bribes to any scientist willing to dispute the report. No research required, just disagree. All they want is a climate of confusion (pun intended).

Next, PR hacks like self-appointed “Junkman” Steven Milloy (to whom I will not befoul myself by linking, but do read his profile on SourceWatch), have tried to deliberately misrepresent the report by accusing the media of deliberately misrepresenting it. Having long since given up trying to prove the contrary to any scientific findings, the best they can do is shed doubt on what knowledge real science has rendered. Nice try, but it turns out I can read.

Similarly, Senator James “At-least-I’m-not-Senator-Stevens” Inhofe (R-OK), has gone on record calling the report “a shining example of the corruption of science for political gain“. The statement is so ironic it attracts magnets.

I am not given to hyperbole. Phrases like “worst” and “best” I reserve for the actual “worst” and “best” subjects of a category. Similarly, if I say something like, “I love this movie,” I have often already considered marriage before someone taunts me with the suggestion. I note this because it will ground my following opinion as beyond a stereotypical enviro-exaggeration, but the truth as far as I am concerned. These people who would place their profits, their salary, or their kickbacks ahead of the health and safety of not only our natural world but the lives of every man, woman, and child on this planet cannot be called anything nicer than traitor to the human race. They’ve been deceiving, deluding, or dragging their heels for far too long. I search my heart for some scrap of compassion for them to forgive the terrible crime they’ve committed against all of us and find none.

Let’s leave them to their petty machinations and meddling and pay them no more mind. In the meantime, the rest of us will Step It Up and try to get Earth back on the right track before things get even worse. Hesitation is over and done. Do all you can, as soon as you can. We meet this challenge and our great-great-great-grandkids will sing the victory in their songs. We fail and no songs will be sung.

Unfortunately, the bit of deception was noticed by a few Wall Street Journalists. The “amateur filmmaker” happened to have an email address that traced back to PR firm DCI, which is on the Exxon payroll. Just to make the conceit complete, he had even set up a MySpace account: http://myspace.com/goreiscrazy.

I’m honestly laughing aloud (LOL in the parlance of our times) at the whole thing, for two major reasons. First, the MySpace account as of this writing has 0 friends. Not even Tom thought this guy was worthy of an invite, and his “extended network” is fast approaching 100,000,000.

Also, the video, sad to say, is completely boring. Not even so bad it’s good (like those awesome ads for Carbon Dioxide produced by CEI). Here’s a sampling of the comments on YouTube:

This is sad. You’d think that a corporate sponsored video would actually be at least funny. Exxon–you need to rehire! This video sucks!

---

I wouldn’t mind this oppossing view if it were funny or interesting. It’d be nice if they didn’t reference South Park, though. You know you’re sub-par when you do things like that. For example, you watch a lame movie and one character mentions Jaws. Then you start thinking, “Man, I’d really rather be watching Jaws right now.”

---

$3.10 a gallon and they spend the profits on this kaka? Pity that the windfall apparently can’t buy you any “smart” or “interesting”.

In not completely unrelated news, my favorite favorite corporate shill, Steven Milloy is throwing a hissy about the State of California wanting to know if his constant doubting of climate change and his taking money from automakers and oil companies are in any way, y’know… maybe… related? I think he’s my favorite favorite because he gets pissy like this so often.