Rail Workers Object To Global Warning Train Ad

http://www.laborradio.org/node/5598

Rail Workers Object To Global Warning Train Ad

An ad attempting to depict the future dangers of global warming has hit a little too close to home for some rail workers. Jesse Russell has more:

You may have seen the ad. A train is barreling down the tracks toward a man standing in the way talking about the devastating affects of global warming being 30 years away. He says, “30 years? That won’t affect me.” And steps out of the way just in time. But behind him stands a little girl who doesn’t step out of the way. The ad from the organization Environmental Defense, intends to drive home the impact of global warming on children, but has been found offensive to rail employees. A statement issued by the Teamsters calls the ad an “inappropriate use of inferred violence.” John Toman, vice president and national legislative representative of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen said members from across the country have been calling out of disgust with the ad and that it sensationalizes tragedy. According to the release rail workers are often the first ones on the scene during tragic accidents and often witness the last moments of life.

AUDIO story here: http://www.laborradio.org/files/lo/winsheadlines.ram

NGU.

And does send the wrong message. It's a matter of those who own/are the main polluters are those who will be able to afford to escape the effects.

L-

I can understand why these folks are upset.

1. Playing to fear is usually a poor choice.
2. Locomotive operators who strike people often develop psychological problems. ED did not bother to look into this.

We may get a few visitors.

I thought it was fairly effective. Though, after reading this thread, I can understand it upsetting rail workers. It does hold a shock. :shrug: What do they propose? Do they have better ad agents?

This is meant to have an emotional impact. Public service ads which are trying to get people to take action need to have an emotional impact. But people are complaining because... it has an emotional impact.

How should this be done then? If it was a car instead of a train then people who've been involved in pedestrian auto accidents might be disturbed by it. Suppose it was more literal and showed rising flood waters in coastal cities? Would people who were impacted by what happened in New Orleans get upset and complain? Do we try to tiptoe around, avoiding everyone's sensitivities and then end up not achieving anything?

On the other hand I do understand that this can be upsetting to rail employees. Sometimes we need to upset people, but we need to upset them about global warming rather than rail accidents. What's the answer here? How can we have a strong emotional impact without also impacting valid unrelated sensitivities?
:shrug: