Climate of Denial
One morning in Kyoto, we won a round in the battle against global warming. Then special interests and pseudoscience snatched the truth away. What happened?
It was around eight in the morning in the vast convention hall in Kyoto. The negotiations over a worldwide treaty to limit global warming gases, which were supposed to have ended the evening before, had gone on through the night. Drifts of paper—treaty drafts, industry talking points, environmentalist press releases—overflowed every wastebasket. Delegates in suits and ties were passed out on couches, noisily mouth breathing. And polite squadrons of workers were shooing people out of the hall so that some trade show—tool and die makers, I think—could set up its displays.
Finally, from behind the closed doors, word emerged that we had a treaty. The greens all cheered, halfheartedly—since it wasn't as though the agreement would go anywhere near far enough to arrest global warming—but firm in their conviction that the tide on the issue had finally turned. After a decade of resistance, the oil companies and the car companies and all the other deniers of global warming had seen their power matched.
Or so it seemed. I was standing next to a top industry lobbyist, a man who had spent the last week engineering opposition to the treaty, huddling with Exxon lawyers and Saudi delegates, detailing the Venezuelans to change this word, the Kuwaitis to soften that number. Right now he looked just plain tired. "I can't wait to get back to Washington," he said. "In Washington we'll get this under control again."
At the time I thought he was blowing smoke, putting on a game face, whistling past the graveyard of corporate control. I almost felt sorry for him; it seemed to me (as sleep-deprived as everyone else) that we were on the brink of a new world.
As it turned out, we both were right. The rest of the developed world took Kyoto seriously; in the eight years since then, the Europeans and the Japanese have begun to lay the foundation for rapid and genuine progress toward the initial treaty goal of cutting carbon emissions to a level 5 to 10 percent below what it was in 1990. You can see the results of that long Kyoto night in the ranks of windmills rising along the coast of the North Sea, in the solar panels sprouting on German rooftops, and in the remarkable political unanimity in most of the world on the need for rapid change. Tony Blair's science adviser has repeatedly called global warming a greater threat than terrorism, but that hasn't been enough for Britain's Conservatives; the Tory leader (the equivalent of, say, Tom DeLay) rose last summer to excoriate Blair for moving too slowly on carbon reductions.
In Washington, however, the lobbyists did get things "under control." Eight years after Kyoto, Big Oil and Big Coal remain in complete and unchallenged power. Around the country, according to industry analysts, 68 new coal-fired power plants are in various stages of planning. Detroit makes cars that burn more fuel, on average, than at any time in the last two decades. The president doesn't mention the global warming issue, and the leaders of the opposition don't, either: John Kerry didn't exactly run on solving the climate crisis. The high-water mark for legislative action came in 2003, when John McCain actually managed to persuade 43 senators to support a bill calling for at least some carbon reductions, albeit much lower than even the modest Kyoto levels. But given that it takes 60 votes to beat a filibuster and 66 to override a veto, and given that the GOP has since added four hard-right senators to its total, it's safe to say that nothing will be happening inside the Beltway anytime soon.
IT WAS NEVER going to be easy. Controlling global warming is not like the other battles (dirty water, smog) that environmentalists have taken on, and mostly won, over the years. Carbon dioxide, a.k.a. CO2, or just "carbon" for short, is not a conventional pollutant. It's tasteless, colorless, odorless. Unlike carbon monoxide, which is what kills you if you leave your car running in the garage, CO2 doesn't do anything to the human body directly. It does its damage in the lower atmosphere by holding in heat that would otherwise escape out to space. And even more unfortunate, there's no easy way to get rid of it, no catalytic converter you can stick on your tailpipe, no scrubber you can fit to your smokestack. To reduce the amount of CO2 pouring into the atmosphere means dramatically reducing the amount of fossil fuel being consumed. Which means changing the underpinning of the planet's entire economy and altering our most ingrained personal habits. Even under the best scenarios, this will involve something more like a revolution than a technical fix.
You would think the Europeans would have had a harder time making reductions; after all, they were already fairly energy-efficient, thanks to decades of high taxes on coal and oil. Their low-hanging fruit had long since been plucked. For the United States, there were loads of relatively easy fixes. We could have quickly reduced our emissions by trimming the number of SUVs on the road, for instance, while the French were already in Peugeots. However, in certain ways, America was more firmly locked into coal and oil than our European peers: sprawling suburbs, oversized houses, abandoned rail lines. We had the single hardest habit to break, which was thinking of energy as something cheap. This staggering inertia meant that even when our leaders had some interest in controlling energy use, they faced a real challenge. Al Gore wrote a book insisting that the future of civilization itself depended on battling global warming; during his eight years as vice president, Americans increased their carbon emissions by 15 percent.
What makes the battle harder still is the tangibility gap between benefits and costs. Everyone is, in the long run, better off if the planet doesn't burn to a crisp. But in any given year the payoff for shifting away from fossil fuel is incremental and essentially invisible. The costs, however, are concentrated: If you own a coal mine, an oil well, or an assembly line churning out gas-guzzlers, you have a very strong incentive for making sure no one starts charging you for emitting carbon.
At the very least, the "energy sector" needed to stall for time, so that its investments in oil fields and the like could keep on earning for their theoretical lifetimes. The strategy turned out to be simple: Cloud the issue as much as possible so that voters, already none too eager to embrace higher gas prices, would have no real reason to move climate change to the top of their agendas. I mean, if the scientists aren't absolutely certain, well, why not just wait until they get it sorted out?
The tactic worked brilliantly; throughout the 1990s, even as other nations took action, the fossil fuel industry's Global Climate Coalition managed to make American journalists treat the accelerating warming as a he-said-she-said story. True, a vast scientific consensus was forming that climate change threatens the earth more profoundly than anything since the dawn of civilization, but in an Associated Press dispatch the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change didn't look all that much more impressive than, say, Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute or S. Fred Singer, former chief scientist at the U.S. Department of Transportation. Michaels and Singer weren't really doing new research, just tossing jabs at those who were, but that didn't matter. Their task was not to build a new climate model; it was to provide cover for politicians who were only too happy to duck the issue. Their task was to keep things under control.
It was all incredibly crude. But it was also incredibly effective. For now and for the foreseeable future, the climate skeptics have carried the day. They've understood the shape of American politics far better than environmentalists. They know that it doesn't matter how many scientists are arrayed against you as long as you can intimidate newspapers into giving you equal time. They understand, too, that playing defense is all they need to do: Given the inertia inherent in the economy, it's more than sufficient to simply instill doubt.
IN SHORT, the deniers have done their job, and done it better than the environmen- talists have done theirs. They've delayed action for 15 years now, and their power seems to grow with each year. How, even as the science grew ever firmer and the evidence mounted ever higher, did the climate deniers manage to muddy the issue? It's one of the mightiest political feats of our time, accomplished by a small group of clever and committed people. It's worthwhile trying to understand how they work, not least because some of the same tactics are now being used in debates over other issues, like Social Security. And because the fight over global warming won't end here. Try as they might, even with all three branches of government under their control, conservative Republicans can't repeal the laws of chemistry and physics.
Bill McKibben is a contributing writer to Mother Jones and the author of several books, including his most recent, Wandering Home: A Long Walk Across America's Most Hopeful Landscapes, Vermont's Champlain Valley and New York's Adirondacks.
Comments
yes, I'm shocked at the the new web sites claiming global warming is just
a natural cycle and has little to to
with carbon dioxide.
So, it starts to make sense when you
mention that big players in the oil
industry are making such a concerted
effort to deny the science.
It's time to start leveling off population growth. It has to stop some time. There is no advantage in run-away human population growth. In fact, its effects are all negative: (1)drives wildlife into extinction, (2)dimishes the value of human life, (3) forces more government regulation and loss of freedom, (4) promotes a cause for war, (5)increases pollution of the earth, etc.
Aren't we in a period when small groups of powerful people have discovered the same thing about almost all of our endeavors - delay, confuse, demand 'balanced' reporting - with an ultimate result as Mr. McKibben implies - you can not repeal the natural laws, or the consequences of human behavior - only the postpone the inevitable, whatever that is.
I have wonder why one of the most important Greenhouse Gas is not been mention (H20 water vapor) which affect is greater than CO2? Next is the question of Population increases not being address in Global Warming because the population of the world is emitting many tons of CO2 each day? to call for the reduction of CO2 to 1990 level to me means genocide. Finally the question of Urban Building, since it is a known fact that the temperature in Urban area can be 10 degree hotter than non-urban area. To blame Global warming solely on CO2 shows me that the Golbal warming in more a political game than a science issue!!!
I have some informaton that I am certain the writer would be interested in. But I need an address. dukeoftaos@yahoo.com
How might we strategically effect lasting positive change or forward sustained progress? Perhaps getting non-profits (which by law can't lobby) to join forces tactically and ultimately strategically in alliances with their for-profit counterparts which CAN lobby.
An example might be getting nonprofits that fight against big oil through campaigns working with the activism-oriented auto club Better World Club to take on the likes of the auto industry by demonstrating its alternative services (offers roadside assistance to bikes, something no other such organization does). An example is CalCars, a CA-based nonprofit that promotes plug-in electric vehicles, something Google is supporting in the way of a demonstration project on its main campus. Together, the two can work more effectively in getting the word out among their combined membership bases.
Global warming is just a lot of hot air. Earth has been going through dozens of ice ages for the past 2 or 3 million years and we're due for another ice age soon. IF there is a slight increase in the global temperature, it's due to increased moisture in the air, not co2 emissions.
"Global warming" is really just UN/limousene liberal scaremongering. I'm all for protecting the environment, but let's not resort to irrational hysteria. Besides, the dinosaurs lived for over 100 million years in a warm, tropical world, remember?
If you commmies were REALLY interested in making Earth a better planet to live on, you would advocate mandatory population control and the planting of millions of new trees. But you would rather tax and regulate everyone to death instead.
I think chatworth69 is right. I think there is something much bigger then globalwarming that could take place like another ice age or reverse poplarization. Or there could be a possiblitiy that whatever happen to the dinosaurs, could happen to us.
finally some sanity!! there is so much politics behind global warming. the government will always go where the money and influence is at. They pass laws the people disapprove yet they will "save" us from the "global-warming". They will impose a global carbon tax, not on the actual polluters or the corporations but on the average worker and small businesses
its smoke and mirrors. please i urge you, the government will pass laws that the people do not want and disapprove, they will fight wars that the people disapprove. i know you made this comment a lot time ago but our actions are going to affect our future. global warming MAN-MADE is a scam. the most effective greenhouse gas is water vapor and is ignored in global warming studies sanctioned by the UN. the government will undermine the voice of the people but the will "save" us from this "global warming". please. i know you are going to flam me but i urge you. the government goes where the money and influence is at, and the empires of the future will be of the opinion (mind, an alter quote by Winston churchhill). i know i am going to get flamed but please, just look at alternate documentaries please. for the sake of mankind.
they are going to impose a global tax, which undermines the sovereignty of all nations concentrating more power in fewer people's hands. and tax will not hurt the corporations who should be taxed to hell! but the workers. the people. and small businesses will suffer.
im sorry for the post, but please :(
Why do you attack the US. The issue of global warming will have to be tackled by decoupling economic growth, in the US, and China and India as well from CO2 emissions. You state you are balanced, but your playground is small and without context. Good Luck, First time I look at your website and I am not impressed by your singleminded focuss.
Yay, lets save the planet!
Here is your list, dedicated worshipers of Mother Gaia:
Dismantle your car.
Dismantle your computer.
Disconnect all your utilities.
No more Starbucks.
Replace your house with trees.
Cork the anus of every mammal.
After killing your children and as many other humans as possible, kill yourself.
I don't suggest this because I hate you, even though you are despicable hypocrites, but because to accomplish your stated goal, it is required.
Trust me its worth it. All the rocks and glaciers will be happy.
For anyone who wants to deny Global Warming or Global Climate Change, just tell that to the wooly mammoth. And tell that to the people who live near the great lakes. There used to be a mile sheet of ice there, but not anymore!
I'm sure that had a lot to do with the immense number of cavemen driving automobiles back then!
All right, now give me a break and go get a life. I don't need another tax and more laws and limits on my personal liberty. I need less tax and a smaller government that is prone to screw things up anyway. Oh and to tax the corporations is also to tax the people who work for it and the products that it sells. What, do you think a corporation is some 8 armed monster with no face? Hardly. It's a bunch of people working together to make a product that people want to buy.
As soon as I see my stupid liberal neighbors actually start to recycle, stop buying loads of useless garbage, all of which appears to be purchased online, due to the appearance of a fex ex or UPS truck every single day, trim a few pounds and pretend to enjoy the outdoors, I will know this movement as nothing more than a power grab by liberal politicians.
And to claim that all the evidence is incontrovertible is just wrong. The fact that where much of the temp data was taken are now the locations of big cities and that big cities are hotter than their surrounding countrysides skew the data (heat island effect). Until the global warming advocates start to come clean and present a fully truthful and non-fear motivated message, I won't listen. It appears they can't get their voice heard if they actually tell the whole story.
So go such a lemon until at such time you retards fully commit yourselves to the cause and do as william suggests.
This is a rather old article that people are still reading therefore I will post my comment...I have a strong objection to the militant Marxist position that the Green's take on global climate change. My position is simple; WE HUMANS WILL NOT DESTROY NOR SAVE THIS PLANET, IT IS THE PLANET THAT WILL DESTROY OR SAVE HUMAN KIND.
Let's take a truly objective look at this issue without the political emotional motive;
1)Who claims that the .5 degree increase in temperature (if it is in fact an increase in the first place) is BAD for the planet or the human species? I would like to see direct evidence that indicates this "fact" without theory or hypothesis.
2)If the very same "scientist" who claimed we were headed for an ice age now claims that we are zooming into a critical heating cycle at an "alarming rate" was wrong the first time, why would you consider his claims now?
3)If there are credible educated scientist who do not believe the "Global Warming" cry, and are prepared to substantiate their claim, why do you not give them the same level of respect and credence without the impudent attacks?
4)If you wish to maintain credibility, why do you not focus at least a significant portion your time, attention and donations on attacking China and India?
The earth experiences and creates many cycles on many time scales; some so great that we as humans can never experience in our own lifetime. Militant environmentalism is not the solution; Marxism is not the solution; quashing "Big Oil and Big Coal" is not the solution. We are energy dependent regardless of the source that provides that energy. If the hardcore environmentalist are so convinced about what is not working in this world, let them devise the solution with their own money, sweat and talent. You show a better solution that I can benefit from for less time, effort or cost, I will use it.
Lastly, I would like anyone who believes that all fossil fuels are responsible for the destruction of the planet to consider one simple event- a volcanic eruption. This event, as far apart as they occur, introduces more noxious gases and particulate matter into the biosphere than anything we could do in a hundred years at our current population.
If you are completely convinced that fossil fuels represent the scourge to human kind and the planet, I suggest you refrain from using any aspect of our contemporary society that we have evolved. This means everything modern and fabricated since all of it comes from oil, gas, coal, nuclear, etc. save our food supply (which cannot be grown, harvested, transported nor packaged without energy).
Those who still maintain a capacity to rely on their own mind and sensibilities to discern truth among the clutter of information and extremist alarms need to consider this in the context of reality.
go nuclear? [deleted] off. there is already far too much nuclear, and far too much nuclear waste. The US alone has over 8 million tonnes of nuclear waste which needs to be securely stored for a period between 10,000 and 1,000,000 years to allow for radioactive decay. Does that sound smart, safe and cost effective?
No need to convince. Very obviously MMGW is a hoax. Only you NJF MSG liberals with your super uncool coercive government personas back it. And mostly because people with no real skill need something to make them feel good about themselves. We engineers find another way.
"What Happened?"-You have GOT to be kidding! We have a President, Vice-President and most of Congress in the pocket of Big Oil and you expect Scientific Truth to prevail? The only truth that has hurt Big Oil was that when they overcharged and got really greedy and it ruined the American Economy, it may have "Cooked" their Golden Goose and wised the general public up to the real damage they can do to their pocketbook!
That's all I have to say about global warming:
"The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
- Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations - from the book: The First Global Revolution
"There is no nonsense so errant that it cannot be made the creed of the vast majority by adequate governmental action." ~ Bertrand Russell, British author, mathematician, & philosopher (1872 - 1970)
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it..............The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." --- Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945
"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over." --Josph Goebbels, Nazi propaganda minister
"A lie told often enough becomes the truth." ---Lenin (1870 - 1924)
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --- George W. Bush, Rochester, N.Y., May 24, 2005
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." ---George Orwell
http://green-agenda.com/
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
http://mindlessandspineless.blogspot.com/2008/05/now-35000-scientists-sa...
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
http://www.aim.org/briefing/31000-signatures-prove-no-consensus-about-gl...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/...
http://www.infowars.com/?p=6445
http://www.globalwarming.org/gw101
http://junkscience.com/
http://educate-yourself.org/lte/globalwarming13sep06.shtml
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/global-warming-on-jupiter.html
http://osulibrary.oregonstate.edu/video/met4.html
http://www.globalwarming.org/node/145
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3901
http://www.infowars.com
http://www.noonehastodietomorrow.com/
http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/
http://oldthinkernews.com/
Climate Change = misdiscribed as Global warming.
Thanks
Wow. This blog is truly a gold mine. I have been wallowing on this for quite sometime and here I am reading about it! I will actually try these tips and let you know how they work out! Thanks again mate.
drug rehab
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
