Something wildly under-appreciated is that climate is a tightly controlled field. A handful of “climate gurus,” often funded by the oil industry itself, dictate the climate education for many future leaders in elite universities. 1/n
This promotes intellectual and ideological homogeneity, often in the fossil fuel industry’s favor.
For instance, at Harvard, where I helped to teach the College’s primary climate change course twice, I (and countless other students) were taught that:
1) Climate change is a “wickedly complex” problem and essentially unsolvable
2) Solar and wind are incapable of replacing fossil fuels in the foreseeable future
3) Carbon pricing is the only policy that makes sense - and is unworkable at anything less than a global scale
Moreover, we learned nothing about political obstruction, lobbying or decades of disinformation from the fossil fuel industry.
I learned of the politics of climate change from the divestment movement - a group actively opposed & marginalized by many of Harvard’s “climate gurus.”
This sort of consolidation of power in a small number of gurus is improper.
For one, it confuses expertise in one aspect of a field for expertise in all of it. Being an expert in paleo-climate or ground hydrology doesn’t make one an expert in politics or history, or instance.
Second, one disciplinary perspective alone cannot solve the problem. When a small number of “climate gurus” are in charge of education (gurus who, again, are often dependent on Big Oil’s approval for funding), students miss out on important ways to understand the climate crisis.
Thankfully this is beginning to change as a greater range of researchers (especially social scientists) move their attention to climate change, not a moment too soon.
Still, we should be aware of how climate has been deeply influenced, by individuals & companies, for many years.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Climate litigation is often compared to tobacco litigation (similar patterns of deception & harmful products) & people often ask why it's realistic to expect the fossil industry to contract substantially or completely, given the cigarette industry is still around & profitable 1/n
It's a good question! The first time I heard it, I didn't have a good answer.
But now I think there are a bunch of reasons why Big Carbon is in a WORSE position than Big Tobacco.
The first & probably most important is replacement. The fossil fuel industry is in competition - existential competition - w/ other sources of energy. Those sources of energy are ultimately going to replace the fossil industry, the questions are 1) how completely & 2) how quickly
I've published a new paper in @Env_Pol reporting what I believe is the earliest known example of climate deception from the fossil fuel industry, from all the way back in 1980.
The key document is "Two Energy Futures: A National Choice for the 80s," a public policy book published by the American Petroleum Institute.
In it, the API argued to expand fossil production in the US, open federal lands for extraction, use coal-to-liquids technology & so on.
Of course, the policies advocated by the API would lead to a major increase in CO2 pollution, and by 1980 the dangers of global warming were of public concern.
So the API felt a need to reassure the public about CO2 and global warming.
I have to give a TWITTER APOLOGY to @JesseJenkins. I recently critiqued some work he was involved in on decarbonization on here, w/out reading the entire report. The more I think about that, the more it bothers me. It wasn't professional, & fwiw Jesse, I'm sorry for being hasty!
It's like critiquing a book you haven't completely read, which is one of my pet peeves in professional history. It's lazy and not very helpful...if going public with criticism, the least one can do is read the whole thing. (Obviously, that makes for a better critique too.)
Despite its informal nature, Twitter is still public, and professional standards apply. I tweeted some thoughts after reviewing the report for a few hours, but that wasn't sufficient - nor fair to the authors of the report.
At last spring's faculty discussion of fossil fuel divestment, the dean of the School of Earth, Energy and Environmental Sciences (who's also a former employee of both Exxon and Chevron) encouraged faculty to oppose divestment ...
There are at least 3 big problems with the reflexive call to "believe" science:
1) It isn't historically defensible. Sexism, racism, & eugenics were all scientific, as were a range of assuredly safe products & medical practices now known to be harmful. "Science" can be wrong.
Science & its institutions are powerful tools for finding truth. But ultimately we should believe things b/c they are true, not b/c "science said so."
There's a crucial difference between using science as evidence of truth vs. using it as an absolute, abstract authority.
Sometimes a piece appears that is so juicily deceptive, so full of false and misleading information, that it cries out for a response, if only to study its ignorance-spreading mastery. Today's article in the @nytimes is just such a piece. nytimes.com/2020/01/09/opi…
Others like @DoctorVive have already pointed out the logical fallacies and outright falsehoods in this masterclass in shilling for Big Oil, written by the head of its policy trojan horse, the ironically named @TheCLCouncil. So I'll just note a few things.
First, understand that the entire point of this deception campaign is to make people believe that Big Oil is indispensable for stopping climate change (that is, we need Big Oil's cooperation to save us from Big Oil). Thus, Big Oil needs to be the one writing climate policy.