The Coen brothers, who won Academy Awards for “Fargo” and “No Country for Old Men,” have turned their sardonic sights on the coal industry.
Joel and Ethan Coen directed a TV commercial attacking the notion that coal can be an environmentally safe way to produce electricity.
About 600 coal-burning plants supply nearly half the nation’s power, but critics say coal is a major contributor to global warming.
The commercial, which began airing Thursday on cable TV channels, plays like an air freshener ad. A smiling pitchman extolls the virtues of a black spray can labeled “clean coal.” But when a suburban housewife uses it, the can spews a black cloud that gives her family coughing fits. The ad ends with the line, “In reality, there’s no such thing as clean coal.”
“We were excited to be part of this important project and tell another side of the ‘clean’ coal story,” the Coens said in a statement.
The commercial was produced by a consortium of five environmental groups called the Reality Coalition, which was formed last year to counter promotional efforts by a coal industry trade group.
The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity has spent $18 million on TV commercials promoting the industry’s use of pollution-control equipment and arguing that coal can be a clean, cheap and abundant fuel.
“Meeting America’s growing energy demand … is going to require the use of all energy technologies,” spokesman Joe Lucas said. “Technology has made coal a cleaner energy option.”
Google Opens Its Defense In Antitrust Case Alleging Monopoly Over Online Ad Technology
Google opened its defense against allegations that it holds an illegal monopoly on online advertising technology Friday with witness testimony saying the industry is vastly more complex and competitive than portrayed by the federal government.
"The industry has been exceptionally fluid over the last 18 years," said Scott Sheffer, a vice president for global partnerships at Google, the company's first witness at its antitrust trial in federal court in Alexandria.
The Justice Department and a coalition of states contend that Google built and maintained an illegal monopoly over the technology that facilitates the buying and selling of online ads seen by consumers.
Google counters that the government's case improperly focuses on a narrow type of online ads — essentially the rectangular ones that appear on the top and on the right-hand side of a webpage. In its opening statement, Google's lawyers said the Supreme Court has warned judges against taking action when dealing with rapidly emerging technology like what Sheffer described because of the risk of error or unintended consequences.
Google says defining the market so narrowly ignores the competition it faces from social media companies, Amazon, streaming TV providers and others who offer advertisers the means to reach online consumers.
Justice Department lawyers called witnesses to testify for two weeks before resting their case Friday afternoon, detailing the ways that automated ad exchanges conduct auctions in a matter of milliseconds to determine which ads are placed in front of which consumers and how much they cost.
The department contends the auctions are finessed in subtle ways that benefit Google to the exclusion of would-be competitors and in ways that prevent... Read More