fallback phase retreat
aha 1119
see KNEW
recently heard the term shift from denialism to delayism
see DELAY IS WIN
1) it's not real
2) it's real but just natural variation (sunspots, medieval ice age...)
3) it's real and human caused, but too expensive to fix (wreck economy)
3a) Lomborg: more efficient to do Y (or do evil in the guise/name of green: frack, nuke)
3b: wheeler many decades out, 3rd world clean water (ignores that coal poisons am water/kids, coal ash, arsenic...)
see lomborg shuffle (clintel covid fight covid not carbon) ALSO SHILLENBERGER
820 aha: this is variant last stage of fallback strategy: 1) not real 2) real but not anthro 3) agw but too expensive to fix (wreck gnp) 4: we can afford to fix it, but we must be smart/targeted w/ $ 4a we cvan't really afford to fix big global warming, but we can do smaller green humanitarian stuff [WHEELER CLEAN WATER IN 3RD WORLD] that will make some ppl's lives better and might let us move incrementally to fix climate [and BTW the worst effect/chaos in in far future if ever]
evil crypto because to promotes denial IN THE NAME OF humanitarianism/ EJ when in fact poor POC in 3rd world will be hit 1st and worst, and have least ability to cope and made least contribution to the problem
===
see lomborg shuffle (clintel covid fight covid not carbon)
820 aha: this is variant last stage of fallback strategy: 1) not real 2) real but not anthro 3) agw but too expensive to fix (wreck gnp) 4: we can afford to fix it, but we must be smart/targeted w/ $ 4a we can't really afford to fix big global warming, but we can do smaller green humanitarian stuff that will make some ppl's lives better and might let us move incrementally to fix climate [and BTW the worst effect/chaos in in far future if ever]
4th phase denialism to DELAYISM
https://theconversation.com/the-five-corrupt-pillars-of-climate-change-denial-122893
no lnx many
The Conversation
The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial
November 28, 2019 8.00am EST
Author
Mark Maslin
Professor of Earth System Science, UCL
Disclosure statement
Mark Maslin is a Founding Director of Rezatec Ltd, Director of The London NERC Doctoral Training Partnership and a member of Cheltenham Science Festival Advisory Committee. He is an unpaid member of the Sopra-Steria CSR Board. He has received grant funding in the past from the NERC, EPSRC, ESRC, Royal Society, DIFD, DECC, FCO, Innovate UK, Carbon Trust, UK Space Agency, European Space Agency, Wellcome Trust, Leverhulme Trust and British Council. He has received research funding in the past from The Lancet, Laithwaites, Seventh Generation, Channel 4, JLT Re, WWF, Hermes, CAFOD and Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors.
Partners
University College London
The fossil fuel industry, political lobbyists, media moguls and individuals have spent the past 30 years sowing doubt about the reality of climate change - where none exists. The latest estimate is that the world’s five largest publicly-owned oil and gas companies spend about US$200 million a year on lobbying to control, delay or block binding climate policy.
Their hold on the public seems to be waning. Two recent polls suggested over 75% of Americans think humans are causing climate change.School climate strikes, Extinction Rebellion protests, national governments declaring a climate emergency, improved media coverage of climate change and an increasing number of extreme weather events have all contributed to this shift. There also seems to be a renewed optimism that we can deal with the crisis.
But this means lobbying has changed, now employing more subtle and more vicious approaches – what has been termed as “climate sadism”. It is used to mock young people going on climate protests and to ridicule Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old young woman with Asperger’s, who is simply telling the scientific truth.
Anti-climate change lobbying spend by the five largest publicly-owned fossil fuel companies. Statista, CC BY-SA
At such a crossroads, it is important to be able to identify the different types of denial. The below taxonomy will help you spot the different ways that are being used to convince you to delay action on climate change.
Do experts have something to add to public debate?
1. Science denial
This is the type of denial we are all familiar with: that the science of climate change is not settled. Deniers suggest climate change is just part of the natural cycle. Or that climate models are unreliable and too sensitive to carbon dioxide.
Some even suggest that CO₂ is such a small part of the atmosphere it cannot have a large heating affect. Or that climate scientists are fixing the data to show the climate is changing (a global conspiracy that would take thousands of scientists in more than a 100 countries to pull off).
All these arguments are false and there is a clear consensus among scientists about the causes of climate change. The climate models that predict global temperature rises have remained very similar over the last 30 years despite the huge increase in complexity, showing it is a robust outcome of the science.
Read more: Five climate change science misconceptions – debunked
[grapf] Model reconstruction of global temperature since 1970. Average of the models in black with model range in grey compared to observational temperature records from NASA, NOAA, HadCRUT, Cowtan and Way, and Berkeley Earth. Carbon Brief, ]
The shift in public opinion means that undermining the science will increasingly have little or no effect. So climate change deniers are switching to new tactics. One of Britain’s leading deniers, Nigel Lawson, the former UK chancellor, now agrees that humans are causing climate change, despite having founded the sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation in 2009.
It says it is “open-minded on the contested science of global warming, [but] is deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated”. In other words, climate change is now about the cost not the science.
2. Economic denial
The idea that climate change is too expensive to fix is a more subtle form of climate denial. Economists, however, suggest we could fix climate change now by spending 1% of world GDP. Perhaps even less if the cost savings from improved human health and expansion of the global green economy are taken into account. But if we don’t act now, by 2050 it could cost over 20% of world GDP.
We should also remember that in 2018 the world generated US$86,000,000,000,000 and every year this World GDP grows by 3.5%. So setting aside just 1% to deal with climate change would make little overall difference and would save the world a huge amount of money. What the climate change deniers also forget to tell you is that they are protecting a fossil fuel industry that receives US$5.2 trillion in annual subsidies – which includes subsidised supply costs, tax breaks and environmental costs. This amounts to 6% of world GDP.
The International Monetary Fund estimates that efficient fossil fuel pricing would lower global carbon emissions by 28%, fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 46%, and increase government revenue by 3.8% of the country’s GDP.
3. Humanitarian denial
Climate change deniers also argue that climate change is good for us. They suggest longer, warmer summers in the temperate zone will make farming more productive. These gains, however, are often offset by the drier summers and increased frequency of heatwaves in those same areas. For example, the 2010 “Moscow” heatwave killed 11,000 people, devastated the Russian wheat harvest and increased global food prices.
Geographical zones of the world. The tropical zones span from the Tropic of Cancer in the North to the Tropic of Capricorn in the South (red shaded region) and contains 40% of the World population. Maulucioni/Wikipedia, CC BY-SA
More than 40% of the world’s population also lives in the Tropics – where from both a human health prospective and an increase in desertification no one wants summer temperatures to rise.
Deniers also point out that plants need atmospheric carbon dioxide to grow so having more of it acts like a fertiliser. This is indeed true and the land biosphere has been absorbing about a quarter of our carbon dioxide pollution every year. Another quarter of our emissions is absorbed by the oceans. But losing massive areas of natural vegetation through deforestation and changes in land use completely nullifies this minor fertilisation effect.
Climate change deniers will tell you that more people die of the cold than heat, so warmer winters will be a good thing. This is deeply misleading. Vulnerable people die of the cold because of poor housing and not being able to afford to heat their homes. Society, not climate, kills them.
This argument is also factually incorrect.In the US, for example, heat-related deaths are four times higher than cold-related ones. This may even be an underestimate as many heat-related deaths are recorded by cause of death such as heart failure, stroke, or respiratory failure, all of which are exacerbated by excessive heat.
US weather fatalities for 2018 alongside the ten- and 30-year average. National Weather Service, ]
4. Political denial
Climate change deniers argue we cannot take action because other countries are not taking action. But not all countries are equally guilty of causing current climate change. For example, 25% of the human-produced CO₂ in the atmosphere is generated by the US, another 22% is produced by the EU. Africa produces just under 5%.
Given the historic legacy of greenhouse gas pollution, developed countries have an ethical responsibility to lead the way in cutting emissions. But ultimately, all countries need to act because if we want to minimise the effects of climate change then the world must go carbon zero by 2050.
[graf Per capita annual carbon dioxide emissions and cumulative country emissions. Data from the Global Carbon Project. Nature. Data from the Global Carbon Project]
Deniers will also tell you that there are problems to fix closer to home without bothering with global issues. But many of the solutions to climate change are win-win and will improve the lives of normal people. Switching to renewable energy and electric vehicles, for example, reduces air pollution, which improves people’s overall health.
Developing a green economy provides economic benefits and creates jobs. Improving the environment and reforestation provides protection from extreme weather events and can in turn improve food and water security.
5. Crisis denial
The final piece of climate change denial is the argument that we should not rush into changing things, especially given the uncertainty raised by the other four areas of denial above. Deniers argue that climate change is not as bad as scientists make out. We will be much richer in the future and better able to fix climate change. They also play on our emotions as many of us don’t like change and can feel we are living in the best of times – especially if we are richer or in power.
But similarly hollow arguments were used in the past to delay ending slavery, granting the vote to women, ending colonial rule, ending segregation, decriminalising homosexuality, bolstering worker’s rights and environmental regulations, allowing same sex marriages and banning smoking.
The fundamental question is why are we allowing the people with the most privilege and power to convince us to delay saving our planet from climate change? grafs
shill and lomborg are poster boys:
simone de beauvoir has got your #:
15 pp
https://mahb.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/America_Misled.pdf
First published in October 2019. For more information, visit https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/america-misled/ Graphic design: Wendy Cook Cite as: Cook, J., Supran, G., Lewandowsky, S., Oreskes, N., & Maibach, E., (2019). America Misled: How the fossil fuel industry deliberately misled Americans about climate change. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication. Available at https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/america-misled/
How the fossil fuel industry polluted the information landscape
Key points 1. Internal corporate documents show that the fossil fuel industry has known about the reality of human-caused climate change for decades. Its response was to actively orchestrate and fund denial and disinformation so as to stifle action and protect its status quo business operations. 2. As the scientific consensus on climate change emerged and strengthened, the industry and its political allies attacked the consensus and exaggerated the uncertainties. 3. The fossil fuel industry offered no consistent alternative explanation for why the climate was changing—the goal was merely to undermine support for action. 4. The strategy, tactics, infrastructure, and rhetorical arguments and techniques used by fossil fuel interests to challenge the scientific evidence of climate change—including cherry picking, fake experts, and conspiracy theories—come straight out of the tobacco industry’s playbook for delaying tobacco control. These key points reflect the position of experts studying climate denial and the history of fossil fuel interests, based on thousands of pages of documented evidence.
...
Contradictory contrarianism The most common denialist arguments have been shown to contain fatal assumptions or fallacies26. Climate deniers do not offer any rational explanation for why our climate is changing. Rather, denialist arguments are incoherent and often contradictory27. For example, deniers will seize on snowfall to claim that global warming is a hoax, while at the same time claiming that an extreme event such as a drought or wildfire cannot be attributed to climate change. This is incoherent because either extreme events can be a signal of climate change or they cannot be. Climate denial lacks consistency because it is not about scientific evidence—it is about how to continue business as usual in the face of climate disruption. Climate deniers reject climate science because they are averse to proposed or perceived solutions to climate change28.
...
Common Fallacies
Climate denial arguments can be summarized by the five techniques of science denial (summarized with the acronym FLICC): fake experts, logical fallacies, impossible expectation, cherry picking, and conspiracy theories29,30.
Fake Experts
Logical Fallacies
Impossible Expectations
Cherry Picking
Conspiracy Theories
Promoting dissenting non-experts as highly qualified while not having published any actual climate research and/or received any relevant education. Logically flawed arguments that lead to false conclusions. Common logical fallacies are red herrings, non sequiturs, and false dichotomies. Demanding unrealistic standards of certainty before acting on the science. A technique practised by the tobacco industry. Selectively choosing data that supports a desired conclusion that differs from the conclusion arising from all the available data32. Proposing a secret plan among a number of people, generally to implement a nefarious scheme such as conspiring to hide a truth or perpetuate misinformation. Climate deniers are more likely to be conspiracy theorists33
nice graphics throughout eg]
Deconstructing Denial
Figure 7 shows deconstructions of some of the most common myths about climate change.Determining the misleading techniques of a climate myth requires outlining the argument structure: listing any premises (starting assumptions) and the conclusion. This allows one to ascertain whether any premises are false, and/or whether the argument is logically invalid. Figure 7:
Deconstruction of common climate myths.
MYTH “Cold weather disproves global warming.” Premise 1 CHERRY PICKING
IMPOSSIBLE EXPECTATIONS Some place is cold. Premise 2 No place can experience cold during global warming. Conclusion Global warming isn’t happening.
Cherry Picking: Ignores that most of the globe is warm. Impossible Expectations: Global warming doesn’t mean cold events don’t happen, just that they’re less likely to happen. MYTH “Global warming stopped in 1998.”
SLOTHFUL INDUCTION
CHERRY PICKING Premise 1 The temperature trend since 1998 is statistically insignificant. Conclusion Global warming isn’t happening.Slothful Induction: Ignores other temperature records and measures of heat imbalance showing a significant warming trend. Cherry Picking: Trends over short periods do not lead to conclusions about
...
Conclusion Disinformation about climate change has a straightforward purpose—to block action on climate change. In America, it has largely succeeded, with policies to mitigate climate change stymied or delayed for decades. Meanwhile, climate change has intensified, causing impacts such as intensified extreme weather events, rising sea level, harmful effects on human health, and much more. Climate denial has seriously hurt the American people. The damage, deaths, and harm to people will continue to worsen if we don’t expose and discredit denial. This is not the first time that corporations prioritizing profits over people have caused great harm. The tobacco industry spent hundreds of millions of dollars disinforming the public about the health impacts of smoking in order to undermine tobacco control34,35. The World Health Organization estimates that six million people die every year from preventable tobaccocaused disease. Drawing on the tobacco industry’s playbook, fossil fuel companies have done the same on climate change, spending hundreds of millions of dollars confusing the public and delaying life-saving action. Their legacy is the death, destruction, and injustices of irreversible global warming. Big Oil is the new Big Tobacco.
“We’ve gone through thousands of pieces of testimony on climate and clean energy bills at the state level, and all of the industry arguments against this sort of legislation included these messages,” saysJ Timmons Roberts, professor of environment and sociology at Brown University, and a co-author on the “discourses of delay” paper.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342596080_Discourses_of_climate_delay
pm dl 1/22
Discourses of climate delay
July 2020Global Sustainability 3
DOI:10.1017/sus.2020.13
Discourses of climate delay
William F. Lamb1,2 , Giulio Mattioli3, Sebastian Levi1,4,5, J. Timmons Roberts6,Stuart Capstick7, Felix Creutzig1,8 , Jan C. Minx1,2, Finn Müller-Hansen1,9,Trevor Culhane6and Julia K. Steinberger21Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, Torgauer Straße 12–15, EUREF Campus#19, 10829 Berlin, Germany;2School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK;3Department of Transport Planning, Faculty of Planning, TU Dortmund University, August-Schmidt-Straße 10,44227 Dortmund, Germany;4Freie Universität Berlin, Kaiserswerther Str. 16–18, 14195 Berlin, Germany;5HertieSchool of Governance, Friedrichstraße 180, 10117 Berlin, Germany;6Institute at Brown for Environment andSociety, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912, USA;7Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations and Tyndall Centrefor Climate Change Research, School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK;8TechnicalUniversity Berlin, Straße des 17. Junis 135, 10623 Berlin, Germany and9Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Member of the Leibniz Association, PO Box 60 12 03, D-14412 Potsdam, Germany
Non-technical summary‘
Discourses of climate delay pervade current debates on climate action. These discourses accept the existence of climate change, but justify inaction or inadequate efforts. In contemporary discussions on what actions should be taken, by whom and how fast, proponents of climate delay would argue for minimal action or action taken by others. They focus attention on the negative social effects of climate policies and raise doubt that mitigation is possible. Here, we outline the common features of climate delay discourses and provide a guide to identifying them.
Technical summary:
Through our collective observations as social scientists studying climate change, we describe 12 climate delay discourses and develop a typology based on their underlying logic. Delay dis-courses can be grouped into those that: (1) redirect responsibility; (2) push non-transformative solutions; (3) emphasize the downsides of climate policies; or (4) surrender to climate change.
These discourses are distinct from climate denialism, climate-impact skepticism and ad hominem attacks, but are often used in combination to erode public and political support for climate policies. A deeper investigation of climate delay discourses is necessary in order to understand their prevalence and to develop inoculation strategies that protect the public from their intended effects. Our typology enables scientists, climate advocates and policymakers to recognize and counter these arguments when they are used. We urge all proponents of climate action to address these common misrepresentations of the climate crisis and to better communicate the dramatic pace of global warming, the gravity of its impacts and the possibility of effective and just mitigation policies.
Social media summary: Discourses of climate delay: redirect responsibility, push non-transformative solutions, emphasize downsides, surrender.
12 part classification (nice graphic]
...
. Conclusion:
The discourses we identify here can be compelling. They build on legitimate concerns and fears as societies move closer to addressing climate change. We argue that they become delay arguments when they misrepresent rather than clarify, raise adversity rather thanconsensus or imply that taking action is an impossible challenge.Our typology draws out the abstract logic and discursive structure of delay discourses, but in practice, they often build on com-binations of arguments.
An important illustration is when population is put forth as an overriding driver of climate change. This draws from the notion that CO2 emissions trajectories are essentially fixed in the developed and developing world (change is impossible), while focusing attention on rapidly growing populations, usually in the latter (whataboutism).
Delay is introduced because practical and desirable steps to reduce emissions immediately (e.g., driving smaller cars over shorter distances) are over-looked in favour of an implied programme of global population reduction, while simultaneously obscuring the highly unequal distribution of climate responsibility worldwide. The sophisticationof discourses of delay should therefore not be understated, andnew strategies are developing all the time. As prior research shows, they are also consistent with –and are repeated alongside–climate denial and ad hominem frames (Jacques & Knox, 2016).This article identifies, describes and categorizes discourses of delay
The discourses we identify here can be compelling. They build on
legitimate concerns and fears as societies move closer to addressing
climate change. We argue that they become delay arguments when
they misrepresent rather than clarify, raise adversity rather than
consensus or imply that taking action is an impossible challenge.
Our typology draws out the abstract logic and discursive struc-
ture of delay discourses, but in practice, they often build on com-
binations of arguments. An important illustration is when
population is put forth as an overriding driver of climate change.
This draws from the notion that CO
2
emissions trajectories are
essentially fixed in the developed and developing world (change
is impossible), while focusing attention on rapidly growing popu-
lations, usually in the latter (whataboutism). Delay is introduced
because practical and desirable steps to reduce emissions immedi-
ately (e.g., driving smaller cars over shorter distances) are over-
looked in favour of an implied programme of global population
reduction, while simultaneously obscuring the highly unequal dis-
tribution of climate responsibility worldwide. The sophistication
of discourses of delay should therefore not be understated, and
new strategies are developing all the time. As prior research
shows, they are also consistent with –and are repeated alongside
–climate denial and ad hominem frames (Jacques & Knox, 2016).
This article identifies, describes and categorizes discourses of
delay
===
see fallback
1219
bad
With climate change emerging as a big worry for voters across party lines, Republicans seem to be changing…their messaging strategy. They’re admitting that climate change is real, but not that anything needs to be done about it. Per the Washington Examiner: "‘I agree with the science,’ said [Republican Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming], the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, in a rare sit-down interview in his office ‘…Is it a concern? Yes. But it's not a crisis.’"
David Roberts
@drvox
What GOP polling is telling them they must say, via Senate EPW chair Barrasso: "I agree with the science. I disagree with the solutions Democrats are proposing in terms of this alarmist view. Is it a concern? Yes. But it's not a crisis."
Wyoming Republican John Barrasso is ‘closing the distance’ on climate change
Republican Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, a state run on fossil fuels, is “closing the distance” between himself and Democrats on policy proposals to combat climate change.
washingtonexaminer.com
==
==
sparked by wheeler BS, 4/5th phase of fallback?
crypto/mirror/ green blk death variant?
==
How the New Climate Denial Is Like the Old Climate Denial
Both are excuses for inaction.
FEBRUARY 10, 2017
There has been a subtle shift recently in the rhetoric of many conservative pundits and politicians around climate change. For decades, the common refrain has been flat-out denial—either that climate change is not happening, or that any change is not caused by human activity. Which is why viewers might have been surprised to see Tucker Carlson of Fox News nodding along thoughtfully on January 6 as climate scientist Judith Curry, a controversial figure in climate science, explained, “Yes it’s warming and yes humans contribute to it. Everybody agrees with that, and I’m in the 98 percent [of scientists who agree]. It’s when you get down to the details that there’s genuine disagreement.” Carlson immediately turns to the camera and moots a multi-part series: “What do we know? What don’t we know?”
This rhetorical stance—yes, climate change is real, and yes, human activity is implicated, but we don’t know how much human activity is to blame—is fast becoming the go-to position for conservatives. In confirmation hearings last week, Senator Ed Markey asked Scott Pruitt, Trump’s pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency, if he agrees with Trump that global warming is a “hoax.” Pruitt replied that he does not. But later, under questioning by Senator Bernie Sanders, Pruitt refused to say how much change is caused by human activity. He would say only that the “climate is changing, and human activity contributes to that in some manner.” When pressed by Sanders on whether he agreed with 97 percent of scientists who have published in peer-reviewed journals that human activity is “the fundamental reason we are seeing climate change,” Pruitt equivocated. “I believe the ability to measure with precision the degree of human activity’s impact on the climate is subject to more debate.
-
The key phrases in Pruitt’s testimony are “in some manner” and “with precision.” These allow Pruitt to acknowledge climate change is happening while moving uncertainty downstream, into the “details.”
This rhetoric is out of step with the latest science. The most recent IPCC report expresses 95 percent confidence thathumans are the main causeof most global warming observed since the 1950s. According to one paper summarized on NASA’s Global Climate Change website, “97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.” The list of scientists and agencies in agreement goes on and on.
Some conservatives have introduced uncertainty by suggesting climate change might be driven by “natural” global cycles. But according to Maureen Raymo of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, we know why climate changes naturally, and non-human activity can’t explain the rapid changes observed in the past century. “The Ice Ages happen due to subtle changes in the sun-earth distance that unfold over thousands of years, and which can lead to sometimes rapid climate change, when thresholds are crossed.” These cycles are still happening, but “the same factors that cause these huge Ice Age swings could not possibly be invoked to explain the warming we now see.” In fact, Raymo said, “left to its own devices, right now Mother Nature would be making the climate colder.”
The planet has warmed by about 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the 19th century. “You can quibble about tiny bits,” said Raymo, “but the vast majority of what we observe is that it’s because we’ve been combusting fossil fuels.”
As Gavin Schmidt, Director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Principal Investigator for the GISS ModelE Earth System Model, put it, “In science, nothing is ever known perfectly. Is there remaining uncertainty in the exact value of gravity? Yes. But to something like the fourth decimal place. It doesn’t matter. So the question is: Is the remaining uncertainty relevant to any policy decision anyone would want to make? And the answer is: no.”
Uncertainty has proved a reliable tool to manipulate public perception of climate change and stall political action. In 2015, the Union of Concerned Scientists released The Climate Deception Dossiers, which describes a 1998 memo from the American Petroleum Institute that, according to the dossiers, “mapped out a multifaceted deception strategy for the fossil-fuel industry that continues to this day—outlining plans to reach the media, the public, and policy makers with a message emphasizing ‘uncertainties’ in climate science.” The UCS authors write that the memo (included in the report) states “victory” would be achieved “when ‘average citizens’ and the media were convinced of uncertainties in climate science despite overwhelming evidence of the impact of human-caused global warming and nearly unanimous agreement about it in the scientific community.”
Another “victory” listed on the API memo’s bullet-point list would be when, “those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extant science appear to be out of touch with reality.”
The new climate-denial rhetoric dovetails with longstanding tactics used by conservatives and fossil fuel companies to sow doubt about climate change, even as they publicly recognize its reality. In a 2006 Letter from ExxonMobil Vice President of Public Affairs Ken Cohen to the Royal Society, the corporation acknowledged that “the use of fossil fuels is a ‘major source’ of carbon dioxide emissions” and tied emissions to climate change: “Given the important role fossil fuels play in providing energy for the global economy, the issues of global economic development, future energy supply, and climate change are closely linked.” This past November, ExxonMobil even endorsed the Paris Agreement in a carefully-worded statement that balanced the need to reduce global emissions with the statement that, “access to affordable and reliable energy is critical to economic growth and improved standards of living worldwide.” Despite this acknowledgement, ExxonMobil has, since November, launched a suite of massive extraction projects in Nigeria, Mozambique, Liberia and Texas.
In his recent confirmation hearings, Rex Tillerson, ex-CEO of ExxonMobil and newly-minted U.S. Secretary of State, carefully avoided making any of the links that ExxonMobil’s own scientists had made by the early 1980s between fossil fuels, rising greenhouse gases, and the ability of those gases to affect climate “in potentially destructive ways.” When asked to explain his “personal view” of climate change by Senator Tom Udall, Tillerson would say only that “after 20 years as an engineer and a scientist,” he had concluded “the risk of climate change does exist,” and “the consequences could be serious enough that action should be taken.” Senator Bob Corker, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, then pointedly asked, “Do you believe that human activity, based on science, is contributing?” Tillerson dodged again, saying only, “The increase in greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is having an effect. Our ability to predict that effect is very limited.”
Tillerson can make statements like these because climate research is ongoing, and climate models are inherently imprecise. According to Schmidt, “To say that science isn’t settled on things people are still researching is totally irrelevant. Does the earth orbit the sun? There’s no substantial ambiguity about the answer to that question, despite the fact that there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of scientists working on gravity. There are lots of interesting things about gravity, it’s just that thatis not one of them. There are lots of interesting things about climate change, and adaptation, and interactions between air pollution and clouds, but they’re just not relevant to the question, which is: Is what’s going on related to humans? And the answer is: Yes, it is.”
:{
}:
When Tillerson was pushed by Senator Tim Kaine to admit ExxonMobil’s “history with the issue of climate change,” including the oil giant’s well-documented practice of funding work to discredit climate science and delay political action, he stonewalled until Kaine finally asked, “Are you not answering because you don’t know, or because you don’t want to?” To which Tillerson replied, “A little of both.”
There has been a flurry of recent Republican efforts to stall action on climate policy, including a pair of bills just introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives. Bill H.R. 861, introduced by Representative Matt Gaetz, proposes “to terminate the EPA.” This bill may not even get a vote, but asThe New York Timesreported earlier this week, Pruitt “has a blueprint to repeal climate change rules, cut staffing levels, close regional offices and permanently weaken the agency’s regulatory authority.”
Meanwhile, Bill H.R. 673, introduced by Representative Blaine Luetkmeyer, proposes to “prohibit United States contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the Green Climate Fund.” It’s also no secret that many Republicans want to halt funding for the UN FCCC, the international treaty system of 195 nations that produced the Paris Agreement. As the Republican party platform stated in the run-up to the presidential election: “We reject the agendas of both the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement.”
On February 8, a cohort of old-guard Republicans came out in favor of a carbon tax, which they call a “conservative approach to climate change.” Rather than setting limits on emissions (as with cap-and-trade), a carbon tax would put a higher price on fossil fuel emissions and leave it to the market to curb emissions. This approach may be appealing to some voters, because as the tax slowly increases consumers receive increasing rebates. While this approach at least acknowledges that human use of fossil fuels is contributing to climate change, many experts argue this would not be a meaningful restriction, given the convulsive climate changes already under way.
In September 2016, carbon-dioxide levels in the air crossed the dreaded 400 ppm threshold, and we are not likely to dip back below that level in our lifetimes. Crossing this red line signals an irrevocable shift toward an increasingly unrecognizable planet (the last time the planet’s air was consistently above 400 ppm was 16 million years ago, and the planet looked a lot different). In just the past few months, we have seen record-breaking global temperatures and a stunning decline in sea ice. A slab of ice bigger than Long Island is poised to crack off the Antarctic’s Larsen C ice shelf and the climate-stabilizing flow of the Gulf Stream, which has decreased by 20 percent in the last 50 years, may be accelerating toward full shut-down. According to the Pentagon’s 2014 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap, climate change will cause catastrophic changes to Earth’s ecosystems and wreak havoc on human populations, including famine, mass migration, and war. A carbon tax may be too little, too late, but even it would be preferable to rhetoric that fails to acknowledge scientific consensus on climate change.
:{
}:
The recent shift in conservative rhetoric exploits legitimate scientific uncertainty that most scientists agree is irrelevant to crafting responsible climate policy. Despite overwhelming evidence, many conservatives are still willing to ignore scientific consensus and stall political action. But offering evidence that this rhetoric is out of step with science may not, in fact, matter when it comes to public perception. When the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology published a press release on February 5, alleging that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) “manipulated climate records,” scientists and journalists rushed to correct the statement and demonstrate how it was based on faulty information. But the damage was already done; uncertainty about NOAA and their data are now a part of the public dialogue around climate change.
https://www.alternet.org/2019/11/explosive-report-shows-coal-industry-was-aware-of-the-impending-climate-crisis-as-far-back-as-1966/
no lnx twt
Explosive report shows coal industry was aware of the impending climate crisis as far back as 1966
Written by Eoin Higgins / Common Dreams November 22, 2019
A new report shows conclusively that the coal industry was aware of the climate impacts of burning fossil fuels as far back as 1966—and, like other sectors of the fossil fuel industry with knowledge of the consequences of their business model, did next to nothing about it.
The revelation was published in an article by Élan Young at HuffPost Friday.
“It wasn’t just big oil that knew about climate change decades ago,” tweeted HuffPost editor Kate Sheppard.
Kate Sheppard
@kate_sheppard
It wasn’t just big oil that knew about climate change decades ago, @YoungElan reports in @HuffPost today https://www.huffpost.com/entry/coal-industry-climate-change_n_5dd6bbebe4b0e29d7280984f?g4 … #exxonknew #coalknew
Coal Knew, Too
A newly unearthed journal from 1966 shows the coal industry, like the oil industry, was long aware of the threat of climate change.
huffpost.com
The story uses a discovery by Chris Cherry, professor of civil engineering at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, to show industry foreknowledge of the ramifications of extractive technologies over 50 years ago. Cherry found the evidence in a 1966 copy of the Mining Congress Journal he was given by his father-in-law.
Dave Anderson
@cleantechfacts
A 1966 article in the Mining Congress Journal shows that #CoalKnew about the climate risks of burning fossil fuels decades before the industry engaged in a campaign of climate denial that continues today https://www.huffpost.com/entry/coal-industry-climate-change_n_5dd6bbebe4b0e29d7280984f …
In the journal, James R. Garvey, president of now-defunct research firm Bituminous Coal Research Inc., describes the future consequences of coal.
“There is evidence that the amount of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere is increasing rapidly as a result of the combustion of fossil fuels,” Garvey wrote. “If the future rate of increase continues as it is at the present, it has been predicted that, because the CO2 envelope reduces radiation, the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere will increase and that vast changes in the climates of the earth will result.”
Garvey added that the result of the changes in climate could include melting icecaps and rising seas.
“Such changes in temperature will cause melting of the polar icecaps, which, in turn, would result in the inundation of many coastal cities, including New York and London,” wrote Garvey.
...
==
API KNEW
Leaders of the U.S. fossil fuel industry knew as early as 1954 that carbon dioxide pollution accumulating in the atmosphere posed a growing threat to life on Earth, but failed to warn the public. That’s according to new research published by Stanford historian Benjamin Franta in the journal Nature Climate Change. Franta found that in the 1950s the American Petroleum Institute commissioned a study by a Caltech scientist which concluded global CO2 levels had risen by 5 percent in a century. It’s the earliest known industry-funded research into climate change, and the findingsled in part to a 1965 report by President Lyndon Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee on the threat posed by global warming.Speaking to members of an oil industry conference that year, Frank Ikard, then-president of the American Petroleum Institute, warned, “This report unquestionably will fan emotions, raise fears, and bring demand for action. The substance of the report is that there is still time to save the world’s peoples from the catastrophic consequence of pollution, but time is running out.” The American Petroleum Institute would instead go on to fund decades of climate change denial while fighting efforts to switch to renewable energy sources.
==
https://newrepublic.com/article/153359/seductive-stupidity-andrew-wheeler
no lnx
The Seductive Stupidity of Andrew Wheeler
The EPA chief's latest argument against fighting climate change is astonishingly foolish-but it's exactly what most of us want to hear.
By EMILY ATKIN
March 20, 2019
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler is not your average climate denier. Unlike President Donald Trump, he's admitted that global warming is real and caused by humans. And unlike many Republicans in the House and Senate, he's admitted that its effects will be dangerous if warming continues unabated.
:{
}:
But when it comes to admitting that swift, aggressive action is necessary to slow the dangers of climate change, Wheeler is just like most Republicans: He denies it. In an interview with "CBS This Morning" on Wednesday, the former coal industry lobbyist said that global warming is simply too vague and distant a threat to focus on.
:{
}:
"On the climate change issue, it is an important issue that we have to be addressing and we are addressing it," Wheeler said. "But most of the threats from climate change are 50 to 75 years out." Instead of climate change, Wheeler argued that the EPA's efforts would be better spent focusing on cleaning up water in other countries. "We have 1,000 children die every day worldwide because they don't have safe drinking water," he said. "That's a crisis I think we can solve."
If humans didn't intend to keep living 50 to 75 years from now, Wheeler's argument might be a good one. But we do, making his argument exceedingly bad-as Twitter was kind enough to point out.
Nick Knudsen ???? #DemCast
@DemWrite
New EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler's feeling on the urgency of climate change?
Meh. ??????? Why worry? The effects of climate change are still "50 To 75 Years Out".
Wonder how the kids feel about that perspective. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/andrew-wheeler-epa-climate-change_n_5c9226ede4b0dbf58e465554 …
Wheeler's premise is also just plain wrong. "Most of the threats" from climate change are not far in the future; some really bad ones are happening right now.
Dave Levitan
?
@davelevitan
EPA administrator Wheeler says the effects of climate change are "50 to 75 years out," which I'm sure is a huge comfort to *checks notes* enormous swaths of humanity?
The EPA chief's claim that water pollution is a better focus because it's a crisis "we can solve" also falsely implies that climate change doesn't fall into that category. Last year, thousands of scientists from around the world put out a report saying humanity can prevent the worst climate impacts of the next 50 to 75 years-but only if we rapidly decarbonize the planet within about a dozen years. And even if we don't rapidly decarbonize within that time frame, we can still slow and prevent many terrible events by reducing emissions as quickly as we can.
The danger of Wheeler's comments, though, isn't that they're wrong or dumb. It's that they're extremely relatable. They represent everything the human brain wants to hear about climate change: that nothing that bad is currently happening; that anything truly awful will occur far down the road; and that we have plenty of time and space to prevent those horrific things from happening-even though the evidence tells us otherwise. "[Our] inability to deal with climate change is due in part to the way our mind is wired," reads a Time article from 2013, which outlines the psychological barriers to climate action.
Those psychological barriers have historically prevented much of the population from prioritizing global warming. And for the first time in a very long time, that's changing. As Robinson Meyer wrote in The Atlantic on Tuesday, America is experiencing "a potential upheaval in how important voters consider climate policy." That's inspired at least some Republicans stop denying the problem and start focusing on solutions, Meyer wrote.
Wheeler doesn't seem interested in solutions. So he's resorted to playing on the most powerful de-motivator we have: our brains.
Emily Atkin is a contributing editor to The New Republic and the author of the climate newsletter Heated.
@emorwee
Read MoreClimate Change, Politics, Psychology, Science, Environment, Andrew Wheeler, Environmental Protection Agency