The @nytimes is hosting Darren Woods, CEO of Exxon, at its DealBook Summit with @andrewrsorkin next week, a disgusting example of their shameful ignorance about the #ClimateCrisis at the Paper of Record.
THEY NEED TO HEAR FROM YOU!
*thread*
In the next tweets you'll find an email you can copy & paste (or adapt to your taste) & send to editorial@nytimes.com & andrew.sorkin@nytimes.com.
Let them know climate disinformation should have no place in the "legitimate" news media!
THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING YOU DO! 💚
2/n
To the Editors:
I'm writing to express my dismay that The New York Times is hosting Darren Woods, the CEO of Exxon, at its DealBook Summit next week. It is 2021, and our planet has already heated by 1.2°C.
[...]
3/n
Mr. Woods was called before Congress last week to testify about his company's history of spreading climate disinformation. Congress has issued a subpoena to Mr. Woods in its investigation.
[...]
4/n
It is unconscionable (outrageous / disgusting / horrifying) that The New York Times is giving Mr. Woods a platform to continue to spread the lie that his company is fighting climate change.
[...]
5/n
Exxon is a member of the American Petroleum Institute, which spends billions on advertising and lobbying against climate policy,
[...]
6/n
and far from transforming itself into a clean-energy company, it is continuing to expand its oil and gas extraction business even though both the IPCC and IEA say that doing so will lead to catastrophic levels of global heating.
[...]
7/n
I ask The New York Times to join the reality-based community, which acknowledges the threat of fossil fuels to our children, and rescind its invitation to Mr. Woods.
The @OversightDems hearing into fossil-fuel disinformation, like the @nytimes@TBrandStudio ads that are exhibits in Congress' investigation, is getting underway!
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.
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