Ad Age released more information today on Al Gore‘s advertising campaign, scheduled to start on April 2nd:
The ad campaign from Interpublic Group of Cos.’ Martin Agency, Richmond, Va., due to break April 2, doesn’t suggest specific behavior Americans should change, but instead uses celebrities from the Dixie Chicks to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to urge business and government leaders to focus on developing environmental policies and solutions that will bring change.
“From the very beginning, we felt there was a gap in the marketplace in that there wasn’t a massive national effort to communicate about the urgency and solvability of the climate crisis,” said Brian Hardwick, communications director for the Alliance (Alliance for Climate Protection). “We want to inspire people to help, hoping that if enough of us raise our voices we can come together to demand more from our leaders.”
Besides Mr. Gingrich and the Dixie Chicks, the ads feature the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Pat Robertson, Toby Keith and current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The Alliance was holding off announcing most details of the ads until this week, but did say they would urge “solutions.”
The Alliance is touting the campaign as an “unprecedented effort,” and said that the messages will run in TV, print, the internet and a wide variety of venues. The initial TV buy is broad, including the broadcast networks, cable including MTV and news networks.
How much of the effort will go toward advertising remains to be seen. The Alliance is hoping marketers will help spread the message by tying in through their own packaging ads and websites. Mr. Gore, in an interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes” to be broadcast March 30, suggests that few thinking people still believe that global warming isn’t a reality.
I am most interested in the ‘solutions’ part of the campaign. Let’s see what they mean on April 2nd. . .
La Marguerite 
Hi Marguerite,
I read your bio and noticed that your interest in “all environmental things was triggered by an ‘Inconvenient Truth’ presentation from Al Gore…” I also noticed that you are an engineer.
I would think that as an engineer you would appreciate the importance of documentation. One of the things that I found very troubling about “An Inconvenient Truth” is that it has absolutely no documentation. I cannot find a single journal or source reference (except for the photographers) in the entire 300 pages. In fact, my copy of the book doesn’t even have a table of contents or index!
As a scientist (over 50 publications, including the journal Nature) with a long history or working in the renewable energy field (photovoltaics), I find the blind acceptance of the liturgy of global warming quite disturbing. If you are interested, you can see some of my criticisms of “An Inconvenient Truth” (still and unfinished work).
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Best Regards,
Tom
Tom,
I am not sure where you are heading with your criticisms. An Inconvenient Truth was an awareness campaign, not a scientific publication. The scientific evidence for global warming is overwhelming, and becoming more so everyday. At this point, the question to ask is, how can we get ourselves out of the global warming mess? Personally, this is where I want to put all my energy. Solutions, solutions, solutions . . .
Scientists had been stifled for years, and climatologists berated for calls to act upon global warming emmisions. James Hanson was censored. As was even the Surgeon General in the Bush Whitehouse. When the governmental officials responsible for adressing these issues are not themselves scientists but speechwriters it is impossible to educate the public, because the goal in that regard is disinformation. The popularity of the film hinges on the fact that we haven’t or at least hadn’t at that moment had a real public discourse about global warming, in fact had called Al Gore, Ozone man and made him into a wooden nerfy pucnhline. An inconvenient truth was not a scientific film but it was a film that demystified some of the science for the laymen and that has propelled many to start making a change in thier lives. If all the film acomplished was to return a healthy respect for the role science plays in our daily lives than it was well worth it. I think it did far more, I think it was the start of a seachange and that seachange is occuring because of the scientific supermajority. The IPCC, NASA, NOAA, even scientists and analysts within the department of defense have came out in support of global warming and those have nothing to do with a film, they have everythign to do with the reality.