Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Memo Reveals Subversive Attack Strategy On Clean Energy

page: 1
17
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
I would like to start this thread with the disclaimer that I don't care that Obama backs clean energy, in fact I don't even believe that he does despite his claims. This thread isn't about Obama nor any corruption at the hands of his administration, I do not think that the current administration is innocent of corruption by any stretch. This is about the rather successful attack on shutting down clean energy, largely Wind Power, and who is behind it.

Let's face it, oil isn't going to last forever and it's extremely dangerous to harvest, refine, transport and sell it. It has both economic and environmental consequences. I believe it is vital to us and our future generations to kick our addiction to it.


On February 1st and 2nd, at least 2 prominent advocacy groups connected to fossil fuel interests (American Tradition Institute (ATI) and Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)) met in Washington with 32 NIMBY (“Not in my backyard”) organizations to discuss a coordinated “subversion” campaign to wreck wind energy.


ATI- a quick peek at their Fellows reveals ties to Big Oil, politicians connected to Big Oil, the Koch brothers and just one person with any kind of Science Degree and he's listed as an adviser.

CFACT- David Rothbard co-founder has very close connections (greenpeace link) with Exxon Mobile and was actively funding lobbyists during GW Bush's presidency going so far at times to encourage him to fire or re-assign anyone in his administration who encouraged the President to attend anything to do with Global Warming.

Personally I don't see anything wrong with calling the EPA to task if you're going to do so with integrity. The EPA are no angels, there's a lot of corruption among that agency as there is with anything tied to Government and Corporations. Often the EPA harms small business, it certainly doesn't protect us from Biotech. The problem is that these large Corporations and most especially Big Oil/Natural Resources wants it gone all together so that they may do whatever the hell they want without having to bribe anyone or spend those lobbying dollars.

Anyway, back to the memo...


NATIONAL PR CAMPAIGN PROPOSAL
Draft from Rich Porter: 4/25/11. Edited by John Droz: 1/23/12
-- CONFIDENTIAL --

PR Audiences:
Policy/Political
Local-State-Federal
Landowner/Lease Grantor
General Public (including non-rural population)
Tax Payer
Utility Rate Payer
Business Owner
Media
Academics
Students

PR Strategy:
reate a national professional Public Relations (PR) campaign to effectively communicate with the selected audiences using targeted messages. Have a consistent, positive, national message. Be FOR something (e.g. Science), not AGAINST something (e.g. wind energy). Be proactive vs reactive.

The minimum national PR campaign goal is to constructively influence national and state wind energy policies. A broader possible goal is to constructively influence national and state energy and environmental policies. Resolve: are our interests just wind energy, or broader?

The goal will be realized by coordination of a focused message along many channels and with multiple voices. The intent is to target the identified audiences with consistent messaging to create positive change. Public opinion must begin to change among citizens at large. Create a grass-roots ground swell from which the clamor for change will reach the elected officials and policy-makers.

The message will be determined from a variety of analysis techniques including inputs from local groups and others who have an interest in spreading the message. The message will be tested for resonance with the audiences, and the dynamic of the audience shall be periodically assessed.

In addition to have the appropriate message, it needs to be communicated optimally. We need to study and apply good communication skills.

Decide whether or not a national organization is advisable as well (Part 2).

Goals of the PR Campaign
A) Cause the targeted audience to change its opinion and action based on the messages.
B) Provide credible counter message to the (wind) industry.
C) Disrupt industry message with countermeasures.
D) Cause subversion in message of industry so that it effectively becomes so bad no one wants to admit in public they are for it (much like wind has done to coal, by turning green to black and clean to dirty).

Ultimate Goal: Change policy direction based on the message.


This is pretty much the outline of the memo, I'll post some snippets that I personally find interesting or disturbing is probably a better word.


Meme (self-replicating messages) Response Coordinator (This will help slow the meme effect of the industry, for instance when a company places a seal showing wind power was used to produce the product, we automatically assign a tax wasting symbol to the product and recommend a boycott on the website. When a company uses wind power as marketing tool, or illustration such as a toy manufacturer showing turbines on the box, we automatically contact them to tell them we will list them on the web as actively participating in disinformation by favorably showing wind turbines)

Legal Department for contract review and guidance on communication efforts, and also taking developers (etc.) to court on various issues to cause media exposure. Maintain a comprehensive collection of court cases on this subject. Also to provide legal voice for those who have none in this issue. Develop legal strategies that can be copied in other areas. Take zoning boards to court to rezone as industrial land to create chilling effect on signing contracts. Also sue for property value loss to small land holders, and use all legal cases to create media poster child effect. Sue states regarding RPS. Sue state utility commission who don't do their job. Etc.


That is so low and disgusting to me. If wind farms are so bad and not a viable alternative, why is Big Oil fighting it so hard? Because it works and they'll lose money.

It 's important to note that now that the document has been seen in the media ATI is disavowing the project (wink wink). It's also important to note that whatever this collective is doing it's working.


In 2009, federal spending on renewable sources of energy reached an all-time high of $44 billion as one-time stimulus funding, part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, pumped additional millions into clean technologies, according to the study, "Beyond Boom & Bust: Putting Clean Tech on a Path to Subsidy Independence."
But as the stimulus funding and other policies wind down, federal spending dropped to $30.7 billion in 2011 and will fall to $16.1 billion this year. By 2014, federal spending on clean technology is expected to be just $11 billion, amounting to a 75 percent drop in five years.

phys.org




posted on May, 14 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Guess we should leave out the fact that those evil corporations have to pay the government for leases then forget about those evil oil corporations paying the government near 50 cents for every gallon of gas that is sold in this country right off the top.

Then of course we should forget about the subversion of all those doners of the current administration getting sweetheart deals and tax payer monies for all that "great clean energy tech" that is made elsewhere in the world and that is cheaper.

Oh and while were at it sure take a stab at the koch brothers a nice liberal talking point but leaves our tax payer monies that go to Soros shell companies under the guise of clean energy.

Clean energy has been around for decades and still hasn't live up to the promises made and they will never live up to them.

Oil is king for a reason and why it is the key force behind the entire global economies there is nothing out there cheaper.

The subversive strategy is to attack oil making alternative "seem" cheaper when it hasn't been and doesn't look like it will ever be.

The funny thing here is once upon a time in America a certain group of Americans went around say buy electic,buy all this new crap and they did they make them billionaires and now history repeats lets throw more money at corporations.

Do not see the sense in that corporations are evil but hey never mind lets rinse and repeat.
edit on 14-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


The only reason we are stuck on oil is because it is not profitable to be off of oil...
It is more profitable to stifle attempts to free humanity of it at this point -



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 

Do I understand correctly that you think wind power would become self-sustaining in the market place if the government kept awarding it grants and if there weren't attacks from oil interests? Or does wind power have some other problems we need to resolve?



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I do think wind power would become self sustainable where it makes sense weather wise to do it. And yes it takes money to get it to that point. That doesn't mean it would be free, there's grids to operate and maintain there's workers that need to be paid.

So far it's not 100% safe either, when one of those turbines goes, you don't want to be anywhere near them. Birds frequently fly into them with tragic results. Still we wouldn't be at war over wind turbines. When something catastrophic goes wrong we're not talking about billions of dollars in loss of wildlife and business nor years of clean-up and decades of impact.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


That's all cool and all Neo but what happens when it's gone? How many more disasters are we going to have to live through before that time? How many more wars? How far is our economy going to bend on speculatives before it snaps like a twig?

Has Obama and his administration been altruistic in it's green energy plan? Nope! But I already pretty much said that, didn't I? Should we throw the baby out with the bathwater? That's such a cliched tactic with politicians and lobbyists and their Corporate Masters...how sad that it's effective after all this time.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


The only thing people are doing is creating another "big oil" and some people are fine with that.

Rinse and repeat.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I'm not fine with corruption, a lot of people aren't. That's why we need to not get lulled ever again. Power corrupts no doubt about it. We don't need to have illusions of good guys and bad guys, we know that all these people are out to make as much money as possible. It's not a bunch of hippies standing around with pinwheels shouting "hey free energy man!". It's business, politics and money.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
You know what I do? I automatially assume that all corporations and wealthy business people are directly spreading propaganda and trying their hardest to influence our governments.

I also automatically assume that our governments are susceptible to such influence because they're all very "pally" with each other. They all have their investments, their corporate backers, their personal career ambitions... We have one body wanting to corrupt our political process, and the politicians are all too happy to accept that corruption for their own benefit.

Regardless of the arguments for and against, I know for a fact that renewable energy is cleaner, safer, and less destructive to our democracies and populations. People can try throwing all kinds of BS arguments at me about our "need" for oil, and I will simply come back with one answer... this is not an option.

We need fundamental change in our societies. We need to stop buying crap that we don't need. We need to invest in ways to reduce commuting. We need to stop the out of control population explosion. We need to end the insane waste in military.

The one thing I keep hearing from the pro-oil crazies is that no other method can supply what we need. They never seem to be able to comprehend that we can also REDUCE what we need by taking just a few steps that we are not taking.

The first one, and one that would save MASSIVE amounts of energy, is to force companies to offer home-office options.
Currently, in every developed nation, millions upon millions of people waste millions of tons of fuel traveling hundreds of miles to an office elsewhere! Those same people working from that brightly lit, air conditioned office could work from home.

Ultimately, I know what's right and wrong, and I know the way we mass produce pointless crap to throw it away a month later is wrong. I know that we are wasting energy daily for nothing. We have to stop.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Have any of you ever seen a wind farm? I have. We drove past one in Kansas. It stretched for miles over an entire county.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Gosh that must be an eyesore!




posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 





Then of course we should forget about the subversion of all those doners of the current administration getting sweetheart deals and tax payer monies for all that "great clean energy tech" that is made elsewhere in the world and that is cheaper.



Oil companies get the lions share of subsidies and taxes breaks from government not to mention back room deals.. The myth that clean energy could not survive with out governments subsidies just keeps on being repeated... Sigh!



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Guess we should leave out the fact that those evil corporations have to pay the government for leases then forget about those evil oil corporations paying the government near 50 cents for every gallon of gas that is sold in this country right off the top.


So, basically, you prefer the profits of a multinational corporation over the financial well-being of your country.

Interesting.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 




The Government makes over 70 billion dollars per year of gasoline tax!

What subsidy?



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


How about you write my own posts for me since you know what i think.

Getting tired of that crap quote just where i said that.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


How about you write my own posts for me since you know what i think.

Getting tired of that crap quote just where i said that.


I did quote you.

But you never give a direct response.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 

I was under the impression that Oil companies had the same corporate tax laws as other companies, getting the same deductions and "breaks." And if clean energy can do just fine without subsidies (which I don't think carbon gets) why isn't it? Investors are running from solar, as an example. They should be profitable businesses by now.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


Response to what ?

Twisting a post to suit your own agenda?

blah.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


Response to what ?

Twisting a post to suit your own agenda?

blah.


If by 'twisting' you mean 'quoting an entire paragraph', sure. lol.

But, neo, I get that you wont engage in any real dialogue, because you pop up in threads to DISCOURAGE topical discourse, not engender it.

Answer my question, or don't. Your avoidance at doing so only proves my point.
edit on 14-5-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by hawkiye
 




The Government makes over 70 billion dollars per year of gasoline tax!

What subsidy?


Wll your going to have provide some evidence for that becuase it's BS!

This subsidy:


The American Chemical Society cites a report by Double Bottom Line Venture Capital that explains how the oil industry has reaped benefits from subsidies. From 1918 to 2009, the average annual subsidy was $4.86 billion. By comparison, the nuclear energy industry gets around $3.5 billion per year.
When the study adjusted for inflation to 2009 dollars, the oil and gas industry received subsidies amounting to $1.8 billion per year in the first 15 years of the fledgling industry. The American Coalition for Ethanol estimates that when combined with state and local government aid to large oil companies, subsidies amount to anywhere from $133.8 billion to $280.8 billion annually from all sources of taxpayer aid that goes to the oil and gas industry.

Current Status
The Obama administration contends the oil industry no longer needs help. The three largest oil companies made $80 billion in profits combined in 2011, which amounts to $200 million per day.

news.yahoo.com...

What the oil companies give to government is called a kick back for subsidies and tax breaks and protecting thir markets from real competition. Their profits are through the roof and these numbers are way low. But with their profits why are they getting a nickel from government?

Even if you were right (you're not) 50 billion is a drop in the ocean of the trillions government spends.


edit on 14-5-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
17
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join