A former comms officer from the Heritage Foundation argues that Repubs, including Trump, are offering "innovative" climate policies & that criticizing them as inadequate is to use "purity tests" to define environmentalism. 🙄 nytimes.com/2020/08/07/opi…
The accusation that progressives are *preventing* Repubs from joining the climate movement by subjecting them to "purity tests" is new, I think.
It picks up on centrist accusations that anti-flying advocates and anti-CCS advocates are subjecting people to purity tests.
As to her point that so many young Republicans are becoming increasingly concerned by #ClimateBreakdown, let's be clear she's using that fact to argue that the GOP in general now desires climate action.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.