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.
- 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
- David Rothbard co-founder has very close
(greenpeace link) with Exxon Mobile and was actively funding lobbyists
during GW Bush's presidency going so far at times to
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 --
General Public (including non-rural population)
Utility Rate Payer
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
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.