1. I happened to listen to @NPR for a few hours this morning, and I heard three stories that are very much connected to #climatechange without anyone on the radio mentioning climate change even once.
It was surreal and disturbing.
[thread]
2. The first story was about the current drought in Oregon. It focused on a rancher who is currently paying to have 18,000 gallons of water a day trucked in to water his livestock. (Yes, you read that right.)
3. The story discussed how much this water and its transport was costing the rancher; how long this drought has affected ranching in the West; and what the ranchers might do if the weather doesn't eventually return to normal (as if it would one day return to normal).
4. Not once did the segment report that #climatechange makes drought more likely. Not once did it calculate and report the carbon footprint of ranching, let alone ranching that needs to truck in 18,000 gallons of water per ranch per day. It performed full-on #ClimateSilence.
5. The next segment that should have been connected to climate change was broadcasted during a show about "networks." This segment interviewed some Ted-talking Frenchman who works on self-driving cars.
6. This fellow waxed very eloquent about roads covered in self-driving cars whose algorithms would be able to adapt to traffic conditions in real time, circulating so smoothly that they would seem like "blood cells" moving in liquid flow.
7. Neither the Frenchman nor his interviewer discussed how the necessity of electrifying these cars might have influenced his vision of the planet veined with rivers of autonomous vehicles. Again, #climatesilence.
8. And, finally, @nprnews reported on the unprecedented rains in Japan that have killed dozens of people and forced 1.6 million people to evacuate their homes. (1.6 M is basically the population of Barcelona. Could you imagine Barcelona empty? Ok, then.)
9. How hard would it have been to mention in one sentence that #climatechange makes precipitation events like this more likely? Not hard.
How responsible would it have been to add that sentence to the news segment? EXTREMELY responsible.
10. We are undergoing climate change RIGHT NOW. It is global. Its signal is emerging in all sorts of events. It is part of the news ALL THE TIME.
Yet we almost never hear about it, except in the "science section," or the "environment section," or the whatever niche section.
11. And this is @NPR we're talking about here! Radio for the Birkenstock crowd!
I often wonder how my dear friends, lefties all (almost all), seem not to feel climate change slowly bearing down upon them, and then I realize: they almost never hear about it.
I would love to see proponents of using solar #Geoengineering, rather than complaining about cancel culture & calling for the protection of "science" from politics (I mean, lol), actually address the reasoned claims about geoengineering these scientists are making👇
First, they argue that "First, the risks of solar geoengineering are poorly understood and can never be fully known."
Is this not true?
2/x
Are proponents of using solar #Geoengineering claiming that the risks *can* be fully known, or that we should develop and deploy technologies to dim the sun without fully understanding the risks?
3/x
The @nytimes is hosting Darren Woods, CEO of Exxon, at its DealBook Summit with @andrewrsorkin next week, a disgusting example of their shameful ignorance about the #ClimateCrisis at the Paper of Record.
THEY NEED TO HEAR FROM YOU!
*thread*
In the next tweets you'll find an email you can copy & paste (or adapt to your taste) & send to editorial@nytimes.com & andrew.sorkin@nytimes.com.
Let them know climate disinformation should have no place in the "legitimate" news media!
THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING YOU DO! 💚
2/n
To the Editors:
I'm writing to express my dismay that The New York Times is hosting Darren Woods, the CEO of Exxon, at its DealBook Summit next week. It is 2021, and our planet has already heated by 1.2°C.
The @OversightDems hearing into fossil-fuel disinformation, like the @nytimes@TBrandStudio ads that are exhibits in Congress' investigation, is getting underway!
As exposed by @RBrulle@MichaelEMann@GeoffreySupran@BenFranta@NaomiOreskes and others, the cornerstone of the current fossil-fuel disinformation strategy is the rebranding of oil and gas companies as trustworthy partners in the clean-energy transition.
2/n
This rebranding has been achieved largely through false advertising & corporate sponsorship of academic programs, as well integration into scientific events & the COPs.
Taking some time to dive deeper into the CDR Primer written by a bunch of researchers and the PR firm @SpitfireSays, and I'm finding all these things that are...weird.
For instance, one chart claims that the @IPCC_CH doesn't mention CDR in SR 1.5, but in fact it does. It says👇
The chart to which I referred in my previous tweet is in Chapter 1 of the CDR Primer, which is here: