The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Edelman PR Firm Scurries to Fix Climate Change Denial Debacle
The results, published in The Guardian two weeks ago, included responses from 10 of the 25 firms they sent the survey to.
The Guardian said:
Some of the world’s top PR companies have for the first time publicly ruled out working with climate change deniers, marking a fundamental shift in the multi-billion dollar industry that has grown up around the issue of global warming. Public relations firms have played a critical role over the years in framing the debate on climate change and its solutions–as well as the extensive disinformation campaigns launched to block those initiatives.
But one company, Edelman, the world's largest independently owned PR company, handled the inquiry in a clumsy manner that's stirred up controversy and bad press for the company.
While noting the Edelman is actively working to reduce its own carbon footprint, The Guardian reported:
Edelman’s client list includes the American Petroleum Institute, the main energy lobby, which opposes Barack Obama's climate change agenda. Edelman also carried out campaigns supporting the Keystone XL pipeline, a proposed pipeline to carry tar sands oil from Canada to refineries on the Gulf coast of Texas.
An initial response to CIC from Edelman inadvertently included an internal email which said: “I don’t believe we are obligated in any way to respond. There are only wrong answers for this guy.”
That comment was sent out by Mark Hass, then head of Edelman U.S. He's no longer with the company for reasons that aren't entirely clear.
Then last week, Edelman CEO Richard Edelman called Motherboard senior editor Brian Merchant, sounding "sincerely distraught," Merchant reported.
The previous day, an article by Merchant, "How the World's Biggest PR Firm Helps Promote Climate Change Denial," discussed in detail how Edelman clients, including American Petroleum Institute and the controversial American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) which has been pushing legislation mandating the teaching of climate change "skepticism" in schools, have worked to downplay or even deny human-caused climate change, with help from the PR firm. He related that "Edelman helps polluting companies use TV ads, astroturf groups, and slick websites to promote climate change denial around the globe."
His article charged that "The Investigative Fund alleges that some of Edelman's pro-oil and gas projects are so blatantly politically targeted that it should be registered as a lobbying group—and that by not doing so, it's breaking the law. ... Edelman is so aggressive in blurring the lines with its promotion of fossil fuel companies, it may be engaging in illegal behavior."
Clearly, that's not good PR for the PR firm.
"I just want you to know we're not bad people, that's all," Edelman told Merchant in that contrite phone call.
When Merchant asked if he felt his firm's position on climate change had been misrepresented, Edelman said "Yes. Deeply. Deeply. I don't blame the Guardian reporter any more than I blame you—I blame the ham-head who filled out the questionnaire to be a little, uh, slick. I do want you to know I respect what you did as a journalist and, you know, you haunted me."
However, the next day, the company's website said that Merchant had misrepresented its position on climate change. And Edelman tried to walk back on his awkward comments in his call to Merchant, saying in an email "My intention was to simply clarify Edelman does not accept client assignments that deny climate change. I regret several of the remarks I made beyond that.”
Then this weekend, the New York Times covered the flap, as the company continues to try to undo the damage surrounding its remarks. It reported that Ben Boyd, Edelman's New York president for practices, sectors and offerings, said in an interview on Friday, "Lesson learned" and that in the future “We will treat ourselves like we treat a client. Just because you advise clients on the complexities of today’s world that doesn’t mean they’re easier to manage."
Boyd also sent the Climate Investigation Center an amended set of answers to the original survey last week.
Kert Davies of Climate Investigation Center said he hopes the organization's survey and the attention surrounding the responses will influence PR firms' decisions to take on clients who work against mitigating the impact of climate change.
He told Motherboard:
We got their attention and hope that Edelman and others will be making decisions as a company with climate change more top of mind here forward. But there is a long way to go. These ad firms still have multimillion-dollar contracts with fossil fuel companies to promote more oil, gas and coal mining and drilling, access to public lands, and avoidance of taxes and regulations. If they are doing a campaign to promote fossil fuels and they avoid talking about the climate impacts, that's climate denial.
YOU ALSO MIGHT LIKE
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
‘Companies Should Not Be Allowed to Use Hazardous Ingredients in Products People Use’: Michelle Pfeiffer Speaks Up for Safer Cosmetics
The beauty products we put on our skin can have important consequences for our health. Just this March, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned that some Claire's cosmetics had tested positive for asbestos. But the FDA could only issue a warning, not a recall, because current law does not empower the agency to do so.
Michelle Pfeiffer wants to change that.
The actress and Environmental Working Group (EWG) board member was spotted on Capitol Hill Thursday lobbying lawmakers on behalf of a bill that would increase oversight of the cosmetics industry, The Washington Post reported.
By Julia Conley
Scientists at the United Nations' intergovernmental body focusing on biodiversity sounded alarms earlier this month with its report on the looming potential extinction of one million species — but few heard their calls, according to a German newspaper report.
The climate crisis is a major concern for American voters with nearly 40 percent reporting the issue will help determine how they cast their ballots in the upcoming 2020 presidential election, according to a report compiled by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.
Of more than 1,000 registered voters surveyed on global warming, climate and energy policies, as well as personal and collective action, 38 percent said that a candidate's position on climate change is "very important" when it comes to determining who will win their vote. Overall, democratic candidates are under more pressure to provide green solutions as part of their campaign promises with 64 percent of Democrat voters saying they prioritize the issue compared with just 34 percent of Independents and 12 percent of Republicans.
President Donald Trump has agreed to sign a $19.1 billion disaster relief bill that will help Americans still recovering from the flooding, hurricanes and wildfires that have devastated parts of the country in the past two years. Senate Republicans said they struck a deal with the president to approve the measure, despite the fact that it did not include the funding he wanted for the U.S.-Mexican border, CNN reported.
"The U.S. Senate has just approved a 19 Billion Dollar Disaster Relief Bill, with my total approval. Great!" the president tweeted Thursday.