EPIC FAIL, revisited

A year ago today the Deepwater Horizon exploded and gave us the worst man-made environmental disaster ever.  I'm re-publishing one of the posts I wrote about a month after the initial blast  - it includes a lot of links that give us some historical context.

"It is impossible to say and we will mount, as part of the aftermath, a very detailed environmental assessment. But everything we can see at the moment suggests that the overall environmental impact will be very, very modest."

(BP CEO Tony Hayward, May 18, 2010)

I was planning to write the obligatory "what the oil spill means for social media" blog post but that's really just ridiculous.  To be honest this is as close to a 20th-century media crisis scenario as we've seen in some time.  The public is heavily reliant on professional journalists to get the story, a very large company is doing its best to control the flow of information (and compounding the damage to its own reputation in the process), the federal government is flailing about, and Members of Congress are threatening to write very sternly-worded letters if things don't improve eventually.  Oh, and there's a CEO out there saying some profoundly stupid things.  Sure there are some nice tech tools in play here - obviously - but this is a straight-up, mainstream media-driven story.

But as always the real story is the actual debacle, not the PR debacle. And we're learning the scope of this EPIC FAIL one merciless drip at a time.

• Eleven people are missing and presumed dead.
• Estimates of the flow of oil were wildly understated at the outset, and the current "official" estimate prompts scientists to laugh in disbelief.  Now when asked the company and the government simply evade the question.
• The company has to dig a "relief" well to stop this flow, and that won't be ready until late summer.
• The "best minds in the world" haven't been able to staunch the flow in over a month.
• The first hugely technical and scientific idea to fix this was a big metal box.  It didn't work. (but remember - this idea didn't "fail," it just didn't succeed yet.  Or something.) 
• The second big idea was a smaller box.  It failed before it started.
• The third big idea was a tube. It really didn't work either.
• The fourth big idea is to dump mud and stuff in the hole.  Like a cork. Even if it "works" I think won't completely stop the flow of oil.
• Because remember, none of this stuff has ever been tried a mile below the ocean surface.
• And we're dumping "dispersants" (i.e., moderately toxic chemicals) into the oil flow to diffuse it.
• Even though there are more effective and less toxic chemicals available.  No there aren't.  Yes there are.  So stop.  No.  OK, slow it down.  No.  Seriously, slow it down or I'll think about saying stop again.
• But hey, it's not like this is a big deal or anything.  In fact, it's tiny.
• And BP will reimburse people whose claims BP considers "legitimate."
• And at least we know exactly who is at fault here - someone else. BP says it's Halliburton and Transocean's fault.  Halliburton says it's Transocean and BP's fault.  Transocean says it's BP and Halliburton's fault.

Meanwhile, in the government...

• The White House issues a moratorium on new outer continental shelf drilling permits.  But I don't think "moratorium" means what they think it means.
• Then we learn the government agency that regulates this industry is the one with the Bush-era folks who were having sex with the lobbyists, snorting crystal meth on toasters, getting plastered at lobbyist-sponsored parties and sleeping it off in lobbyist-paid hotel rooms because they were too drunk to drive.  
• Oh, and they were letting the companies fill in their own inspection reports in pencil which they would later trace over in pen.
• But not to worry, because the White House has assembled a(nother) blue ribbon panel of outside-the-box scientific thinkers.  Like the climate change denier / "proud homophobe" guy.  Oh, wait.
• And the guy who assembled the panel of experts - the Secretary of Energy - is apparently learning the details by reading about them in the papers. 
• But it's BP's responsibility.
• But we're putting boots on throats and will push people out.
• But we don't know what we would do differently if we were in charge, so we're not in charge.
• But we're in charge. 
• And we think BP should pay for everything. 
• Except we don't.

Meanwhile, the politicians and beltway clowns jockey for soundbites and political advantage.  The Republican governor of Louisiana who likes the idea of small government and refused that stimulus package money is nowdemanding more money from the feds and wants the Army Corps of Engineers all over the place STAT.  The Senate Assistant Majority Leader istrying to come up with two-word catch-phrases that begin with the letters B and P.  And the Chatty Kathy's of the very serious Washington punditry club were first falling over themselves to call this "Obama's Katrina," then when that didn't stick they were wondering aloud "where is the oil?" and now thatthe oil is all over marshlands and pelicans and stuff it's the liberals who are all pissed. 

And Gulf Coast fishermen are wondering if they'll ever work again.

#TweetMasdar and Much More

scene from #TweetMasdar

Today my pal Tim Hurst was in Masdar City (a client) with my colleagues hosting a "tweetup" for the World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi.   I'm very excited that so many people chose to participate and share their thoughts.  Catch up on the #TweetMasdar conversation and share your thoughts - people keep chiming in.

The conference and Masdar City's leadership in it has been a topic of discussion among some leading green bloggers.  I'm looking forward to reading all the posts, but in the meantime here are a few to get you started:

Masdar: a $2 Billion Clean Energy City Grows in the Desert by Treehugger's Brian Merchant
Personal Rapid Transit in Masdar City by TriplePundit's Nick Aster
Masdar City Gets Real by Marc Gunther

Masdar is an amazing story, and I'm very pleased that so many good writers are out there covering it.  Oh, and maybe I'm just a little jealous of Tim.

Secretary Clinton at Masdar

It's not every day that the Secretary of State visits your client and expresses such strong support:

We have a special connection with the institute because of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of our nation’s top universities, and because of the Department of Energy. We believe that the work that is being done here at Masdar has the potential to solve some of the most urgent challenges facing our planet. How do we develop sustainable energy sources that can power our cities without contributing to climate change? How do we create technologies that are scalable and both use less power and are widely affordable? How do we supply water for drinking and farming in places where fresh water sources are decreasing? How do we achieve economic growth without relying so heavily on fossil fuels where they’re drilling for them, selling them, buying them, or burning them?

...I want my country to know how advanced you are in pursuing clean, renewable energy. I want the world to know that the United States is partnering with you, because we are betting on Abu Dhabi and the UAE. We are betting that this incredible investment represented by Masdar is going to pay off. And when it pays off, it will not only mean a better life for the people of this country and this region. It will have ripple effects throughout the world.

Getting Serious About Climate PR

It's not often I get to say I'm on the same page as the Union of Concerned Scientists. But back in November I wrote a post about some scientists (specifically the American Geophysical Union) pulling together a "rapid response" team to work with the media on climate change issues. I suggested that was good but not enough, and gave some ideas on action items:

One of the things they could do is hold a press conference in DC before the new Congress is seated and let the political reporters know some basic facts. Not necessarily the science of climate change, because most political reporters don't care about the science of climate change. The basic facts I'm talking about can be summed up thusly: if a politician tells you the jury is still out on man-made climate change, he's lying. Get out there first and define the lie. Yes, it's been said before. But not really in this context - right as a session of Congress is beginning. Make sure everyone knows they're lying - make sure it's the default position. Then let the media investigate the motivation behind the lie.

Then follow up the press conference with editorial board meetings with the newspapers in key Congressional districts (i.e., the members of Congress who chair relevant committees), again with the simple, clear message: if a politician tells you the jury is still out on man-made climate change, he's lying.

And so on.  So it's quite heartening to read this in Politico:

Expecting a surge next year in Republican-led House hearings on global warming science, the Union of Concerned Scientists sent experts out earlier this month to Washington and New York for meetings with reporters from 60 Minutes, Time, USA Today, Reuters, Bloomberg, MSNBC and other news organizations. Frumhoff said the journalists “were keenly interested in understanding how casting doubt about mainstream scientific findings that upset powerful financial interests, from the health risks of tobacco to the reality and risks of global warming, is a tactic that has been used time and again to delay or avoid regulation.”

UCS has also been leading behind-the-scenes efforts to get its scientists on television, radio and in print stories, as well as in front of Rotary clubs and editorial boards.

This suggests to me that scientists are thinking more strategically about communication and how it relates to policy, and this is a very good thing.

Of course, there is considerably more to this than just meeting in advance.  What does their messaging look like?  Has it been tested with focus groups or surveys?   Are they addressing the economic issues that critics leverage so effectively?  Are their spokespersons well-trained and all on the same page?  And do they have the commitment and resources to sustain a coordinated and aggressive campaign?

Here's the thing:  groups like UCS and AGU clearly have the science on their side, and they actually want more, not less, transparency in this discussion.  But critics have more money and more at stake in the short term, and they have much more experience developing and implementing effective, strategic communications campaigns.

In a future post I'll review some of the strategic pressure points advocates can use in their messaging to move from defense to offense, and win more of these PR skirmishes.

Earth & Industry's Gang of Four - The Deepwater Horizon Debacle

It's been a crazy few weeks but I did manage to get 12 minutes with my pals at Earth & Industry - Tim Hurst, Maria Surma Manka, and Jeff McIntire-Strasburg - for another podcast about the debacle in the gulf.

Here's where I think we are.  BP continues to stonewall and mislead people. They have zero credibility. In fact, they have negative credibility - they say something and I tend to believe the opposite - thanks to the fact that they apparently photoshoped a fake picture of a "command center" and put it on their website. 

The federal government continues to look at BP and say "fix it," without knowing what else to do.   Scientists continue to be marginalized, despite a few decent stories.  Politicians on the gulf coast are grandstanding and offering some pretty stupid ideas.  People are fighting over money that's been committed but not dispersed yet.

And I have this sinking feeling that we don't know the worst of it.

Then I see this:



I have a couple of problems with it - first, there's no real context. There's no explanation of "parts per million" and just how many parts per million pose a threat. The pictures are creepy, and having a "chemist" say there should be zero oil in the water is somewhat credible, but I think you need to go the extra mile when putting something this sensationalist on the air and give people the background they need to understand what's harmful and what's not.

A Joke Without A Punch Line

UPDATE: OK, this is substantial and frankly, historic. It was still a terrible speech, but the White House scored a major victory for those affected by this spill. I'll take crappy speeches if they're accompanied by real action any day.

The President's Speech as a Text Cloud

That's what I think of the President's speech last night.

Yes, this situation merits a strong communications response, and a speech from the Oval Office is one way to convey the sense of urgency the White House has finally embraced from a communications perspective.  But last night's speech convinced me the government doesn't have the ability to solve a fairly basic physics problem - prevent floating oil from reaching shore - let alone solve the ridiculously complex engineering problem of closing a gusher a mile below the surface.

We were told (again) that the government has thrown a lot of people out there, set a bunch of fires, laid out a ton of boom, and put a bunch of boats in the water.  We were told (again) that this is BP's fault, and they're going to pay for this mess. We were told (again) that bureaucrats are feverishly looking busy, with a brand new National Commission, a new person to run a federal agency, a separate panel of brainiacs, and some kind of idea storm thing led by the Secretary of the Navy.   And then we got the half-hearted "we need to stop being so dependent on oil" rhetoric that is SO twenty years ago, the "we'll do whatever it takes" thing and the pep-talky, schmaltzy appeal to people of faith wrap-up. Oh, and we learned that the President will actually be meeting the Chairman of BP on Wednesday - nearly two months after this thing happened.

Of course this is BP's mess and of course they'll (eventually, probably) be made to pay.  But what astonishes me is the underlying assumption that the company would ever do anything that wasn't in its immediate best interest.  BP is a company.  Companies exist for one reason - make profits for shareholders. 

There's money in deep water drilling, so they do as much as possible.  Disaster planning costs money, so they do as little as possible.  Taking the time to develop and publish real, site-specific reports for the govement costs money, so they do as little as possible.  Acknowledging the existence of subsurface oil plumes costs money, so they do as little as possible.  Pictures of dead, oil-soaked animals washing up on shore cost money, so they prevent as much of it as possible.   Respirators for cleanup crews cost money, so they buy as few as possible.  Demanding all sorts of paperwork from people who have been wiped out and filed claims saves money, so they do as much of it as possible. Meaningful climate change legislation costs money, so they fight it as much as possible.

None of this is excusable. All of this is predictable.

So rather than another speech that warms over last decade's talking points, rather than sending "we really mean it this time" letters -- LETTERS! -- to BP, rather than more commissions and blue-ribbon panels and asking the Secretary of the Navy to do something other than run the Navy, let's just take some baby steps here.

1. Until further notice, the world revolves around Thad Allen, the guy running the response efforts. He doesn't have to send letters to get a response.  He gets a cattle prod and he gets to shove it up the ass of anyone who stalls on him.
2. Rather than re-designing the Department of the Interior or writing some other massive bureaucratic opus, let's just agree it's a good idea to actually read the applications for drilling that are already submitted to it.  If the application mentions animals that don't live within thousands of miles of the area or it has dead people on its "who to call" list, deny the application.
3. Anyone who prevents journalists from doing their job is immediately sent to Thad Allen for cattle prodding. If the government really is "in charge," that means this is America's cleanup and Americans have a right to know what's really happening.

I'd have more ideas, but frankly I think that's about all the government can handle right now.

E&I's Gang of Four (minus one): Deepwater Horizon

I had the chance to chat briefly with two of my favorite environmentalist bloggers, Tim Hurst and Jeff McIntire-Strasburg, for another edition of Earth & Industry Radio.  (Maria Surma Manka sent her regrets.)  I wanted to get their reactions to everything we've seen and read about the oil spill.  Jeff grew up in Southern Louisiana so he brings some personal perspective, and I've come to admire Tim's political instincts.   As always the podcasts are available on iTunes or you can listen right from the page.

I also note with interest NOAA's "confirmation" of measurements from the University of South Florida on the existence of subsurface oil plumes. I haven't seen BP's reaction to it yet.  USF and the good people from the University of Georgia have done some incredible work, and I really don't think the government would have been as forthcoming if these researchers hadn't pushed forward on this work AND promoted it through social media channels.   I'm hopeful their aggressive work on issues such as more accurate estimates of the rates of flow will continue - not for any PR purpose but to make sure people have all the information necessary to make the right decisions on addressing the spill.  It also means that people will take scientists like the folks at UNC - Chapel Hill very seriously when it comes to addressing mitigation, remediation, and so on.

The spill is tragic and the response is much less effective than everyone wants.   If it's even possible to say there's a positive here, it's that scientists are doing great work AND they're using social media effectively to get relevant, useful and important information out there.

And this is why we have scientists (and public information officers)

Sifting through my twitter stream today (constantly in the background while I'm working) I see this nugget from Patric Lane at UNC - Chapel Hill:

Tip: if tmrw’s NOAA tests = positive match w/BP well http://ar.gy/Mt, UNC experts can explain oil plume phenom. http://ar.gy/N1less than a minute ago via Argyle SocialPatric Lane
patriclane

And I immediately thought how important it was that we have university-funded scientists who do this sort of thing. Patric linked to a YouTube video of some experiments performed at UNC-Chapel Hill that suggest how undersea oil plumes can form. Apparently it has something to do with whether the oil gushes out "in the form of a turbulent jet" or if it just seeps out, and variations in the density of water based on temperature and salt content.  Here's the video:



I also note these scientists estimate the oil flow rate at 56,000 barrels per day, considerably higher than BP's and the government's estimates.  The "third party" evaluators of this have been very forceful in asserting their opinions on this. In my experience scientists are actually very cautious bunch when it comes to making estimates like this; it's actually quite rare that scientists make such confident statements unless they're very sure of their work.

Last week I suggested university scientists were the real ones holding people accountable to the facts since BP's CEO flatly denied the existence of these plumes while the government was hesitant to acknowledge anything.  At least one scientist expressed grave concerns his work would be censored.

I can say this - if the University of South Florida comes back and confirms what many scientists expect them to, it's another blow to the credibility of those "officially" measuring the spill, and another reason to support your local university scientist.

Science, Politics, PR and Social Media

One of the biggest complaints I had about the previous administration was its hostility toward science on everything from climate change to sex education to stem cell research.   Scientific reports were edited and censored to conform to a political agenda.  Scientists were marginalized.  These guys were "creating their own reality," and facts weren't simply inconvenient, they were irrelevant.  There's a book all about it.

So when I see something like this it makes my blood boil.  Scientists are apparently being told by a government agency (in this case, NOAA) that any data from the gulf oil spill they collect while on that agency's boats may only be publicized with that agency's permission.   The debate right now is over the existence of huge subsurface plumes of oil - a group of scientists (including these folks - GO DAWGS) have collected data that suggests the size, location and density of these plumes, while BP's CEO says flatly "there are no plumes."  Right now the head of NOAA is calling the scientists' data "circumstantial."

I'm not a scientist, so let's just assume these oil plumes, if they exist, are probably "bad."  

I really don't have a problem with the NOAA head being careful and hesitant to come to any conclusions on the plumes - the language of science is typically cautious, focusing on limitations and generally leaving open the possibility of error.  (Yet another PR challenge for scientists.)  But I strongly believe that if government wants to regain trust - particularly when it comes to issues of science - they need to err on the side of sharing, not concealing.   Here's why.

Scientists share data.  It's what they do.  They collect data, analyze it, and then publish it.  That's essentially the entire job. Telling a scientist to stop sharing data is like telling a Red Sox fan to stop chanting "Yankees Suck."  Social media has helped scientists share data faster and more effectively than ever before.  Seriously, look at what the folks at Georgia and the University of South Florida and LSU and Southern Mississippi are doing. It's amazing stuff.  Then look more generally at what platforms like the Public Library of Science's PLOS One can do, providing open access to scientific research and then promoting that research.  No matter how hard you try to hide, say, a massive undersea oil plume - these folks are gonna find it and let others know.

Now of course the old political axiom "it's not the crime, it's the cover-up" comes into play.  RULE NUMBER ONE in PR:  NEVER LIE.  Nothing good ever comes of it.  The truth reveals itself one drip at a time, and you just look like the guy who can't plug a massive leak.

The Fierce Urgency Of We'll Get Back To You

Contrary to my post of earlier this week, I do have a couple of observations on how social media has changed how we handle crises - specifically as they pertain to the oil spill - which conservative estimates now peg at almost double the size of the previous "worst spill" in US history (until they revise upward again).

First, social media gave smart people a platform to contribute and disseminate information, despite the fact that they were not in the inner circle of those dealing with the problem. I'm specifically thinking of the scientists who scoffed at the initial estimates of the rate of flowing oil from the pipe.   While BP has clear incentives to obfuscate or not measure the flow rate, NOAA doesn't.  What started on a small handful of mainstream outlets quickly exploded on blogs and Twitter.  The steady stream of criticism on this issue from both mainstream and online media channels meant that the government could not credibly maintain its "official" estimates.  

That's actually a very big win for transparency, and Congressman Ed Markey of Massachusetts deserves a lot of credit for this.  Markey and his staff have been tech-savvy for quite a while, and knew exactly how feasible it was to deliver a live video feed from the disaster site. It was a great idea  and it really took some guts to keep pushing for it. From a political perspective, the White House probably didn't need a constant visual reminder of their inability to fix this beamed directly to the world.

Second, social media in a wired country like the US just demonstrates how quickly and efficiently people can consume and process news today.  The news that the "top kill" approach may be working came just a few minutes before the news that the head of the Minerals Management Service had been asked to resign.  It came the day before the President was scheduled to visit the affected area and give a press conference.  It punctuated a month-long soap opera in which the feds in Washington seemed impotent at best.  Now (hopefully) the leak has been plugged before the President can tell us what he plans to do. 

TOO SLOW.

The social media-infused news cycle demands milestones and results.  It demands decisions and actions.  The political entities involved spoke only about process.  Whatever "threats" the government made have been essentially empty (see the whole dispersants issue).  The takeaways I got from the federal government's response: 

• They showed up at the platform "on day one" - and did what, exactly?
• They had a lot of boats around which I think set up some buoys and set patches of ocean on fire.
• They put a bunch of scientists in a room - no word on what ideas they generated, though.
• They told BP to stop using a particular dispersant but when BP said no they said OK.
• They continued to give out offshore drilling permits and waivers after the President said they wouldn't.
• They fired a person who had been on the job for less than a year.
• The president has shown less emotion on this crisis than Tiger Woods does when he hits a golf ball into a sand trap. Seriously.

Meanwhile, I've heard nothing about what we plan to do about these massive plumes of oil and chemicals meandering under the surface, and there are too many reports of people in Louisiana telling government and company representatives about oil washing up in front of them - and getting nothing more than "we'll get back to you."

Social media tools have the effect of pushing more, faster feedback on to you than you may be ready to handle.   Maybe this is a no-win situation.  It's certainly not a fair criticism of all the actions the feds HAVE taken, especially the amazing folks in the Coast Guard.  But each day they could be estimating how much damage they have prevented.  They know how much "oily water" they've recovered - 11.5 million gallons as of May 27.  How much oil is that?  What does that mean?  That might suggest what they're doing has made a real difference, and that's the story the government hasn't told.

How EPIC is this FAIL?

"It is impossible to say and we will mount, as part of the aftermath, a very detailed environmental assessment. But everything we can see at the moment suggests that the overall environmental impact will be very, very modest."

(BP CEO Tony Hayward, May 18, 2010)

I was planning to write the obligatory "what the oil spill means for social media" blog post but that's really just ridiculous.  To be honest this is as close to a 20th-century media crisis scenario as we've seen in some time.  The public is heavily reliant on professional journalists to get the story, a very large company is doing its best to control the flow of information (and compounding the damage to its own reputation in the process), the federal government is flailing about, and Members of Congress are threatening to write very sternly-worded letters if things don't improve eventually.  Oh, and there's a CEO out there saying some profoundly stupid things.  Sure there are some nice tech tools in play here - obviously - but this is a straight-up, mainstream media-driven story.

But as always the real story is the actual debacle, not the PR debacle. And we're learning the scope of this EPIC FAIL one merciless drip at a time.

• Eleven people are missing and presumed dead.
• Estimates of the flow of oil were wildly understated at the outset, and the current "official" estimate prompts scientists to laugh in disbelief.  Now when asked the company and the government simply evade the question.
• The company has to dig a "relief" well to stop this flow, and that won't be ready until late summer.
• The "best minds in the world" haven't been able to staunch the flow in over a month.
• The first hugely technical and scientific idea to fix this was a big metal box.  It didn't work. (but remember - this idea didn't "fail," it just didn't succeed yet.  Or something.) 
• The second big idea was a smaller box.  It failed before it started.
• The third big idea was a tube. It really didn't work either.
• The fourth big idea is to dump mud and stuff in the hole.  Like a cork. Even if it "works" I think won't completely stop the flow of oil.
• Because remember, none of this stuff has ever been tried a mile below the ocean surface.
• And we're dumping "dispersants" (i.e., moderately toxic chemicals) into the oil flow to diffuse it.
• Even though there are more effective and less toxic chemicals available.  No there aren't.  Yes there are.  So stop.  No.  OK, slow it down.  No.  Seriously, slow it down or I'll think about saying stop again.
• But hey, it's not like this is a big deal or anything.  In fact, it's tiny.
• And BP will reimburse people whose claims BP considers "legitimate."
• And at least we know exactly who is at fault here - someone else. BP says it's Halliburton and Transocean's fault.  Halliburton says it's Transocean and BP's fault.  Transocean says it's BP and Halliburton's fault.

Meanwhile, in the government...

• The White House issues a moratorium on new outer continental shelf drilling permits.  But I don't think "moratorium" means what they think it means.
• Then we learn the government agency that regulates this industry is the one with the Bush-era folks who were having sex with the lobbyists, snorting crystal meth on toasters, getting plastered at lobbyist-sponsored parties and sleeping it off in lobbyist-paid hotel rooms because they were too drunk to drive.  
• Oh, and they were letting the companies fill in their own inspection reports in pencil which they would later trace over in pen.
• But not to worry, because the White House has assembled a(nother) blue ribbon panel of outside-the-box scientific thinkers.  Like the climate change denier / "proud homophobe" guy.  Oh, wait.
• And the guy who assembled the panel of experts - the Secretary of Energy - is apparently learning the details by reading about them in the papers. 
• But it's BP's responsibility.
• But we're putting boots on throats and will push people out.
• But we don't know what we would do differently if we were in charge, so we're not in charge.
• But we're in charge. 
• And we think BP should pay for everything. 
• Except we don't.

Meanwhile, the politicians and beltway clowns jockey for soundbites and political advantage.  The Republican governor of Louisiana who likes the idea of small government and refused that stimulus package money is now demanding more money from the feds and wants the Army Corps of Engineers all over the place STAT.  The Senate Assistant Majority Leader is trying to come up with two-word catch-phrases that begin with the letters B and P.  And the Chatty Kathy's of the very serious Washington punditry club were first falling over themselves to call this "Obama's Katrina," then when that didn't stick they were wondering aloud "where is the oil?" and now that the oil is all over marshlands and pelicans and stuff it's the liberals who are all pissed.

And Gulf Coast fishermen are wondering if they'll ever work again.

Not Good. Seriously.

photo credit - US Coast Guard

Really Not Good.

Photo credit: NASA

Not Good.

Photo credit: NASA

The Myth of the "Green Media Bubble"

The Wall Street Journal's popular and influential Environmental Capital blog shut its doors last week, without much notice. This led to some speculation that the WSJ is part of some climate change denialist conspiracy, and others claimed there's some sort of "green media bubble."

Ummm... No. On both counts.

This is more a reflection of the reality of the media industry and how some companies are approaching it. I've spoken with some colleagues about this. We wouldn't be at all surprised to see some reincarnation of Environmental Capital behind a paywall. After all, that's where the Murdoch media-empire is headed - their approach to intellectual property frowns on giving people free access to popular content, and they're clearly not sold on the advertising-based online business model.

The question we should be asking is who will step up to be the leading provider of content in this space. Environmental Capital was a green business content powerhouse. The most popular "brands" in online green media - places like Treehugger, Worldchanging, Grist, etc. - are not business pubs.

Obviously there's the New York Times' Green Inc., but the rumors are flying that their days are numbered (again, a reflection of larger business issues in the media industry and nothing more). Another mainstream alternative is Reuters' Green Business, which has a more global feel. The GreenBiz Network, my pals at Live Oak Media's Earth and Industry , Triplepundit, and Energy Boom are next-gen social alternatives to the mainstream guys, but they're also more likely to have a pro-green bias. Alt Energy Stocks is where I go to look at thoughtful commentary and analysis on green finance. Marc Gunther also writes regularly at the same level of quality as the team at Environmental Capital. There are dozens more, and now that the all-powerful WSJ brand has retreated from the field, I'm expecting at least some of these sites will see their readership rise. If you create a netvibes tab or google reader category with these sites, you have instant access to all of it.

And this is why I'm really questioning WSJ's move. Their content was great. But it's not like there's an absence of similarly great content in this space. In this business, you can obviously assert your intellectual property rights and say people should pay for your content. But this is 2010, and the amount of excellent, insightful, and free content is increasing daily.

Ah, Denmark in December.

Today marks the beginning of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. To be honest, I think the announcement about 3 weeks ago that there won't be a binding deal on carbon emissions was a bit obvious. While that's certainly depressing, at least political leaders aren't setting themselves up for a shock.

I tried to give a preview of the conference over at Earth & Industry. While I'm sure a lot people will come out of this meeting insisting that a lot has been accomplished - after all, they don't want all this time and money to be wasted - my prediction is the real results of the summit will be to just punt the agenda down another year, Of course, we'll have a piece of paper that says everyone promises to take it very seriously next year, but that's it. Because once you filter out all the "fierce urgency of now" rhetoric, once you get past all the knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers who still want to question the science here, the whole issue boils down to two words: "You first." But more on that later.

Despite the cynicism, I do think it's important for world leaders to get together to focus everyone's attention on a crucial issue. So here's what you should look at to get the REAL scoop on what happens in Copenhagen this week.

The IPCC home and report: This is the online home of the UN group that writes and revises the analysis on the climate change science. This is the site you visit first to know the facts.

COP 15 home: The conference home page. You can learn who's meeting where and so on.

Reuters Copenhagen page: Reuters did a phenomenal job covering the G20 Summit, I expect them to do the same here.

Crowd-sourced newspaper editorial: OK, not really "crowdsourced" the way techies define it. But the Guardian led a group of 56 newspapers in 45 countries to publish an editorial about the summit and the issue. I don't usually take newspaper editorials very seriously but this constitutes a very high level of collaboration in an industry that isn't really known for playing well with others. That alone makes it worthy of reading.

Communication Tips for Scientists and Reporting Tips for Journalists: UC-Berkeley cranked out a couple of very useful one-pagers for scientists and journalists who may be getting together for the first time thanks to this summit. Sarah Kuck at Worldchanging reproduced both. The lasting legacy of this summit may very well be how people talk about it - so let's hope everyone gets this right.

The #cop15 twitter hashstag rss feed: I'm putting this in my sidebar for now. There doesn't seem to be a consensus yet on a hashtag, some people are using #climate, but that strikes me as more general.

Those hacked emails everyone is talking about: No, they don't disprove the science about climate change. They really don't even throw it into question. But this is a problem - scientists, perhaps reacting to the incredibly politicized environment here, may have attempted to exclude critics from the scientific discussion. That's not cool. This issue is too serious for people to be excluded - scientists have an obligation to explain to the lay public why their critics are wrong and why further delay is dangerous - but they don't have a right to exclude people because of their political leanings or financial motivations. (They can start by using those UC-Berkeley tip sheets.) Here in America we just had an administration where one side of a scientific argument was routinely silenced. We can't give them an excuse to do it again once they come back.

I'll be on the look out for more news coverage of the summit - online and off - and try to give a list as soon as I can. I'm really curious to see what the GVO folks will do, since climate change has really morphed into a foreign policy issue more than anything else, at least in my mind. Meantime I hope this gets people started...

If I had a million dollars...

My pals at Earth and Industry and I got together for a quick podcast that compared the investment potential of solar energy versus wind energy. We threw out the goofy hypothetical - if you had a million dollars, and could only invest in solar OR wind, where would you go?

We'll be doing more of these, and I hope you'll listen in.