Angry in the Great White North

When the Liberal Party lost the 2006 election, the party decided to "renew" itself. Part of that process was the creation of a Renewal Commission, which took delivery of over a dozen reports from blue ribbon committees. Those reports have never been publicly available, except for three that were posted on the net outside of the Liberal Party website.

Once of those reports is the Environment and Sustainable Development Taskforce Report. Chaired by Desiree M. McGraw, the report acknowledged the help of three key individuals:

This Taskforce benefited from the contribution of countless individuals and organizations from across Canada, some of whom have asked to remain anonymous. I wish to thank all those who have been consulted and who have contributed generously to this report. In particular, I want to underscore the essential contribution of three individuals -- Kent Hovey-Smith, Brett House and Helena Olivas -- who gave generously of their time, support and expertise to help me see this report through.

Kent Hovey-Smith? The Director of Communications of Schering Canada Inc?

'Nuff said.

OK, maybe I need to explain further. You have to understand that there are forces out there who manipulate the public's interest in thing environmental in order to profit.

Schering (including the Canadian operation), maker of Coppertone, is easily the most successful example of this approach:

The thinning ozone layer leaves us exposed to increasing Ultra Violet (UV) radiation, increasing skin cancer deaths, cataracts and damaged immune systems. Bad news? Not if you are the drug transnational Schering-Plough, or its PR firm, Hill & Knowlton.

Thinning atmospheric ozone is an opportunity to sell more sunscreen, and no one peddles more than Schering-Plough the drug transnational best know for Coppertone™. Now Schering-Plough, through Hill & Knowlton PR, has established "Partners for Sun Protection Awareness," a multi-year PR campaign advocating that people "liberally apply a sunscreen ... to all exposed parts of the body before going outdoors."

Hill & Knowlton's Nina Oligino has persuaded some national environmental groups to add their names to the "Partner" letterhead, including Friends of the Earth, National Resources Defense Council, and the Sierra Club. Apparently these groups are little more than a dash of green window-dressing for the campaign. A representative of one of the groups, who asked not to be named, said that he was ignorant of the Schering-Plough funding and its hidden agenda to sell sun lotion.

The best prevention for sun-caused skin cancer is, of course, to cover up completely, but saying so would be market suicide for the world's largest maker of suntan lotion and purveyor of the sexy "Coppertone tan."

Schering's Partners for Sun Protection Awareness came up with that UV index we here about every day from sping through fall:

Along with movie trailers and sales pitches for popcorn, candy and soft drinks, many viewers of feature films this summer will see a 40-second spot teaching them about the "UV Index" and how to prevent hazardous overexposure to the sun.

The coalition, called Partners for Sun Protection Awareness, worked with the National Weather Service to introduce the UV Index on an experimental basis last summer. The service has declared the index a success and this year expanded its distribution to 160 cities, where daily predictions about ultraviolet exposure accompany the weather report in newspapers and on radio and television. Schering-Plough HealthCare Products Inc., the maker of Coppertone sunscreens, has teamed up with the Orbital Sciences Corporation, a private weather forecasting company, to bring daily UV Index reports to 527 more cities, towns and resorts nationwide.

Schering's clever plan to make sunscreen the protection of choice against UV rays (intensity defined by Schering) has been public knowledge for ten years ago. A lot of criticism was leveled at the obvious conflict of interest.

And what do we see in the Renewal Commission report to the Liberal Party on environmental issues? The current communications director of that same corporation that has been heavily criticized for spinning environmental issues for profit. Sounds like the sort of guy you'd want to have on your team to spin the environment in such a way to make your side look good, especially if bad science is going to be part of the mix.

The science of climate change is deeply questionable. Policy built on that policy as filtered by Schering is doubly so.

Finally, just how did Kent Hovey-Smith earn his spot on this particular Liberal Party commission? He is a Ph.D., but not in climatology or anything to do with biology. It was in public relations. His disseration: "Communicating to illiterate populations". One of his conclusions:

Additionally, more research should be conducted on the perception of public relations by non-public relations staff within organisations such as government departments. The presence of the public relations function at the planning stages of communications campaigns is critical in designing a successful campaign. If that presence is not practice, studying the reasons for this and what steps can be taken to ensure this occurs would make a helpful contribution to the field.

So he's there to help fashion the message and create a successful campaign. But I have to ask, who's message is he delivering? The Liberal Party's or Schering's?

Is there a difference?

Check out what Canadian bloggers have written about Kyoto
Results will open in a new window.