"We have left the decades of [science] doubt and denial behind, and we have entered the era of 'blah blah blah,' as Greta Thunberg so succinctly puts it.
Climate communication must evolve to adapt to this new era."
2/n
"First, it should seek to inspire the majority who are concerned and alarmed about the climate crisis to adopt the kind of committed, even revolutionary fervor that can lead people collectively to replace our current stakeholders with leaders who will transform our systems."
3/n
"Second, it should attempt to give those people the communications tools that can help undermine the ideologies that sustain and justify those stakeholders’ power."
4/n
"And finally, climate communication should attempt to introduce new codes and assumptions into political discourse."
5/n
Right now our political discourse implicitly and sometimes explicitly reproduces "a narrative that goes largely uncontested by stakeholders on both the right and the left."
6/n
This narrative constellates around a core of seven key terms: alarmist, cost, freedom, growth, “India and China,” innovation, and resilience.
7/n
"It goes something like this: 'Yes climate change is real, but to say it threatens human survival is *alarmist*—and anyway the monetary and cultural costs of ending the general use of fossil fuels is greater than the *cost* of climate change itself."
8/n
"The health of American families, and human welfare around the world, relies on the economic *growth* enabled by fossil fuels, so..."
9/n
"We need to keep using [fossil fuels] at least while the global south develops, decarbonizing them with *innovation* while facing climate impacts by increasing communities’ *resilience*"
10/n
"We should be wary of creating international institutions to plan the transition to a post-fossil-fuel economy lest they cancel our *freedom*. At the same time, America cannot act unilaterally on the climate crisis because *India and China* something something."
11/n
"What gives this narrative its stranglehold on our politics is that it is invoked not only by oil and gas interests, but also by centrist politicians, corporate executives, and bankers, as well as by..."
12/n
"...journalists, scientists, economists, researchers in politics and energy— and sometimes even climate activists themselves—all of whom to some degree sincerely intend to advance climate solutions."
13/n
"This unified discourse of climate politics amplifies fossil-fuel disinformation and itself reproduces the ideologies that justify the power of the system’s biggest stakeholders."
14/n
"Climate communicators must work to expose and neuter the false assumptions of those ideologies and introduce new ways of talking about climate, energy, and the economy that can bring new practices, and new justifications for those practices into view."
15/n
(NB: I've framed my argument with an (obligatory) #DontLookUp lede, a nod to Dan Kahan's influence over #scicomm, and the essential research of @YaleClimateComm.)
16/n
I hope you find the argument helpful, or at least provocative, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts!
fin/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One of my least favorite forms of climate commentary is dunking on climate activists for being stupid and/or wrong about climate politics when the pundit, himself, is stupid and/or wrong about climate politics.
Take this @mattyglesias substack attacking Sunrise....
🧵
First of all, Yglesias accuses "the left" of believing that "there is a latent desire among the mass public...for sweeping climate-related change."
Seriously? Literally no-one believes that.
Did he not see Don't Look Up? Has he not read any climate comms scholarship?
2/n
One of the biggest challenges facing the world is the fact that the American electorate is only weakly committed to climate action, even as the number of people who are alarmed and concerned about the climate crisis continues to grow.
3/n
I would love to see proponents of using solar #Geoengineering, rather than complaining about cancel culture & calling for the protection of "science" from politics (I mean, lol), actually address the reasoned claims about geoengineering these scientists are making👇
First, they argue that "First, the risks of solar geoengineering are poorly understood and can never be fully known."
Is this not true?
2/x
Are proponents of using solar #Geoengineering claiming that the risks *can* be fully known, or that we should develop and deploy technologies to dim the sun without fully understanding the risks?
3/x
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.
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.