TH!NK post

This article is archived. Comments are closed.

The BEST GREEN ad campaign in Copenhagen: PRICE ~ CO2 in 2050

Published 01st December 2009 - 19 comments - 3932 views -

Oceana launched a huge ad campaign in Copenhagen to "highlight the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 350 parts per million (ppm) to avert a mass extinction of corals and likely declines in the countless marine species that depend upon them, this century." Oceana, founded in 2001, is the largest international organization focused solely on ocean conservation.

Every delegate who arrives at the UN Climate Conference next week will be greeted in the airport, in downtown, and at the central conference venue with billboards, films, and other advertisements all displaying the 350 message. Maybe, you, Th!nkers` winners, will be among them and you will be able to catch at a flick their efforts.

350.org sent an enormous "Thank you" on Facebook to their "awesome friends at Oceana ... and to all of you, too. Without the incredible actions and events that took place on October 24 the 350 ppm target would still be stuck on the pages of a scientific paper. Your hard work and continued organizing have taken 350 from the fringe and injected it into the very center of the debate -- and onto great ads too!"

The 3 superb advertisements are depicted here. They don`t need any explanation thanks to the cool and great creative team, which has designed them! I still believe that first of all the action needs much more creativity than anything else. Remember the WWF campaign in BG?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let us support them. Be part of the World Ocean Life.

Category: Oceans, UN Climate Change Conference 2009, | Tags: advertising, cop15, oceana, copenhagen,



Comments

Mike on 01st December 2009:

Still spouting your ocean acidification propaganda, eh?

Maybe you’ll like my solution to reducing carbon emissions. I thought of it just last night.

You have people like Hemant spouting fanatical consumerism as the root cause of the problem. But who are these consumers really?

Women.

Women with their shoes, their clothes, their consumerism. Because men don’t fuck around with that sort of bullshit.

No more fanatical consumer women running around swiping the credit card for their useless material items. While we’re at it, no more women in the workplace, since they add to twice the number of cars on the road and don’t do anything useful anyway, such as spouting fraudulent science on a blog no one reads.

Put women back in the home where they belong, since their cars add to traffic congestion and drive down average salaries. This will improve mental health, since fewer cars on the street means less congestion and emissions. This will prompt a return to one-salary families instead of both parents slaving away all day for the same amount of dough.

Put women back in the home where they belong, cooking meals for the family so they don’t buy take-out every night. This will reduce emissions, improve health and save money.

Put women back in the home where they belong, to raise the family and give them a proper education not spoonfed to them by the TV. This will reduce emissions, since a more educated youth is a less wasteful and more productive one. This will also improve mental health and family relations.

We need to put women back in their place. This will reduce CO2 emissions by 50% at least. And it will increase men’s wallets by the same amount. It’s win-win.

What do you think? smile

Hemant Anant Jain on 01st December 2009:

Mike, that’s perhaps your most disgusting comment to date. But I am sure you can fall further.

Lucy Setian on 01st December 2009:

Well, Hemant. I really do like it. It made my day. Children like Mike are so sweet. Maybe I should adopt him one day? No. Stop. I cannot?! I must save money to reduce CO2 wink

Poli on 01st December 2009:

Wow Mike, I’m speechless! I’ll say: why don’t you put men back home since all they do is laying on the sofa, drinking beer and watching sport? This will reduce a lot of the CO2 emissions as well and “will also improve mental health and family relations.” smile And to Lucy: keep up the “ocean acidification propaganda”. There must be more support to this cause. More needs to be done. So keep up the great work smile

rida marehoum on 01st December 2009:

Oceeana if ls is interested in rich countries, it must also advocate for the poor in Africa. in Lake Victoria in Tanzania one of the most expotateur fish in the world, people live the starvation.everyday 500 tones of the fish, and this imbalance the ecosystem. so I advise to look at the rich poor

Lucy Setian on 01st December 2009:

Human rights inequity also is part of the climate change issue. The imbalance between rich and poor countries is much higher than we can think. Despite of living in the poorest country of the EU, I believe that African countries need much more help in the preservation than we do. At least they are more ready than us to put their efforts into it.

Adela on 01st December 2009:

Great campaign!
Thank you for sharing this, Lucy.

On a somehow different matter, is Bulgaria the poorest country in EU?

Lucy Setian on 01st December 2009:

Yes it is - on the both questions, Adela.

Aija Vanaga on 01st December 2009:

We could discuss about poorest country in EU smile somehow depends on viewpoint ..
But about that Mike comment - why you have problems with agreeing on climate and females. Seems like things went wrong somewhere! But pretty socialistic way how to see role of female!
350.org is a way, but still it is not easy to get the idea, if you do not have some previous info about climate change.

Adela on 01st December 2009:

@Lucy - It’s odd, a couple of years ago (when both our countries joined the EU) I remember hearing the same about my country & I tried to find news (statistics, reports) about this. Nothing so far.

Meanwhile, I know that the Bulgarian tourism boosted (everybody in Romania goes there every summer, because it’s said it’s cheaper and the service is better than here), winter season also sends plenty of Romanians to your mountains to ski (from the same reasons they go there in summer) & I have read Bulgaria’s one of the coolest (quality vs. price comparison) breaks in Europe.

All of the above left me an impression that you’re doing much better.

Lucy Setian on 01st December 2009:

It depends on the indicators. On the topic, you can see what the EC uses for such statistics.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/guip/countryAction.do

Adela on 01st December 2009:

Link not working

‘Servlet error: An exception occurred. The current application deployment descriptors do not allow for including it in this response. Please consult the application log for details.’

Lucy Setian on 01st December 2009:

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/guip/introAction.do?profile=cpro&theme=eurind&lang=en

Mike on 02nd December 2009:

Like moths to the flame smile

Lucy Setian on 04th December 2009:

Cool OFF, Mike smile

Mike on 04th December 2009:

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=63809&ct=162

In a striking finding that raises new questions about carbon dioxide’s (CO2) impact on marine life, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) scientists report that some shell-building creatures—such as crabs, shrimp and lobsters—unexpectedly build more shell when exposed to ocean acidification caused by elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).

...

We were surprised that some organisms didn’t behave in the way we expected under elevated CO2,” said Anne L. Cohen, a research specialist at WHOI and one of the study’s co-authors. “What was really interesting was that some of the creatures, the coral, the hard clam and the lobster, for example, didn’t seem to care about CO2 until it was higher than about 1,000 parts per million [ppm].” Current atmospheric CO2 levels are about 380 ppm, she said. Above this level, calcification was reduced in the coral and the hard clam, but elevated in the lobster

The “take-home message, “ says Cohen, is that “we can’t assume that elevated CO2 causes a proportionate decline in calcification of all calcifying organisms.” WHOI and the National Science Foundation funded the work.

And then he says “The bottom line is that we really need to bring down CO2 levels in the atmosphere.” Read into it what you will, but this is clearly at odds with his own findings and more likely a nod to the establishment view, lest he be labelled a denier, censor his work and slash his funding!

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htm
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid3.htm

Keep believing whatever you want to believe smile

Lucy Setian on 05th December 2009:

“report that some shell-building creatures” - you said it.

Mike on 05th December 2009:

What’s the matter Lucy? Won’t be convinced until they test every critter in the ocean?

What was really interesting was that some of the creatures, the coral, the hard clam and the lobster, for example, didn’t seem to care about CO2 until it was higher than about 1,000 parts per million [ppm].

So much for the world’s coral reefs disappearing.

jimy on 15th September 2010:

What a great post i am love the way express your self and i thank you.
Banner Prints

This article is archived. Comments are closed.