CBS’s “60 Minutes” Airs Hatchet-Job on CleanTech
The CBS news show “60 Minutes” sports a history of hatchet-jobs that goes back almost half a century. They’re phenomenally good at selecting a certain conclusion and then supporting it with misleading reporting, trick camera-work, and quotes taken out of context.
Last Sunday’s segment on the demise of the cleantech industry was a beautiful case in point. People all over America came away with the idea that this business sector is dying — or dead — and, worse, that they, the rank-and-file U.S. citizen had been duped into paying for the failure with their tax dollars.
But couldn’t these handsome, smiling faces at CBS have made even the faintest attempt at fairness? They dredged up the story of Solyndra, the government-backed failure in which the all-powerful enemies of clean energy take such delight, then informed the audience about six or seven other losses.
But what about the numerous successes?
What about the imperative to develop cleantech in the first place, by virtue of things like climate change, ocean acidification, and lung disease? In 15 long minutes, there was not a single mention made of any of this.
What about the importance of American competitiveness in a global economy in which clean energy is clearly becoming an extremely important (arguably the single most dominant) industry?
What about the private sector, where the biggest banks in the known universe: Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Citigroup, etc. are currently investing seven trillion dollars (that’s not a typo, nor a mistake; it’s trillions of dollars) of private capital?
Couldn’t CBS have noted what the solar PV industry did last year? The “TAN – Guggenhein ETF (Exchange-Traded Fund)” – the benchmark for the solar PV industry — was up a mere 129.64% in 2013. That’s not exactly moribund by my accounting. I don’t know what your portfolio did last year, but mine sure as hell wasn’t up 129%. Wasn’t any of this worth a single mention?
How about the fact the wind and solar industries are twice the size they were four years ago?
Mightn’t they have mentioned that the portion of grants given to ventures that later failed represented less than 3% of the total portfolio?
What about an even more basic fact? Three-quarters of all businesses fail — whether they’re in cleantech or healthcare or pizza, whether they’re government-backed or not.
I struggle to think of anything more irresponsible than fabricating a case like this and convincing tens of millions of innocent and credulous Americans who happen not to follow this subject closely, each sitting attentively in their living rooms all over this great nation, that cleantech is a failure, that they got ripped off, and that government malice or stupidity is to blame. That’s outrageously shameful stuff, but hey, 60 Minutes has been doing this quite successfully since 1968. I suppose I should have come to expect it by now.
“Simply put, 60 Minutes is flat wrong on the facts,” U.S. Department of Energy spokesman Bill Gibbons said in an emailed statement, as if it’s an accident, or as if this is the the first time this happened. He went on to explain, “The clean energy economy in America is real and we are increasingly competitive in this rapidly-expanding global industry. This is a race we can, must and will win.”
Good going, Bill. You said it well — and you managed to put it more calmly than I did (which is why you’re a DoE spokesperson and I’m not).
I’d love to have some insight into the decision-making that goes on at CBS, and I’ll close with two quick points on this:
1) Lesley Stahl’s net worth is estimated at $20 million. She’s extremely intelligent and talented, but if she had a conscience, wouldn’t she have told the producer of the show to take a hike when he came to her with this concept? She wouldn’t exactly be working at Walmart if she did. I find it extraordinary that wealthy people like this toe the line to the demands of their higher-ups, at the expense of compromising what little’s left of their integrity.
2) As I mentioned above, it’s clear that the CBS brass picks its conclusions, and then goes about the task of supporting them. When the whole production is ready to air, their piece isn’t good; it’s not excellent; it’s perfect. Any viewer with the IQ of a turnip will be obliged to agree with whatever they happen to be selling at the moment. What’s the point of deliberately, with such totally admirable precision, killing the cleantech industry? Who stands to gain?
Wait a second; you don’t think…….?
I eagerly await your comments.
Though 60-Minutes is a long-running property for the network, CBS was acquired in 1999 by Viacom, which is also the owner of Paramount and DreamWorks studios, as well as American Radio System and Simon and Schuster and many other media outlets. Viacom is one of the six media goliaths that together control about 85 to 90% of what we read, see and hear in the “main stream media” today. Last I looked, Viacom holds about the same market share as Murdoch’s “News Corporation” and has many investors and advertisers that are, no doubt, buried deep with fossil fuel interests.
In a letter of Thomas Jefferson to Judge John Tyler dated June 28, 1804, the lead architect of our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution said, “No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues to truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is the freedom of the press. It is, therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions.”
George Mason – a notable figure in our nation’s founding – wrote, in the Virginia Declaration of Rights, Article 12 (1776), “The freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.” He was 50% correct…
However, as A. J. Liebling observed, “Freedom of press is limited to those who own one.”
As Vladimir Lenin noted, “All over the world, wherever there are capitalists, freedom of the press means freedom to buy up newspapers, to buy writers, to bribe, buy and fake “public opinion” for the benefit of the bourgeoisie.”
As James Madison admonished, “A popular Government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy, or perhaps both.”
With the tight control of broadcast and print media, and the ominous efforts by Verizon to choke the free communication of the internet into the unconsciousness of “interactive television,” we stand now at the cliff edge of the pure control of history, information and ideas that was nightmarishly envisioned by George Orwell in his masterpiece of prediction “1984” – a work I’m sure he would be disgusted and horrified to see used as an instruction manual.
This is not government control. The same interests who have pocketed our “public servants”
now close their claws around the throat of our Freedom of Speech and our once-free press.
well done researched and deftly argued…no need to go on and on…
Thanks for this thoughtful post Craig.
Mr. Atwood, I agree with Mr. Hughes that your thoughts/post are “well done researched and deftly argued” with quoted support from significant historical figures. I am in agreement with you that there are forces in the world (some nefarious and some benign) who seek to control others through the media and other means. This is the ‘half empty’ portion of the glass of water or better one side of the seeming eternal fight between ‘good and evil’.
For balance, I would offer that the ‘half full’ portion of the glass of water is equally supported by your quoted sources. The nefarious forces will always try to subdue others and will have plenty of well paid benign minions (knowing and unknowing) to help them in their cause with controlled media, controlled education, taxation, war, and other means. The human spirit will always fight back.
Although I have enjoyed “60 Minutes” over the years it has been many since I have watched it or any mainstream news program as I long ago felt there was little value for me in doing so. I believe we each must fight those who would control us in our own way and serve our selfish needs and wants (food, water, warmth, security, etc.) with the knowledge that we are at once a part of the bigger self of earth and fellow earth residents. John F. Robbins below suggests that individual conservation of resources is a valid means to fight back and I agree with him. We each must find our own way.
Good information is critical of course and yes, ‘they’ will try to control it but they will fail. That “Lesley Stahl’s net worth is estimated at $20 million” is of importance to me only in that it makes me aware of her potential bias as a reporter. Truth and useful information persists and we will always find ways to communicate the same even if we have to revert to jungle drums or chanting in the fields.
They will offer control in pretty packages and most of us will partake. For me the best course of action is to partake as little as possible. If we could limit the purse strings of those who wish to control us, all the better, but this is a difficult course of action. On an individual basis however, it is not so hard, requiring only action based on good thought formulated from good information that a site such as this provides.
Greed of itself is neither good nor evil, but wealth in thoughtful hands can well be a force for good. Starve the beast, feed ourselves, I believe this is what Jefferson, Mason, Madison, and the others accomplished, a state where the individual was king/queen and free to pursue selfish desire with limited interference from the state.
Thank you Atwood.
People still WATCH TV???
Funny Tina
I do watch plenty of TV but the ‘news’, almost never.
Thanks for the laugh.
geopark
Craig, thanks for bringing this in the right light, the way it should be exposed! Unfortunately, this appears to be a universal, disease worldwide. Here in India too we have very many cases of path-breaking success in application of renewable energy solutions to chronic problems. And yet these remain unreported or poorly invariably. Why is it so? I guess the current culture of haste and waste support the fossil fuel-mongers entirely.
The problem with the acceptance of the validity of the Media in all of its forms is the need to sell advertising overshadows any and all opportunity to be fair and truthful. Lenin was correct in this as Cameron mentioned and so was that American Philosopher who said, “Believe none of what you read and half of what you see.” To the media, News is reported to sell advertising, and NO OTHER REASON! {8^)
She’s worth 40 Million now.
Hi Craig, The forces at play are powerful as they represent the vested interests that have no concern whatsoever for the future of humanity. They are only concerned with power and greed in their lifetime – they are the true enemies of the people of Planet Earth. BUT THEY ARE NOT THE FUTURE. The very same techniques the elite employ to entrench their stranglehold on the masses through fiat money, shale oil and fracking, dubious farming methods, the waging of war and shows like “60 Minutes”, are slowly being used against them. It’s everywhere and it is unstoppable. From BITCOIN to GRAPHENE, AUTONOMOUS CARS to ORGANIC FARMING, there is a revolution happening they cannot stop. Take faith from this. Even American kids (the original petrol-heads!), are preferring in their millions, not to drive an auto. Give people a cheaper, more convenient solution to gasoline-powered vehicles and choked freeways – and they will go there. As to ’60 Minutes’, I have been developing a media activism campaign to give them a taste of their own medicine. Talk to you about that soon. Best,
Reg Wessels
Founder
Earth Corporation
What smells like poo, gas and fuel? All the rats that protect the oil interests.
Although Tesla Motors has only been in business about a decade they have made much progress in the production of electric vehicles and many people are still not aware of the effect they will have on the transportation sector and production of renewable energy. Also to be considered is the creation of jobs necessary to build the Supercharger Stations which will afford owners of the Model S, which rated as one of the best cars ever tested by Consumer Reports, to charge their cars at no cost and be able to travel across the US, Europe and Asia in years to come. Take the time to click on the following link:
http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger
Much renewable energy will be produced by the Supercharging Stations which will also create enough energy to recharge the electric cars and provide excess energy to be put into the grid for people to use for homes, businesses, appliances and/or electronics of all sorts which are increasing in use. Even people who do not drive and children who are not old enough to drive may take advantage of the new source of renewable energy.
Many don’t know who Elon Musk is or how he is affecting the future of transportation. Many don’t know how hybrids or electric vehicles work and therefore don’t take the time to consider how they might benefit from owning them compared to the gas-engined auto.
Here are four videos which show more about Elon Musk and Tesla Motors and the hope for a cleaner future for man and the planet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUgDcA1pZAM Megafactories
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgk5-eB9oTY&list=PLD7D70D4C9D095EA4 Superchargers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoFVO31CbE0&list=PLD7D70D4C9D095EA4 Leno’s Test Drive
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTJt547–AM&list=PLD7D70D4C9D095EA4 Musk Profiled
Hi Leo,
Yes, Elon Musk is an ex-South African and we watch his progress in this field with great admiration!
Excellently argued Craig.
Take heart from the words of Lincoln, They can fool some of the people some of the time…
Despite a wall of mis-information from the powerful and irresponsible, the truth is difficult to suppress.
The dominant so-called “clean-tech” focus in the USA is still mostly “supply-side”. For example, even most new building codes seeking better energy performance allow “trade-offs” to permit worse-than-spec envelope R-values in trade for more efficient HVAC systems like geothermal or other higher efficiency equipment. It’s overwhelming how little focus and discussion there is about the actual metrics of energy use per person. So it’s not uncommon to find oversized houses (compared to small occupancy) with super-efficient equipment and solar panels which got lots of subsidies. It’s not been unusual for car buyers to get generous subsidies for new hybrid SUVs or luxury vehicles with relatively moderate mpg while buyers of regular cars with higher mpg get no subsidies. The main problem is so little attention given to measuring, reporting and comparing the actual energy used per person per year, not what equipment is used or what strategy or program is implemented. As an energy consultant since 1983, I wish we would scrap most of the supply-side discussions and subsidies, switch to talking and rewarding for actual achieved low usage. USA is supposed to be about individual rights and responsibilities. It is our individual responsibility to use and pollute less.
Similar to Cameron’s perspective, I think most of television and much of our politics is mostly about selling and recruiting, based on where the producers’ or politicians’ investments or supporters are or how they think we should go toward their directions. So we should not be surprised that we are encouraged to buy or not buy products while there is almost no discussion about buying less of anything. What company profits from less energy use? Indeed, look at all the tax collection by federal and state governments on each unit of conventional energy that is produced or used. So governments also have big incentive not to push overly hard for less use. Lobbying is most intense for purchase of certain products and processes. Households and businesses who actually use the least energy are not usually the most aggressive at lobbying or politicking. I bet there are no employees of CBS or politicians in our state and federal governments who could be categorized as “low energy users”, based on my own 30 yrs of data collection. So we shouldn’t be surprised at the attitudes and reports we hear from either. I think the only way we’ll ever change this is to build constituencies and consumer groups, founded and populated by those of us who are already using so little energy. In my own region (Midwest USA), my first focus would be energy suppliers who offer lower prices when more is bought! Yep, that’s still going on in much of the USA.
Hi John, That is the crux of the matter. Here at Earth Corporation we are taking a new look at the realities you mention, asking if we should not rather be supporting innovative energy technologies aggressively through media activism, so that ultimately clean energy becomes ‘cool’ for consumers, (because it is way cheaper and in limitless supply), as well as sustainable and profitable for suppliers. Like all Utopian ideas, “wouldn’t that be great?!”. It is as you say, about, “will we ever change?” – and that is the real challenge for ‘thought changers’ everywhere.
All around us there is good news however. Graphene in my humble opinion, has the potential as a conductivity ‘multiplier’ to not only reduce consumption without consumer usage limitations, but to change the face of the entire clean energy industry. Oddly, television is in decline. It will in the next few years disappear as we know it (broadcast), into internet based, on-demand content. Governments do not like this inevitable trend because they know the consumer is not stupid – she is your wife!
People power can change the world and the way we think. That is our job and our responsibility to humankind – or we are done.
I think it was James Lovelock who once said that:
“One day, when mankind discovers the awesome power of dark matter, just a thimble-full will power all the needs of humanity to the end of time”
Reg Wessels
Founder, Earth Corporation
Efficiency is great, but what good is it if we do not develop the fossil fuels replacement? We can’t just conserve till the last drop
Agreed. But at this part of our transition, the majority of what we’re doing, whether efficiency or renewable energies, is about replacing only some of our conventional energy use. Even net-zero solar requires a relatively huge amount of grid-supplied conventional energy, at least in the Midwest USA where I am. So we should remain focused on how much conventional energy we can replace. Best place to count that, btw, is not our own utility bills, but the powerplants! I check how much output from local powerplants per year, not how much new solar is installed. I wrote an op-ed abt that in SOLAR TODAY years ago.
I have in my own home and routinely design and encourage others to include solar for daylighting, water heating, space heating and electricity. To me, all methods are equal in terms of how much less conventional energy use results. What I am saying is we should measure and report progress according to how much less conventional energy use, not which products or strategies are used. One excellent example: a home designer I know told me his home energy use declined substantially when he moved into a smaller home in a nearby neighborhood, about the same age of home with similar energy features. Yet we almost never about smaller house size as an energy feature. My m.o. in consulting and teaching is to describe house size or more efficiency or solar panels equally, in terms of how much energy each saves. My focus is the energy consumption, not how or why.
It is good that you are “working” the demand side of it. I am just a construction worker who realizes that we need conservation and efficiency AND massive amounts of clean energy to actually prevent fossil fueled depletion. I have come to some rather self evident conclusions…
http://biofry.wordpress.com/
It IS good to promote less usage, but is NOT good to promote less clean energy capacity which is wind, solar and (melt down proof, closed cycle) nuclear urgently needed for a still very underdeveloped world in order to prevent climate change and depletion (and subsequent economic inability to fix).
I wrote nothing about not promoting clean energy. I only wrote and am commonly saying we should measure and report progress not by how much new clean energy we install or create or subsidize, but how much dirty energy is eliminated or shutdown or prevented. When I expressed this in my SOLAR TODAY op-ed, one reader sent me email accusing that I sounded “anti-American”. After all, in America, more is better. Less is never better. So I know my message often is unpopular or misunderstood. I am also aware that most RE marketing is about how much new RE, not about how much less conventional. Regardless, as a 30-yr energy professional, I just keep saying and practicing what I know, that for most customers and in most situations, the first many steps in our transitions away from dirty energies are best made to reduce use and demand. Aggressive reductions substantially reduce the cost of the transition. In my own office conversion to off-grid PV in 2001 (see my article in HOMEPOWER Issue 97 [Oct/Nov 2003] pgs 88-95), I was able to reduce overall conversion costs by 50% by first cutting my office electric loads and demands, then buying a much less PVs and batteries. That system still works, powering my office right now as I type this response. My current home has not only been made super-energy efficient, but I have also added excellent daylighting, passive solar features, solar water heating and solar electric. It all works to reduce how much dirty energy I use, and I regularly audit my energy use to verify that.
It is sad that ALL the clean energy technologies aren’t routinely debated. I’ll use less energy but can only go so far. We still need the physical amount required to lift water up a hill, keep the fridge on, and so on. Since these despots really don’t want cheaper insulation and really don’t want cheaper solar, wind, batteries and closed cycle meltdown prof nuclear, our future is in real jeopardy (as there will still be a carbon tax).
It is true that we need some energy. Efficiency cannot replace it all. My research has shown that what is necessary or essential in energy use differs substantially from person to person, from household to household, from company to company. I have also seen that the lowest energy use is not necessarily achieved by projects where the most money is spent on efficiency upgrades or the most subsidies received for particular energy products including renewable energy. Indeed, I recently authored an Ohio Valley home energy report which analyzed annual energy performance in 252 cases. Only 1 of the 20 lowest use households had solar water heating, none had solar electric! I’ve been in this biz for 30 yrs and never say or teach that energy use is bad or negative. It is essential. But in most situations I get involved in, there are many ways and opportunities to use less. I negotiate with customers how much reduction to aim for and how they want to do it. There are usually at least several ways to reduce energy, some more expensive than others.
John,
You write, “My research has shown that what is necessary or essential in energy use differs substantially from person to person, from household to household, from company to company.”
Unfortunately, you forgot country to country.
Many people, in considering CO2 emissions, overlook other countries. India has a population density about NINE TIMES as high as in the U.S., and China has a population density about three times as high as in the U.S. That has real implications for renewable energy systems. Also, those and other countries will be greatly increasing their demand for power to lift their people out of poverty. Because of potable water shortages in many parts of the world, the demand for sea water desalination plants will greatly increase. The result is that by the year 2100, the world will probably be using about four times as much power as it does now. Considering the need for power for transportation and heating, probably it will be necessary to generate about 90% of our power from non-CO2 emitting sources. Using power more efficiently will obviously help, but only to a very limited degree. But even if it were not important to reduce CO2 emissions, improving efficiency of power usage could often, or usually, be justified on economic grounds alone.
China and other countries, but excluding the U.S., are working on alternative nuclear reactor types that are melt-down proof, require no emergency cooling systems, are more economical, and generate only about one percent as much waste as our current pressurized water reactors. Such technologies would probably already be implemented if we had not unwisely halted nuclear R & D in the U.S. a few decades ago. Although renewables do have a rôle to play, the most of the power requirements will have to be met with nuclear reactors. Let us hope that better nuclear technologies will soon become available.
Craig – There has been a trend recently at CBS TV and their Radio affiliates – their Right Wing oriented reporting. I am begining to wonder if the Murdoch group that owns F(O)IX News has some vested interest in the operations of this past great institution that once had giants like Walter Cronkite, Roger Mudd, Dan Rather, etc.
60 Minutes, like other media productions, seems more concerned with increasing audience size by entertaining people with lurid and exciting statements than with providing accurate information. Except for increasing its profits, the performance of the media has been declining for many years. Even PBS has slipped, probably because of fear of possibly irritating its largest donors.
This is not the right place for this comment. Perhaps it can be moved to a more suitable location.
I am including a link to an article that explains the reason that there have been so many radioactive water leaks at Fukushima. According to the article, it because duct tape and wire were used for sealing purposes.
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/01/fukushima-fixes-adhesive-tape-and-wire-net
It’s astonishing and shocking that such incompetence can occur.
Craig, Perhaps I am giving them too much credit but they just may see the light of renewables taking over and are positioning themselves with thier media puppets to be invested before the prices start skyrocketing.