As exposed by @RBrulle@MichaelEMann@GeoffreySupran@BenFranta@NaomiOreskes and others, the cornerstone of the current fossil-fuel disinformation strategy is the rebranding of oil and gas companies as trustworthy partners in the clean-energy transition.
2/n
This rebranding has been achieved largely through false advertising & corporate sponsorship of academic programs, as well integration into scientific events & the COPs.
This rebranding enables a coordinated slight-of-hand, whereby the oil and gas companies represent themselves as committed to fighting #climatechange, while their trade groups lobby Congress and run social-media ads against climate policy.
4/n
For example, a @nytclimate investigation by @HirokoTabuchi showed that this summer @APIenergy spent $500,000 in six weeks on Facebook ads attacking Biden's climate bill.
The ads targeted individual members of Congress & were viewed at least 21 m times.
The fossil-fuel execs testifying before the @OversightDems will claim that they've committed to net zero emissions, and they will imply that they lead the research program into clean energy technologies.
None of these messages are true.
6/n
The @IEA reports that 2020 clean energy investment by oil & gas cos accounted for only around 1% of the industry's total capital expenditure.
This means that they spend less on clean energy than they do on extracting new pockets of oil and gas.
For more details, see these panels from the 2021 Report of @TheLancet, "Countdown on Health and Climate Change: Code Red for a Healthy Future."
11/n
So, to recap: these numbers demonstrate that oil and gas company pledges to reach net zero emissions are disinformation.
These pledges are false advertising: statements that misrepresent their business and their contribution to the accelerating climate crisis.
12/n
And the amount of 💸 that the oil & gas trade groups spend on lobbying & advertising *against* climate policy demonstrate that the industry does not support the goals of the #ParisAgreement, but fully operates to take us to 3°C of warming by 2100 and more beyond.
13/n
And, to be clear: the last time Earth was 3°C warmer—3 m years ago, before humans even existed—camels & alligators lived in the Arctic. The coastline of what would become the eastern US ended about 100 miles into what is now NC. And much of the planet was bare savannah.
14/n
If we allow our planet to heat up 3°C by 2100, its current configuration will break down and be rearranged into something much closer to that Pliocene system.
15/n
But this breakdown & reconstitution won't happen in an orderly transformation over tens of thousands of years; it will happen in a geological instant, destabilizing the conditions of our current civilizations and potentially killing billions.
16/n
Pace the @IPCC_CH: if the world heats up 3°C by 2100, changes in the hydrological cycle will make agriculture "unviable" in the equatorial region, most of Africa, parts of Eastern Europe, most of South Asia, the entire Mediterranean, as well as in the Great Planes & California.
That is a lot of territory suddenly struggling to grow food.
18/n
All of which is to say that the oil and gas executives who are testifying tomorrow are lying to sustain a business that will lead unimaginable and irreversible death and destruction.
19/n
Let's do everything we can to make these Hearings a real step towards removing them from the pinnacle of global power.
The @OversightDems hearing into fossil-fuel disinformation, like the @nytimes@TBrandStudio ads that are exhibits in Congress' investigation, is getting underway!
Taking some time to dive deeper into the CDR Primer written by a bunch of researchers and the PR firm @SpitfireSays, and I'm finding all these things that are...weird.
For instance, one chart claims that the @IPCC_CH doesn't mention CDR in SR 1.5, but in fact it does. It says👇
The chart to which I referred in my previous tweet is in Chapter 1 of the CDR Primer, which is here:
Since founding @EndClimtSilence in 2018, I have come to realize that the biggest problem facing climate journalism is the influence of fossil-fuel money on the executives running news outlets.
2/n
This influence emerges in many ways.
Broadcast network execs are, I believe, insinuating to their production and reporting teams that it's "political" or "biased" to cover the #ClimateCrisis precisely becuz they don't want to alienate their oil and gas advertisers.
3/n
Hello climate and media Twitter! Curious about your take on these questions👇
1/n
Given that the #ClimateCrisis is accelerating and people are already dying (from heat, flood, disease, etc), fossil fuel ads in the news media are...
2/n
When a news outlet with an excellent climate desk not only runs but writes ads for oil and gas companies, they do what to the credibility of their journalism:
3/n
Given that the world must stop the general use of fossil fuels as soon as possible in order to halt global heating, legitimate news outlets encouraging readers to consume more fossil fuels by running ads for them is:
I am deeply frustrated that the @IPCC_CH is calling for "reductions" in CO2 emissions rather than what is required: the virtual elimination of CO2 emissions in the next decades.
I mean, virtual elimination of emissions is what "reaching net-zero CO2 emissions" means!
1/2
"Reductions" is a weak word that suggests only action on the margins, like losing enough weight to tighten your belt by one hole, or something.
ACTION ON THE MARGINS IS NOT WHAT IS REQUIRED
1.5/2
What political struggle was lost to give us the mixed message that we need to both "reduce" emissions and "reach net zero emissions"?
I feel like I'm in one of those nightmares where you scream at the top of your lungs, but don't make even the smallest sound.
2/2
This week, and maybe next week, elected officials and the news media will be paying more attention to the #ClimateCrisis than they usually do.
Let's make this time count!
1/n
Use this tool to call your Senators and tell them you want them to pass transformative climate policy in order to win your vote. It's easy and very satisfying! And it will help.