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
I'm currently on vacation, but I must pop in to say: the DOE letter calling increased LNG exports “neither sustainable nor advisable" is a VERY, VERY BIG DEAL.
This is the first time a Dem administration has come out against expanding a fossil fuel.
"The letter is expected to accompany a study of the economic, national security and climate effects of approving new natural gas export terminals to be issued within days by the DOE."
According to the letter, the study finds three things...
2/n
First the study finds that, although it generates “wealth for the owners of export facilities” and jobs across the supply chain, exporting more LNG causes domestic wholesale methane gas prices to increase an estimated 30%.
I am baffled by this opening claim in @TimothyDSnyder's New Yorker piece on Trump's fascism.
Trump's entire campaign was fueled by empathy for white men. It explicitly advanced the promise to improve their lives through his power as Leader ("I will fix it.")
1/n
The US *has* been destroyed — economic inequality, lack of eduction or culture outside churches, crumbling infrastructure, the slow poison of social media in the body politic — has made town after town a decaying shadow of its former self.
2/n
Yes the neoliberalism that catalyzed this decline was introduced by Reagan and best advanced by Republican policies, but, of course, the truth is not the point — especially because in this case it's a half truth. Clinton and Obama are both neoliberals.
3/n
I am very proud that Ted Nordhaus, @mattyglesias, and right-wingers like Judy Curry are attacking my book. It means they feel threatened by my analysis of their rhetoric in favor of expanding fossil fuels. This is good!
I must say, however, that their attacks are spurious.
@mattyglesias This week The Breakthrough Institute published a blog post written by some guy I blocked on Twitter for misogyny years ago, who claims that errors he found in my text prove my research is faulty.
@mattyglesias This post did find two errors in my book. Thanks for that!
But its other claims are incorrect, perhaps because its author has no understanding of scholarly responsibility and striking problems with reading comprehension.
3/n
Last month I spoke to @350NYC about William Nordhaus and economics of decarbonization, using material from *The Language of Climate Politics*.
TL/DR: all too much discourse about the “cost” of climate policy is bullshit.
🧵
1/n
A prime piece of fossil-fuel propaganda is that resolving the climate crisis will “cost” Americans too much.
But the truth is rather the opposite: NOT halting global heating will, within decades, cost Americans way more than creating a net zero economy.
2/n
In fact, phasing out fossil fuels and creating a net zero, ecologically integrated economy will make 90% of people on this planet, including most Americans, way better off than they are now.
3/n