Marketing battle is no 'David vs. Goliath'

Yesterday, one of my blog readers chimed in to say that he thought I'm being "dismissive" of environmental groups. He also wrote that the America's Power campaign has more money to spend on marketing than the major environmental groups.

I responded in the comment area, but for those who didn't see it... I'll paste it below. Here was my response:

Ben:

I do appreciate your comment and honestly try very avoid the direct confrontation.

I consider myself an environmentalist — I think we all do.

However, with respect to your claim that we have more resources, I beg to differ. In 2008, the Alliance for Climate Protection was reportedly ready to spend $100 million on their campaign efforts (and that was just one group). 

Now, I don't know what they will actually end up spending, but this is definitely not David vs. Goliath as your comment suggests. 

But again, I agree with you — this is not a "we" versus "them" dialogue. In the end, I do believe we all want the same thing: affordable, reliable energy (with as much of that being supplied by domestic energy resources as possible) and a clean environment. 

I promise to do better (and Megan will help me!) keep my passion about these issues in check. 

Thanks for calling me out on that one.

Comments

[King of Katy]

Joe - you also don't mention that the environmental groups dominate the news media and popular culture. When was the last time a movie or TV production showed coal mining or energy worker in a positive way. This free publicity amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars of equivalent media exposure to further the environmental and anti-coal agenda.

Yes it might be David vs. Goliath, but in this case David has a lump of coal in his sling.

[benswing]

King of Katy, have you considered that the primary reason that coal mining or coal-based electricity production has not been shown in a positive light is because it emits poisons (Mercury, etc.) into our air and water, releases radioactive material into the air and churns out CO2 at nearly incomprehensible rates.

This information is not based on an agenda (unless you describe concern for the health of all animals and plants on Earth an "agenda"), it is based on evidence.

[Ed Rosenthal]

It will be up to regulators, if not bought off, to tighten the screws on clean coal.

Given the record of compromised regulation, I am not optimistic. Hopefully it works.

I think coal people need to know that just because you make good money on something, that doesn't make it good.

[Megan from ACCCE]

On the contrary, Ed, the coal industry is currently spending $500 million to develop carbon capture and sequestration on a commercial scale. See it here.