Cross-posted at Montclair SocioBlog.
Sometimes public relations efforts are in such extraordinarily poor taste that it’s difficult to tell whether they’re real or a spoof.
In the 1950s, as the evidence on smoking was becoming undeniable, someone suggested that the cigarette companies were about to launch a new ad campaign: “Cancer is good for you.”
It was a joke, of course. But how about “A really bad recession is good for your marriage”? No joke. The National Marriage Project has released a report with a section claiming that the current economic crises has produced “two silver linings” for marriages. (Philip Cohen at Family Inequality eviscerates this report with the level of snark that it deserves.) A bad recession is good for crime too, or so says the title of James Q. Wilson’s article in last Sunday’s Wall Street Journal, “Hard Times, Fewer Crimes.”*
And now welcome Peabody Energy, the world’s largest private coal company, which spends millions each year lobbying against clean-air legislation. Last month, Peabody was the object of Coal Cares, a clever spoof Website.
(click to enlarge; source: Wired)
It was Peabody’s press release in response that makes them the clear winner of the Cancer-Is-Good-For-You competition.
The United Nations has linked life expectancy, educational attainment and income with per-capita electricity use, and the World Resources Institute found that for every tenfold increase in per-capita energy use, individuals live 10 years longer.
The spurious logic — the implied fallacy of composition and the attempt to fob off correlation as cause — is so obvious that it could easily be part of the Coal Cares spoof. But no, it was for real, at least while it lasted. Unfortunately, Peabody removed the document before we could award them the CIGFY trophy .
What the UN data actually show is not surprising: Richer countries produce more electricity. They also have better health, education, and income. The message Peabody wants us to get takes the global and misapplies it locally, and it reverses cause and effect: If you want to be long-lived, educated, and rich, live near a coal-driven power plant. Cancer, asthma, and heart disease are all good for you.
——————————
*I don’t know if Wilson also wrote that title. Unlike the post-hoc logic suggested by the title, Wilson does not argue that the recession caused the decrease. But he does imply that the recession did not exert any upward force on crime.
Comments 9
JS — June 9, 2011
Sorry to tell you, "Coal Cares" is a satirical website created by a comedy troupe.
Yrro — June 9, 2011
So, the ability to afford and produce higher-quality lifestyles, food, refrigeration, medical care, etc isn't linked to cheap and plentiful energy?
The message isn't that cancer is good for you - the message is that cancer might be better for you than starving or not being able to power your hospital.
Casey — June 9, 2011
So if I spend infinite energy, I'll live forever?
Awesome.
AlgebraAB — June 9, 2011
"What the UN data actually show is not surprising: Richer countries produce more electricity. They also have better health, education, and income. The message Peabody wants us to get takes the global and misapplies it locally, and it reverses cause and effect: If you want to be long-lived, educated, and rich, live near a coal-driven power plant. Cancer, asthma, and heart disease are all good for you."
Jay, that's not what their saying, as far as I can see. Nowhere do I see anything about living near a coal-driven power plant. What they're pointing out is that the wealth that Western societies enjoy is predicated upon cheap and plentiful energy sources. Coal is currently one of the most cheap and plentiful energy sources available and it powers a majority of U.S. electricity-generating power plants.
I'm not sure you have the cause and effect relationship right, either. Are you implying that superior better health, education and higher incomes leads to increased energy production? Can you explain that dynamic? When I look at history, the inverse (what the coal industry is positing) seems to be true. Looking at another fossil fuel source, oil - do you think it's a coincidence that much of Britain's heavy industrialization coincided with it's political conquest of petroleum reserves in Iran? Do you think it's entirely a coincidence that the U.S.'s meteoric export-driven industrialization initiative in the post-World War II era coincided with it signing economic agreements with Saudi Arabia?
Even if we look at the modern day and focus specifically coal again - I think many economists would agree that a major part of the reason why the Chinese economy is outpacing other India and other "emerging economies" is in part because of its massive coal reserves, which allow for low-cost electrification. This isn't really a subjective question. We can find the answer objectively. Chart energy use per-capita over the past century for nations around the world then chart "Human Development" indicators (i.e. educational attainment, average life span and so on) over that same century and see which tails which. I'm willing to bet that access to cheap energy resources (or access to cheap energy markets, in the case of net-energy-importers in the EU) almost always precedes a rise in HDI numbers, and not the opposite as you imply.
By the way, I'm not necessarily saying that coal should be our preferred energy resource. I favor renewable energy resources because I feel it makes far more sense in the economic long-term myself. But what the coal industry is saying isn't spurious at all - they're pointing out that a transition to non-fossil fuel energy sources will likely result in diminished energy production per capita and per dollar spent. That will likely result in higher prices and changes to the First World standard-of-living. The public has a right to debate whether our nation as a whole should indeed make that trade-off.
Gilbert Pinfold — June 9, 2011
If abundant electricity has no causal relationship with wealth, we should expect to find some examples of advanced economies without electricity - Perhaps there is an Asian tiger with the policy 'development first, power plugs later.'
Not not much 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' as much as post hoc because ante hoc is not possible.
Gilbert Pinfold — June 9, 2011
'Not so much'... That last sentence should read
Gilbert Pinfold — June 10, 2011
On reflection, my comment above is tad simplistic, modernistic and almost neo-con smug. I take it back. The height of Civilization was probably pre-industrial, certainly pre-electricity. I guess that shows how easy it is to slip into ancestor denigration.