Thread by @sourjayne

The "technology will save us" brand of climate denialism was officially given a voice, as far as I know, as far back as 1983.

The US National Academy of Science had spent 4 years & $1mil preparing a report, which they unveiled at a gala attended by industry execs
#ClimateAction

Scientists who contributed to the report strongly recommended immediate action. Economists, however, succeeded in reframing the policy recs, suggesting less expensive tech would be invented to save us between then & when global warming's effects would start to be detected.

Scientists argue this reframe launched the climate change debate, transforming the issue from one of scientific concern to one of political controversy.

web.archive.org/web/2013072010…

Exxon echoed the overall public response with their statement, “The general consensus is that society has sufficient time to technologically adapt to a CO₂ greenhouse effect.”

(they went ahead & started building oil rigs higher above sea level that year anyway, just in case.)

It was the discovery of a hole in the ozone that actually renewed the debate about climate action. In 1985, in Vienna, reps of 197 countries signed a United Nations treaty that provided frameworks for international reductions in industrial chemicals that destroy the ozone layer.

The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer set in motion the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer in 1987, which regulated the phasing out & ban of certain manufactured chemicals, like halocarbon refrigerants, CFCs, HCFCs, halons, etc.

The ban came into effect in 1989. Ozone levels stabilized by the mid-1990s and began to recover in the 2000s. In 2019, NASA reported that the ozone hole was the smallest ever since it was first discovered in 1982.

Then, a record-shattering heat wave across the US in the summer of 1988 added more fuel to the fight for the environment. With new data, Dr. James Hansen testified at a Senate hearing, "The greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now."

Worldwide action was unleashed. The German Parliament created a special commission on climate change, which concluded that action to drastically reduce CO2 emissions had to be taken immediately, “irrespective of any need for further research.”

The prime ministers of Canada and Norway called for a binding international treaty on the atmosphere. Sweden’s Parliament went further, announcing a national strategy to stabilize emissions at the 1988 level and eventually imposing a carbon tax.

Even UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher warned in a speech to the Royal Society that global warming could “greatly exceed the capacity of our natural habitat to cope” and that “the health of the economy and the health of our environment are totally dependent upon each other.”

Public consensus was so enormously united, US presidential candidate George Bush Sr hopped on the bandwagon, claiming, "I am an environmentalist" during his campaign, and declared the greenhouse effect will be threatened by "the White House effect."

The UN formed the IPCC in 1988 to study the Earth's climate system and propose a global response to the current warming crisis.

Oil industry executives & investors feared the phase out of CFCs that came from the ozone protection treaties were coming for oil & gas next.

In 1989, the Ministerial Conference on Atmospheric Pollution and Climate Change was expected to begin the climate action environmentalists fought for over the last two decades. Ministers from 68 countries almost succeeded in agreeing to a freeze in carbon emissions.

Unfortunately, the United States refused to sign, accompanied by Britain, Japan, and the Soviet Union.

In 1990, a New York Times/CBS News Poll asked a random sample of Americans if they agreed that ''protecting the environment is so important that requirements & standards cannot be too high, & continuing environmental improvements must be made regardless of cost.''

74% said yes.

The question was framed in those provocative terms to identify people who felt strongly about the environment. The same question was posed 9 years earlier in 1981, to which only 45% of Americans surveyed had said yes.

"Industrial companies will ignore the environment only at their peril," said Edgar S. Woolard, the chairman of E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company.

"Corporations that think they can drag their heels indefinitely on genuine environmental problems should be advised: Society won't tolerate it, & Du Pont & other companies with real sensitivity & environmental commitment will be there to supply your customers after you're gone."

The IPCC & 2nd World Climate Conference called for a global treaty on climate change, and in 1992, the UNFCC was formed to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”

In 1995, the first Conference of the Parties (COP1) took place in Berlin.

In 1996 the European Union adopted a target of a maximum 2°C rise in average global temperature.

In 1997, at COP3, the Kyoto Protocol was formally adopted, implementing the first concrete agreement requiring 37 industrialized nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to enter into force in 2005.

ExxonMobil had lobbied against the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that it would be too expensive & that it put too much of the burden on developed nations (despite developed nations' overwhelming share of the responsibility for contributing to the problem.)

In 2001, weeks after US President George W Bush was sworn in, Exxon’s top lobbyist Randy Randol sent the White House a memo. The administration, as required by law, was about to lay out a new federal climate research strategy.

Bush then declined to send the Kyoto Protocol to Congress for ratification, effectively withdrawing the United States from the agreement.

The reasons he gave echoed Exxon lobbyist statements, that restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions “could result in serious harm to the US economy” and because the treaty puts more of the burden for reducing emissions on industrialized nations instead of developing ones.

Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol shortly after the U.S.

In 2005 the Kyoto Protocol took effect, but without major emissions producers, including the U.S. and Russia on board, it’s essentially a symbolic agreement between the 141 nations who ratified it.

After the Kyoto protocol was adopted in 1997, Exxon began funding groups to challenge the science behind climate change. In an internal memo, Exxon declared its goals: “Victory will be achieved when … recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom.’”

Exxon spent $30mil+ towards this goal, employing similar techniques the Tobacco industry used in the 1950s to refute growing science on lung cancer, funding groups who would write letters signed by fake experts, promoting conspiracy theories and cherry-picking evidence.

By 2006, a Pew Research Poll found that only 41% of Americans believe there is “solid evidence” that the earth is warming due to human activity.

Having accomplished their goals of confusing the public and neutralizing the Kyoto Protocol, Exxon reported they would stop funding climate denial efforts in 2008. Other funders, like the Koch brothers, kept the efforts going.

By 2010, climate denial was part of a spiral to hysteria in the right-wing media, filled with outlandish, paranoia-tinged diatribes that gave rise to the libertarian / conservative Tea Party movement.

In 2010, the US National Academy of Science published one of the most comprehensive reports on global warming, and also a warning of political assaults on scientists:

“We call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them.”

In 2015, world leaders met in Paris for COP21. Finally, nearly all nations pledged to set their own targets for greenhouse gas cuts.

In 2016, Trump was elected 45th president, and shortly after his inauguration in 2017, he withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement.

In 2018, the IPCC famously warned the international community that we have 12 years to change our behavior before it’s too late to avoid the worst case climate scenario.

& with the 2020 election of Biden as 46th pres, the US was entered back into the Paris Agreement in 2021

The political division remains, and these same anti-science sentiments have played no small part in prolonging the painful, tragic Covid-19 public health crisis.

There's some good news though… deniers are a rapidly shrinking minority in the US. According to @YaleClimateComm's research, there has been a significant change in the distribution of the Six Americas over the past five years.

climatecommunication.yale.edu

The Alarmed segment has grown from 17% to 26% of the U.S. adult pop between 2015 & 2020, while the Dismissive segment has trended down from 10% to 8%. Americans are becoming more worried about global warming, more engaged with the issue, & more supportive of climate solutions.

In late 2020 Charles Koch was mentioned in headlines across the media promoting his new book. Multiple outlets reported Koch congratulating Biden & Harris on their victory in the election, and, looking back on his political legacy, "Boy, did we screw up! What a mess!"

Nobody can deny that.