Thursday
Aug142014
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Keeping the sheikh wealthy
Aug 14, 2014 Energy: gas As greens try to put a spanner in the works of the shale gas industry in Colorado, the Colorado shale gas industry is fighting back with a series of attack ads. Here's one, pointing out some of the ethical implications of relying on energy from the middle east.
And here's another about the oligarchs.
They're a bit racier than Cuadrilla's offerings, don't you think?
Reader Comments (49)
The Colorado ads are stupid, but still nowhere near as stupid as the hysterical opposition to shale oil & gas.
God help us all if this is the level we have to sink to.
Hilarious.
We need a propaganda film based on the Sheffields and how their windmill and BTL empires are doing, the former based on subsidies from our poor. Then we need to cut to their Son-in-Law bleating about the need to shaft our poor again so his elite mates can get rich on faux contracts from the DfID.....
Sheikhs = UK elite.
UK elite = sheikhs.
kellydown
Bit on the brash side, I agree. But it's a strong message.
tunedoutnice
"UK elite =
sheikhssharks"!kellydown,
You cannot fight the "do you want to drink flaming, poisoned water" / "do you want the ickle, bickle, cute polie bears to drown" brigade with reasoned argument. By the time the message gets through, if it ever does, it would be too late. It is precisely because the voices of sanity thought they could use sane arguments that we are where we are today with so many thinking AGW is a fact and something needs to be done about it.
Absolutely counterproductive. So all Arabs help terrorists do they?
Complete crap, borderline racist, won't work, and shouldn't be here.
Shockingly bad and as TBYJ says, absolutely counterproductive
Remove before anybody sees this crap
Well TheBigYinJames,
Maybe not all Arabs, but significant funding for Sunni terrorists comes from
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE.
Agree with TBYJ and mango - you really don't want SkS putting it round that sceptics support this kind of thing.
@DocBud
And what has that got to do with globullshit warming?
This rubbish simply doesn't belong here
Hahahahaha, those are funny ads! :)
Perhaps our lefty friends who feel so outrageously outragety could actually tell us where the ads are factually wrong then we could go from there! Oh and before you bleat about all Muslims = terrorists it is a fact that oil money is being used by countries like Qatar, Iran and Saudi Arabia etc to find or prop up terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hesbollocks, ISIS and do on and so on and so on!
Funny isn't it, all those hundreds of trillions if dollars and those countries cultures and societies are still firmly rooted in the Stone Age. Why it's almost as if it's a certain "belief" system that's holding them back???
Mailman
BigYin
"So all Arabs help terrorists do they?"
I have reviewed the video and can't see anything to suggest "all Arabs".
The point I thought I was making quite clearly, mangochutney, is that Green scare campaigns are based on sensationalist soundbites with virtually no relation to the truth. Just as with AGW, if we try and combat Green lies about hydrofracking with reasoned argument then the argument will be lost.
I fail to see what the sensitivities are here, the ads dig at Arab Sheiks who fund terrorism such as we are seeing in Syria and Iraq which some undoubtedly do and Russian oligarchs who support Vlad the Invader and Shooter down of airplanes.
Such honesty in advertising will never catch on!
I'm surprised so many have discovered their inner Mary Whitehouse. I thought these were hilarious. Not only are they very funny at a basic level, it cuts to an essential truth about energy security. This is how you combat the BBC/Guardian nexus grip on public opinion. They're not going to give rational arguments a fair hearing so this is what "we" need to do.
I'm amazed that some people think this will be an effective way of winning hearts and minds.
It's not Mary Whitehouse to realise that this sort of thing HURTS our cause, it doesn't help it.
Of course it's funny, close to the bone humour often is. But is it effective as a tool to convince
people of the benefits of fracking?
Big fat no.
What a pity they didn't film those "lovely ladies" in Red Square last week.
It was blistering hot and they wouldn't have needed their fur coats.
Good to see that, at least, the gloves are coming off !
The news that a "scantily-clad" Caroline Lucas, Jenny Jones and Vivienne Westwood are making a video to counter these, is just a rumour, thank goodness !
The redhead on the left. Oh yeah.
The ads are funny and make a point most Americans feel - that too much of our money goes to foreign countries, when we have resources at home we could develop.
TheBigYinJames, what a whiney little baby you are. Making fun of an oil Shiek and a Russian Oligarch are racist?? Brits make fun of Americans all the time and vice versa. The Brits constantly make fun of the French. Must be racism.
It points up the cultural differences between our two countries - in America it is relatively common to have knock-about attack advertising and I have seen effective stuff delivered in far more "in your face" ways than this....
In the UK to my mind the public debate is mostly characterized by a faux politeness where the asinine and mendacious outpourings of folk like Davey, Huhne, Lucas and the eco campaigners are treated with a certain amount of deference, dignifying their stupid witterings. It is most definitely part of the problem - something similar but lets say ... different would work here. UK at the moment is all pretty banal in the public "debate" with the eco crew getting to sling loads more poo, getting a free pass most of the time from the usual suspects.
Confrontation is done differently in the UK and I can see why it grates - but in context - it is appropriate.
kellydown +1
Ah yes, counteracting the trendy, pretentious, faux-green hypocrisy of the sheeple by appealing to their just-beneath-the-surface xenophobic paranoia. I don't imagine it's the only tool in the box but it's aimed at the plebs who might watch frackland and the vacuous celebs who promote it. No doubt there is also a more mature message for the pseuds. Meanwhile the 15% of the population who bother to read and think for themselves will haughtilly prefer dealing with just the facts and will remain marginalised by the adolescents who control our media.
hum
Thanks for that piece of insight, I'm cut to the bone.
I understand now how the Greenies, stupid as they are, are winning.
Race to the bottom?
Excellent!
I can understand it goes down badly with those who think this debate should be conducted through 'fair play', don't you know, what?
But when you're up against people who lie and cheat as a matter of course, the bare-knuckle approach is the only one with a chance of success.
Plus, that message isn't exactly wrong, is it?
The greenies will win only up to the point that the true cost of being green is revealed. At which point they will lose out to Pielkes iron law: "When policies on emissions reductions collide with policies focused on economic growth, economic growth will win out every time."
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/a_positive_path_for_meeting_the_global_climate_challenge/2329/
Alas the green taxes have so far been cunningly obscured by stealth taxes.
Great ad. They should run it in California as well.
I must say, I prefer reasoned argument myself, but I'm not sure I'm in the majority. Horses for courses, surely?
I can't see why we're getting po-faced about this.
The chances of a commercial campaign like this ever seeing the light of day in the UK are less than zero. It would never pass the ASA and no ad agency would come up with it in the first place.
As tomo points out this sort of in-your-face advertising is much more common in the US and is considerably milder than a lot of the stuff. Wait for the presidential campaign in two years time — 'presidential' by any normal definition of the word it won't be.
How you can argue that this is "a race to the bottom" or "the reason the Greens are winning" beggars belief.
The reason the Greenies are winning, BigYIn, is because to a man (or woman) they are bunch of lying c***ts (and that is not a word that passes my lips very often.
They are winning because we don't have commercials like that. They are winning because, as Rick Bradford points out, they lie and cheat as a matter of course and they get a free pass from the media — and to a great degree from the rest of us — because we assume them to be on the side of good, saving polar bears and protecting us from all sorts of nasties like "chemicals" and GM crops and CO2 and methane in the water and pollution in the aquifers.
And every last word of it is a complete, total, absolute fucking lie!
Only being British, we're not supposed to say that.
What Mike Jackson said.
True. And a lot of Colorado voters are not from Islington.
Not sure how much time you have spent in Colorado, michael, but most Colorado voters might as well be from Islington, as they come with a lot of the same views. The state's two senators, its governor, and controlling majorities in both houses are all Democrats.
The left in the US has gained a lot of traction by demonising the right as a bunch of rednecked, xenophobic idiots, and this plays into their hands. Of course Gasland and an Inconvenient Truth are packs of lies, and by contrast the content of this video is broadly truthful, but to the undecided it just looks nasty. Far better to have a nice all-American lady explaining why the Sheikhs and Putin, together with Big Old Oil, are the main beneficiaries of anti-fracking and climate-related hysteria.
BTW Mailman I'm not a lefty. I'm a capitalist red in tooth and claw. It's lazy to assume that anyone who doesn't share our views is a socialist - bit like when the other side call us oil-funded deniers.
Way to go, Mike!
David S, I have spent time in Colorado and experienced close friendships with people who grew up there. There are significant populations of Latino immigrants and significant numbers of military personnel. They may not typically be thought to vote the same way, but I would describe none of those as being being of 'the Islington set'.
And another
The USA is not the UK and the ads should not be judged by UK standards.
I think the adds will go down well with Joe 6-pack and his buddies.
We desperately need a new "Monty Python" group to take the piss out of the self righteous. I don't find these ads particularly funny but humour, (alright, call it what it is "ridicule"), can be a very effective tool.
I am bemused by those who argue that these ads are some kind of low point.
Yes, those of us with the truth on our side prefer reasoned arguments. I loved maths at school, you're right or your wrong. When debating other engineers, reasoned argument is usually the way to go, but some audiences only react to colour and movement. The greens cannot use truth because their arguments are falsehoods so they resort to lies. In the age of twitter and facebook, Winston Churchill (PBUH) was only half right in observing that "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on".
So what do we do, hold the moral high ground while the greens destroy our world and condemn hundreds of millions to continued poverty or recognise that the fight is worth winning and if that means adopting the tactics of the enemy then so be it? After all, it is hardly chemical weapons.
But what is it in these ads that is so wrong? There is no doubt that some rich oil sheiks donate money to terrorism. What is wrong with parodying them? If other members of the Muslim community, and those on the left, object to those guilty of funding terrorism being parodied it says so much more about the morals and agenda of those objecting. And as for being sensitive about the Russian Mafia and Vlad, please.
I fail to see why it is wrong to say: "Yes, believe the green lies and kill shale gas, but the consequences are that some very unsavoury characters will be the beneficiaries of your choice."
DocBud,
The problem is the audience.
We're already winning the fight with the proletariat. Half of the people in the US don't believe climate change is causing any effects or is not caused by man. Your 'Joe in the street' that this video is sure to impress is already won. This might make him laugh, but as a tool for advancing the cause of bringing rationality back into the science and policy debate, it's a waste of time, worse, a bullet in the foot.
The problem is for us is that we need to convince the chateratti classes - the journalists, the politicians, the actors, the scientists and engineers in other fields who believe the consensus, etc... who currently believe we are a bunch of redneck fundies. They control the media and what is said in the media. These people are not going to be impressed by a bunch of xenophobic visual gags about nasty stereotypical Russian and Arab barons. It's going to re-confirm their belief that we are a bunch of morons.
Reading some of the comments on this thread, I'm not altogether convinced they are not right.
We need a video of the Saif Gaddafi thesis production process at the LSE (=comedy gold) - and the PhD remains on the books to this day.
No, the problem is sooks who get all bleaty, whiney, cry baby and then outrageously outragety because their sensitive little sensitivities have got all out of joint!
Mailman
Oh Mailman, you know me better than that.
My sensitivities are not in the least bit offended.
But THEIRS will be.
This is childish, and your responses to me pointing that out are equally childish.
I had to watch the video since Mr. Big and others thought so little of it. Bishop don't remove the add. It is pungent and to the point. And of course it is true. For the over cultivated flock American adds are hard to understand as are Americans.
But for Mr. Big and friends it is more profitable to try understand your Arabs. Passable grammar is no substitute to understanding and the simplistic question of Mr. Big tells me a lot about understanding of his Arabs.
I rest my case.
That's odd. I live in Colorado and while there is much political activism and advertising about hydraulic fracturing, I have never seen either of these on a local television channel. Incidentally, regulation in Colorado, as elsewhere in US is multi level - there is federal, state, county and city regulation. The vast majority of fracturing takes place in fairly remote areas and is permitted by federal and state regulators, typically without controversy. The current issues revolve around drilling and fracturing close to cities, notably the northern suburbs of Denver, where activists are trying to curtail activity.
"The chances of a commercial campaign like this ever seeing the light of day in the UK are less than zero."
Wrong. they're all on youtube,, and they're going viral.
Sorry, Rightwinggit, I was referring to mainstream, homegrown stuff. The sort that appears on your TV and to which TV viewers can relate or which a UK business would use as a publicity presentation.
Which is why I was disagreeing with BigYin about the impact it is likely to have on those who classify us as rednecks and worse.
Youtube is a wonderful resource: I have used it numerous times and learnt enough on home electronics to prevent me asphyxiating myself or burning myself to death while soldering or alternatively blowing the house up. But this stuff is on a par with the Hitler videos and the famous one of the cat that took on a dog to protect a child. Nobody is going to take this stuff seriously and I very much doubt that there is anyone who will become even more anti-fracking than they are already because of it.
I wouldn't recommend it for mainstream publicity because it's not the British style and would be counter-productive in the UK but to get into a tizzy because somebody's seen it and decided to post it on a blog looks like a bit of over-reaction to me.
But then apparently I'm a moron so what would I know?
PS If, as you say, they are on Youtube and going viral (I haven't looked for myself but I believe you) then that would seem to dilute any adverse effect they might have even further and one or two of our own rednecks might actually look at them and perhaps conclude that there is a message to be got out of that, ie energy security is more than perhaps just low prices and a possible export opportunity. Some of the people we are forced to deal with to get gas and oil are not really very pleasant; better if we didn't need to.
Who knows what might come out of this? Not me, for sure.
I'm not sure it is the *industry*. Reading this, I got the impression that the two videos were promotions for one company or another, such as Caudrilla.
On closer inspection - correct me if I am wrong - these were the work of a pro-frack activist group called The Friends of Safe Energy. I have tried to find who, what and where they are, but no joy. Anyone else? Whoever they are, they were described as *grassroots* on PowerLine.
Looking at the two clips together, they are clearly intended to be humourous and irreverent. Where the Oligarch succeeded and the Sheik failed - to me at least - is that it is too easy in the latter to take the main protagonist seriously. It was not humorous enough. More was needed to ensure that people could see that comedy was being used to tackle a very political issue. A bit more Borat, fake beard and comical, balaclava'd terrorists in the background, and it could have won a few more votes.
It doesn't look a cheap production at all (And they managed to keep the shadows on the chromakeys - tricky ;), but a more costly variation might have afforded a better creative team. That said, we've all seen how humour can go pear shaped with expensive directors like Curtis' 10:10 abomination...
To Micheal Hart;
"There are significant populations of Latino immigrants and significant numbers of military personnel. They may not typically be thought to vote the same way, but I would describe none of those as being being of 'the Islington set'."
British military personnel tend to vote by post or proxy in their home town - not where they are currently stationed
(They do not vote in the local elections in Kabul or Hannover). I cannot speak for the US system but I assume that few of the soldiers based in Colorado will actually vote there.
Some years ago I studied a plan for many soldiers based overseas to vote in a marginal constituency to return an army candidate but the plan fell down because a voter resident in the constituency can only hold a maximum of 10 proxies. (UK voting rules)
Anyway - back to the vid. Hilarious. The funniest bit is thinking about others will react to it. Gloriously un-PC.
Sure, some will remain resident of other states for tax and voting purposes, but not all. That doesn't mean that many local voters won't be associated either directly or indirectly with the services. For a variety of reasons it is often convenient and easy to qualify for state residency. As a grad student I did so in a state where I had no relatives or previous associations.