Spring 2012 – Dr. Nwo – The Graduate Seminar on Propaganda
———————————————————————————————-
Geo-engineering
Topic overview
The over-energized climate now shows itself as injurious to human activities. Certain interests have worked deliberately, and consistently, to downplay the climate as well as subvert effective action on the climate. Those same interests are now at risk from litigation and societal backlash if they do not appear to be working towards a solution.
The class problem
It is often a challenge to develop propaganda that does not immediately strike the layperson as misinformation, or outright nonsense. That said, the great propaganda offices of our time are also challenged with defining avarice, its associated stupidity, or the push of ego as credible idea-generating systems intent on public good.
For today’s lecture we’ll focus on defeat and greed cloaked as an act of restorative technology: Geo-engineering. Geo-engineering, as it used in this century–involves the re-engineering of major systems of the planet with a focus on economic benefit. Geo-engineering can also be considered a system for overpowering societal change. Current suggestions for geo-engineering like aerosol dispersion in the atmosphere, iron dispersion in the oceans, or amine use for CO2 absorption would, under any rational leadership, be dismissed as madness as all three have severe downsides. So again, your core task as a propagandist will be undermining critical thought. And while geo-engineering is the precursor to capitulation, as well as a positioning step for civil controls, the risks of geo-engineering are unending. Also, examine class references on JTC as well as litigation exposure.
Your geo-engineering campaign: Solutions need not work.
Positioning geo-enginering inside the correct spectrum from “least bad” to “only solution” has many advantages. Let’s look at the changing climate and our current arrangement. The decision to ignore the environment has painted our species into a corner. Many will suffer as a result. Undertaking proactive large-scale measures to address anthropogenic forcing of the radiative balance is now a fait accompli. Why is this for sure? Because there are no remaining options to ignore the problem; therefore, high visibility measures are the next step. Keep in mind the media hounds will howl if they are not ready for your campaign. So, the first task of a propagandist in this situation is to take the high ground promoting the wonders of technology and R&D as an avenue for dealing with the over-energized climate while alerting the media of a change in course.
The opening phase of your campaign
Step 1 – The first order of business is a statement on R&D progress for dealing with the climate–to elicit an emotional response. Afterwards, declare there are no other options for dealing with the changing climate besides geo-engineering. Wait for responses. Expect reactions like these examples: “Geo-engineering is an absurd solution. It is how we got into the mess in the first place.” “Anthropogenic forcing of the radiative balance is geo-engineering–and it worked so poorly we plan to geo-engineer again?” “Geo-engineering will only add more non-linearity to an already flummoxed system.” “We don’t know what we have brought forth. Yet, we want to fix a system in flux by re-engineering it, without being sure of the changes, or the end system?” “Geo-engineering is too dangerous.”
Step 2 – Overcoming the responses: Do you remember the late 20th century notion of expanding out of a problem as a way of solving it–adding more debt to cure a debt? Although applied to banking practices and poor management, the core practice of positioning unmitigated nonsense as a solution can be applied to any rational argument. There are three steps:
- Make a statement. “The economy, the climate, whatever, is easy to solve.”
- Follow it with your solution and repeat there are no other solutions.
- Complete the concept: “We can do it and it will not inconvenience you.” “Leave it to us. We have you covered.” “Don’t worry. Be happy.”
The mid-phase of your campaign
Step 3 – The gathering opposition: The main hurdles any propagandist will face in the support of a ludicrous proposition–in addition to rationality–are facts. That’s how the opposition works to prove their point and disprove your position. Luckily, in the case of geo-engineering, the response is almost always the same: “Cease the process of rapidly injecting CO2, into the atmosphere. That solves the problem.”
Step 4 – When faced with a fact that makes sense, a good propagandist will step back and think of another item to toss out in rebuttal, redirecting the discussion; or–baring any effective redirect–dig up a boogieman and derail the discussion that way. In either case, the objective is the same. Bury salient facts in FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt). In the case of climate, the FUD, the boogieman, is well known and with widespread support. “It’s the economy, stupid.”
Step 5 – A solution to the climate problem cannot mean cutting carbon output or cutting the use of fossil fuels. A reduction in the use of fossil fuels will lead to a major economic shake up at the top, the loss of power for some entrenched interests, and the emergence of morality-based decision processes that will eventually scuttle parts of our current leadership. Therefore, geo-engineering is the only solution. That said; remember, as a propagandist, your statements must appear to support the economic interests of the layperson not the interests of entrenched power structure. Cutting carbon has already been tied to cutting income. Use that leverage. The common person is already media-mugged into the belief they will lose their livelihood, their job, and their comfort, unless a single easy to understand solution (remember it’s the only answer) gets implemented. Keep repeating geo-engineering means jobs. If you get into trouble, state that geo-engineering is the least bad option.
The end-phase of your campaign
Step 6 – Personalization of the event: As we have seen, personalization is a powerful tool and it should be used throughout any campaign whether you suspect new facts or not. Position your solution as the answer to the common person’s fears–and the opposition as elitist and uncaring of the common person’s fears. In the case of the changing climate, we all know there is no longer any good solution. Let your opposition deliver that message. It’s a win for you. Repeat the aforementioned six steps as necessary while preparing for the stage of capitulation.
Summary
The debate on human induced climate change is almost over. We are moving into the geo-engineering phase. After that, we will enter the capitulation phase, after that, public acceptance of restricted carbon use.
Recognize that no one expects geo-engineering to work. There is no doubt it will create more problems than it solves. So don’t bet your career on it! Know where we are going and keep that in mind. Remember to have your muppet restate your solution at the beginning of each discussion and change the parameters as necessary. For example: “Geo-engineering has almost nothing to do with the environment. Geo-enginering is a required response to the rabid planet.” Develop other quote sources. Have them support each other. This goes a long way in alleviating any clarity of event, critical thinking regarding absurd statements, or political opposition. As always, for your spokespeople, pick a positive iconic type, rich, young, and hip. Develop an opposition spokesperson. Pick a negative stereotype; old, fat, ugly, and out of touch. Remember that the rational argument is your enemy. Facts are your enemy. If it were otherwise, there would have been no call for your services.
Study Question 1
Consider a proponent of geo-engineering; a man who claims to be in touch with our environment, with nature. The CEO from a company we will call Red Herring Engineering. At some point, Mr. Red Herring declares that the idea of a benevolent natural world is ridiculous. Worse, Mr. Herring declares that any notion of a benign planet is totally false, that nature is sadistic, dishonorable, and opportunistic. Then Mr. Red Herring announces that nature, and our planet, are offensive to our righteousness as human beings. Worst of all, Mr. Herring says all of these items in support of geo-engineering.
Of course, you are called in to fix the gaffe. First, consider the abject stupidity of Mr. Herring’s statements. It will get you in touch with your opposition. Then, sum up the opposition’s clarity in a single word. In this case, we will use the word ECOSYSTEM, the very definition of a system that functions for the good of all of its participants so long as the members stay in balance. In less than 200 words declare policy on Mr. Herring and suggest a remediation. Clearly this absurd example could never occur. It is short-sighted, absurd in its viewpoint, and offensive to the very ideals the speaker claims as important. On the other hand, extremes are to be expected in the future.
Study Question 2
Red Herring is at it again. This time Red says, “Geo-engineering is charity.” He goes onto say, “The seas will become acidic, large portions of the maritime life may go extinct. That people from the low lying countries will see their countries swallowed up by the ocean and other people will starve.” Not good, but then his nail in your myth: “People have been hungry before–so who cares? Americans will continue to live in big homes and drive big cars. We will get fossil fuels out of the ground and release more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. We will be all right. The people who suffer are the people who suffer. The weather has gotten violent and no one cares. Deal with it. Then we will see what we can do for you.” What do you suggest be done with Mr. Herring? All solutions must not provide fuel to the notion that those suggesting planet-wide geo-engineering are idiots. Your solution should also avoid any references to the fact that every day an entrenched interest blocks CO2 reduction the economic ramifications get worse. At all costs do not mention extensive reductions in GHGs are the most benign answer–despite the awful economic ramifications.
Study Question 3
In response to your planted news reports on aerosols–a way of increasing albedo and decreasing the interaction of GHGs with the planet–your spokesperson for aerosols, Dr. Myopia, is attacked though a news organization citing EPA PM (Particulate Matter) concerns. The aerosol (PM) size declared dangerous by EPA is the size for your geo-engineering aerosol particles. (This is a fact.) When your mark responds there is no other solution, the attack intensifies into a second set of facts declaring that during the early 1990s GHGs were reduced by almost 30% in less than two years. You investigate and find out that in parts of the old Soviet Union, when their economy slowed, GHGs did decrease dramatically within two years, disproving Dr. Myopia’s statement that geo-engineering is the only solution. You cannot state the obvious: That the economy was a wreck. This because regardless of economics, an entire nation achieved a huge reduction in GHGs in less than two years–without risking any major planetary systems or threatening the security of neighboring countries. Geo-engineering shifts weather patterns, a process that begs global conflict.
Aside from suggesting the removal of advertising revenues to facilitate the immediate purchase of the news outlet that broke the opposing story, how do you address the facts while reaffirming geo-engineering is the least bad option?
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.