This past week Biden gave a major speech about his plan to put fighting #ClimateChange at the center of America's post-Covid recovery.
Foolishly I assumed that the Sunday shows would have discussed this speech today.
How stupid of me. They didn't even mention it.
THREAD
Usually when my research assistant tells me that the broadcast news has failed to cover a climate story, I will do back-channel outreach and then, if that's ignored, @EndClimtSilence will take to Twitter to call out anchors and producers for their climate silence.
2/n
But I'm not going to do that today. I am exhausted. And I am filled with a sense of foreboding, since I've seen this happen before.
When I was first active on Twitter, I wrote a thread about attending a 2015 speech Hillary Clinton gave about climate & manufacturing.👇
3/n
And in this thread I reported that an HRC staffer had said that Clinton had wanted to campaign on #ClimateChange in 2016, but she dropped climate as a focus because it didn't earn her any media.
4/n
I feel like I'm in a nightmare version of Groundhog Day.
Biden gives a speech about an American economic renaissance grounded in climate standards, investments, and justice, and the broadcast news media buries it. Just like they buried Clinton's climate vision in 2016.
5/n
In 2017 I blamed the Democratic party for the fact that "climate messaging" was failing to gain traction. Now I know better.
Now I know that the fault lies with the broadcast news media's climate silence.
6/n
As @davidshor points out in this illuminating interview with @EricLevitz in @NYMag, " Most persuadable voters get their news from the networks’ nightly news broadcasts and CNN."
But polling from @amprog and @DataProgress shows that persuadable voters overwhelmingly disapprove of the GOP position on climate change and fundamentally LIKE climate policy.
@EndClimtSilence is now doing polling which we expect will show that these voters *also* want to hear about climate change in their news coverage. We will bring that polling to the networks and CNN.
9/n
This week’s recomendation is to avoid the phrase “reduce emissions” and to start using the phrase “phase out fossil fuels” in its place.
2/n
This advice has a great deal of research behind it, but its importance was highlighted for me this week, when I read a report released by Potential Energy with @YaleClimateComm.
This report really signals a contradiction at the heart of our current climate politics.
3/n
One of the most powerful English professors of the past 40 years stole an argument I made in a seminar presentation, turning it into the core of his next book.
The week after my presentation, he came into the classroom and...
...and he read a conference paper he was going to deliver at the Shakespeare Association that month, re-articulating exactly what I had said about the same material the week before. The 15 or so grad students around the seminar table were dumbfounded. Jaws on the floor.
2/n
It was the classic Trumpy move: do something illegal, but be so blatant about it, trusting that your power gives you immunity, that somehow committing the criminal act manages to normalize it simultaneously.
3/n
Today @WilliamJRipple et al released the 2023 report on the terrifying state of our #climate.
It should be read by every policymaker, decisionmaker, and journalist on the planet.
Here is a thread of some key takeaways.
1/n
"Unfortunately, time is up."
"The rapid pace of change has surprised scientists and caused concern about the dangers of extreme weather, risky climate feedback loops, and the approach of damaging tipping points sooner than expected."
Here is fossil fuel companies' new defense in lawsuits accusing them of deceiving the public about climate change:
They perpetrated no deception, they say, because the "alleged impact of fossil fuel use on the global climate has been ‘open and obvious’ for decades."
1/n
They're calling us stupid, you know.
2/n
I really love the contradiction between the claim that the impact of fossil fuel use on the global climate is "open and obvious" and the adjective "alleged," in "alleged impact."
Talk about wanting to have it both ways! Is the impact obvious, or is it "alleged"?
I'm lucky enough to be reading an advance copy of @MichaelEMann's new book. It is really fascinating!
Mann acts like the Virgil to the reader's Dante, taking us on a deep tour of past uninhabitable climates to reveal wild facts about science & our possible futures.
1/n
Eg. did you know that during the Pliocene, CO2 concentrations were btwn 380 & 420 ppm, yet the planet was much warmer than climate models project for such concentrations today? Mann shows why this is the case, and why seas were much higher than models project too.
2/n
What's really valuable about this kind of analysis is that it teaches us (or at least taught me) that as much as warming is a function of atmospheric CO2, climate is an expression of the structure of the biosphere — a wholistic, systemic perspective we so need.
3/n
Some climate scientists, including the new @IPCC_CH chair @JimSkeaIPCC, have recently been working overtime to disprove inaccurate claims by "doomers."
This comms strategy ignores the actual data about the electorate in top 15 emitting countries & is therefore misguided.
1/n
As you can see from this 2022 @YaleClimateComm
survey, only minorities in most top-emitting countries are "alarmed," which is to say only minorities of the electorate understand that climate change is "happening, human-caused, and an urgent threat."
2/n
@YaleClimateComm Most people are still unsure if climate change is even happening or human-caused; or they think about it not at all; or they dismiss it completely; or, at best, they are concerned but believe, mistakenly, that the problem is still distant in time and space. MOST PEOPLE.