[✔️] May 16, 2021 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Sun May 16 11:28:39 EDT 2021
/*May 16, 2021*/
[DeSmog analysis of Exxon counter-attack and the word ""risk""]
*New Study Decodes ExxonMobil’s ‘Modern’ Climate Misinformation*
Where it’s no longer credible to deny climate change, the fossil fuel
giant puts the focus on ‘risk’ and blame on consumers, in echo of
tobacco industry PR, researchers find.
Sharon Kellyon - May 14, 2021...
- -
According to newly published research from Harvard science historian
Naomi Oreskes and Harvard research associate Geoffrey Supran, it’s a
simple four-letter word, one that carries overtones not only of danger,
but also — crucially — of uncertainty: risk.
Oreskes and Supran argue in the peer-reviewed study published in the
journal One Earth, that by repeating that word over and over as it
discusses climate change ExxonMobil continues to connect climate change
to uncertainty, even in its most carefully worded and most scrutinized
discussions of the topic.
That tiny word is one sign of a massive change underway in how fossil
fuel companies talk about climate change in places where it’s no longer
considered credible to contest climate science. Instead, Oreskes and
Supran write, ExxonMobil’s statements subtly shift responsibility for
climate change onto the shoulders of consumers, while avoiding the need
to describe in detail the risks that are posed by climate change.
And that, for the record, is a lot to gloss over — not just in terms of
what scientists predict about the future, but in terms of what climate
change has already played a role in bringing about. Last year, for
example, tied with 2016 as the “warmest” year on record, according to
NASA — 2020 brought a brutal drumbeat of climate-linked calamities,
including a record-obliterating wildfire season on the West Coast that
memorably turned skies orange and red and an extraordinarily intense
Atlantic hurricane season.
The way that ExxonMobil talks about climate change, the paper suggests,
lets the company thread a very specific rhetorical needle, communicating
two ideas that fundamentally benefit their interests. “On the one hand,
‘risk’ rhetoric is weak enough to allow the company to maintain a
position on climate science that is ambiguous, flexible, and
unalarming,” the researchers write. “On the other, it is strong
enough—and prominent enough, in [New York Times] advertorials and
elsewhere—that ExxonMobil may claim that the public has been well
informed about [anthropogenic global warming].”
And if that approach feels a little familiar, maybe that’s because it’s
very similar to the tactics used by another industry in the past: Big
Tobacco.
“Akin to early, tepidly worded warning labels on cigarette packages,
ExxonMobil’s advertorials in America’s newspaper of record help
establish this claim, sometimes explicitly: ‘Most people acknowledge
that human-induced climate change is a long-term risk,’ a 2001
advertorial states (emphases added),” the paper continues. “‘The risk of
climate change and its potential impacts on society and the ecosystem
are widely recognized,’ says another the following year.”
- -
“Our analysis is the first computational study illustrating how the
fossil fuel industry has encouraged and embodied AGW [anthropogenic
global warming] narratives fixated on individual responsibility,” the
paper says. The study used automated methods to analyze 180 ExxonMobil
documents, 32 previously published internal company documents, and 76
New York Times “advertorials” where the company took positions on
climate change. The authors believe that these methods of efficiently
reviewing a large number of company records could prove useful later in
litigation, where larger batches of documents may need review.
- -
ExxonMobil did not respond to a request for comment about their study
from DeSmog.
*‘Injecting Uncertainty’*
As it has become less credible to contest the legitimacy of climate
science, the paper notes, the company has shifted its rhetoric on
climate to focus on “risk.”
“In ExxonMobil Corp’s 2005 Corporate Citizenship Report, for instance,
which extensively questions whether AGW is human caused and serious, a
member of the public [is quoted asking]: ‘Why won’t ExxonMobil recognize
that climate change is real…?’,” Oreskes and Supran write. “The company
replies: ‘ExxonMobil recognizes the risk of climate change and its
potential impact’ (emphases added).”
That subtle shift lets ExxonMobil “inject uncertainty” into
conversations about climate change, the paper continues, “even while
superficially appearing not to.”
“We have also observed that, starting in the mid-2000s, ExxonMobil’s
statements of explicit doubt about climate science and its implications
(for example, that ‘there does not appear to be a consensus among
scientists about the effect of fossil fuel use on climate’) gave way to
implicit acknowledgments couched in ambiguous statements about climate
‘risk’ (such as discussion of lower-carbon fuels for ‘addressing the
risks posed by rising greenhouse gas emissions,’ without mention of
[anthropogenic global warming]),” the paper reports.
It’s also a way of talking that also lets ExxonMobil leave out any
description of what, exactly, is being put at risk, the paper notes.
The company’s public messaging pits clear-cut descriptions of the
benefits of using fossil fuels against the risks of climate change — but
while it offers examples of the ways people find fossil fuels useful,
ExxonMobil is a lot more vague about what, exactly, the risks associated
with climate change are, the paper argues...
- -
That’s not for a lack of available scientific data. “Today, we are at
1.2 degrees of warming and already witnessing unprecedented climate
extremes and volatility in every region and on every continent,” U.N.
Secretary General António Guterres said in a December 2020 address. “The
science is crystal clear: to limit temperature rise to 1.5-degrees
Celsius above pre-industrial levels, the world needs to decrease fossil
fuel production by roughly 6 per cent every year between now and 2030.”
The biggest remaining questions about climate change don’t concern the
ways that our lives will be increasingly disrupted by extreme weather,
wildfires, rising seas and the like. There’s a strong body of scientific
evidence that lets scientists make good predictions about what happens
when we collectively burn fossil fuels at different rates. And a
peer-reviewed study published last year in the journal Geophysical
Research found that climate models dating back to the 1970s through 2007
have proved remarkably accurate
The biggest open questions are about policy and products, not about what
the science shows.
The real source of uncertainty, in other words, is how long we will
continue doing the things that cause climate change.
*‘Modern’ Propaganda*
Polling shows that Americans’ understandings of climate science have
shifted dramatically in recent years. In 2014, NBC News recently
reported, less than half of Americans polled believed that climate
change was caused by human activity. Polls from 2020, however, show that
now 57 percent of Americans cite human activity as causing climate
change, a jump of roughly ten percent.
But there may still be times and places where not only is discussion of
risk familiar and habitually framed in terms of risk management, but
also where ExxonMobil’s framing might find a particularly receptive
audience.
Asked by DeSmog, Supran said that investors may be particularly
vulnerable to what he called ExxonMobil’s “fossil fuel savior” framing.
“Within this frame, the company is an innocent supplier, simply giving
consumers what they demand. That is, ExxonMobil are the good guys who we
should trust to address the climate risks that we, the public, brought
upon ourselves,” he said. “It’s also worth noting that these modern
forms of propaganda are increasingly subtle and insidious, and so being
exposed to them ad nauseam, as shareholders are, could make them more
vulnerable to this ‘discursive grooming’.”
Going forward, the new paper predicts that companies like ExxonMobil may
continue to rely on the strategies developed by the tobacco industry.
“In their public relations messaging, industry asserts smokers’ rights
as individuals who are at liberty to smoke,” the paper says. “In the
context of litigation, industry asserts that those who choose to smoke
are solely to blame for their injuries.”
“ExxonMobil’s framing is reminiscent of the tobacco industry’s effort
‘to diminish its own responsibility (and culpability) by casting itself
as a kind of neutral innocent, buffeted by the forces of consumer
demand,’” it continues. “It is widely recognized that the tobacco
industry used, and continues to use, narrative frames of personal
responsibility—often marketed as ‘freedom of choice’—to combat public
criticism, influence policy debates, and defend against litigation and
regulation.”
https://www.desmog.com/2021/05/14/study-decodes-exxonmobil-modern-climate-misinformation/
[API = American Petroleum Institute]
*The API Was Pushing Climate Denial Way Earlier Than Anyone Thought*
Drilled
Social Sciences
Audio podcast
https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/api-was-pushing-climate-denial-way-earlier-than-anyone/id1439735906?i=1000511727404
- -
[Early disinformation paper]
*Early oil industry disinformation on global warming*
Benjamin Franta
Benjamin Franta (2021): Early oil industry disinformation on global
warming,
Environmental Politics, DOI: 10.1080/09644016.2020.1863703
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2020.1863703
*ABSTRACT*
Determining the onset of organized disinformation about global
warming is
critical for understanding its political history and evaluating the
responsibilities
of fossil fuel producers and other relevant parties today. A newly
discovered
archival document shows the American Petroleum Institute was
promulgating
false and misleading information about climate change in 1980,
nearly a decade
earlier than previously known, in order to promote public policies
favorable to the
fossil fuel industry. This finding demonstrates early use of
public-facing disinformation about global warming by the petroleum
industry and suggests commercial fossil fuel interests played a more
obstructive role in climate change discourse
and policy throughout the 1980s than previously understood.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09644016.2020.1863703
[Hollywood fire thriller - Angelina Jolie smokejumper/firefighter]
*Review of “Those Who Wish Me Dead”*
Bill Gabbert - May 14, 2021
A movie that features a smokejumper, “Those Who Wish Me Dead”, premiered
today on HBO Max.
[trailer https://youtu.be/sV6VNNjBkcE ]
We asked Smokejumper Bro who appears frequently in the Wildfire Today
comments sections if he would write a review of the movie. It is below.
After that are a few comments from Bill about the movie.
“Those Who Wish Me Dead” is a film about Hannah (Angelina Jolie), a
smokejumper trying to piece her life back together after tragedy
strikes on a fire the year before. She is floundering through life
until a family who knew too much is on the run from hitmen. Their
paths cross on the Bitterroot National Forest in Montana, and as one
family’s life is being ripped apart, Hannah finds a new purpose and
a reason to start living again.
This movie is a great addition to the wildfire cannon that has been
produced in Hollywood recently. It feels more like a big-budget
thriller with A-list actors than a streaming steamer. Of course, the
fire behavior is a little dramatic, the goggles are comical, and
maybe the HALO Smokejumping operations are a bit much, but when a
smokejumper faceplants on landing, it brought it back home for me.
Overall, it doesn’t take too large of a leap to make the movie feel
realistic, even for firefighters.
Angelina Jolie gives a great performance, and she really fits the
smokejumper role. She’s kind of crazy and wild, yet professional and
dialed-in when needed. When it really matters, people are lucky to
have her around.
Jon Bernthal (Walking Dead) is excellent as a local sheriff’s deputy
and Aidan Gillen (Game of Thrones) is perfect in his role as the
not-entirely-emotionless assassin.
What really sets this film apart from other wildland firefighter
films is Hannah’s story. She’s suffering a mental health crisis from
PTSD developed on the job. Without treatment, she pursues dangerous,
risky behavior that is all too common amongst our colleagues.
Death-defying stunts and alcoholism, coupled with the US Forest
Service ignoring and isolating her during her crisis really makes
this movie the most realistic, and even brought me to shed a few
tears in my early morning viewing. It may not have been intentional,
but the movie is more about mental health than anything else, and
the need to address it.
I’d say it’s my favorite fictional wildfire film. Definitely worth
putting the phone down and watching the film.
Smokejumper Bro Rating **** 4/5
(end of review)
Excellent review by Smokejumper Bro!
Firefighters, of course, will be able to nitpick about things like fire
behavior and the use of breathing apparatus, and they might laugh at a
lighthearted moment about MREs.
I agree with Bro — Ms. Jolie is a very good actor and pulled it off. I
could almost visualize her as a smokejumper. Almost.
The credits included the fact that it was filmed in New Mexico, the same
state where much of “Only the Brave” was made.
It is very difficult for movie makers to make wildfire flames look
realistic, and that is apparently one of the reasons why they had about
40 Visual Effects Artists assigned to the project.
The film is entertaining and worth seeing.
https://wildfiretoday.com/2021/05/14/review-of-those-who-wish-me-dead/
- -
[see the trailer]
*THOSE WHO WISH ME DEAD – Official Trailer*
https://youtu.be/sV6VNNjBkcE
[important book, in the information war]
*Author: How Financial Interests Influence News Making Decisions*
May 14, 2021
The Hill
Author, Ashely Rindsberg, discusses his book "The Gray Lady Winked: How
the New York Times's Misreporting, Distortions and Fabrications
Radically Alter History."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0UMrlq0hT0
- -
[buy the book]
*The Gray Lady Winked: How the New York Times's Misreporting,
Distortions and Fabrications Radically Alter History*
https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/B0922WP4VQ
- -
[interesting tactic]
*Exxon Blames You for Climate Change*
https://earther.gizmodo.com/exxon-blames-you-for-climate-change-1846882224
[Florida man]
*Florida Man Tries to Hold Back the Sea*
Molly Taft -Thursday
Here’s something you don’t hear every day: there’s good news out of
Florida. Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed bills on Wednesday that
make serious efforts to address the impacts of sea level rise in the
state. But don’t take that as a sign that Trump-lite DeSantis is now
some sort of right-wing climate savior. Rather, this is the latest in
his high-wire act to fix some of Florida’s climate problems without
doing anything about their causes.
The pair of bills establishes an annual fund worth tens of millions of
dollars to help local communities living with sea level rise, guidelines
for regular flood risk assessments and resilience plans, and forms local
“resilience coalitions” to help communities prepare. “We’re really
putting our money where our mouth is when it comes to protecting the
state of Florida and particularly our coastal communities from the risks
of flooding and storms,” DeSantis said at the signing.
Most of DeSantis’s political views are pretty guessable from anyone with
an offhand knowledge of the types of stuff Fox News commenters like to
regularly froth themselves into a rage about. In recent weeks, DeSantis
has offered cash to cops and trumpeted that he wants to “fund the
police” (OK?), announced the state would ban vaccine passports (weird),
thrown a fit because a coronavirus panel he hosted that was full of
scientific misinformation was taken off of YouTube (lol), and said he
would sign a bill banning trans girls from playing women’s sports in the
state (fuck you, dude).
But in a deviation from the normal pablum that passes for Republican
policymaking these days, DeSantis’s environmental and climate record has
some bright spots. In one of his first moves after taking office,
DeSantis signed a sweeping executive order that, among other things,
directed the state to “adamantly oppose” offshore drilling and fracking
and appointed a chief science officer “to help prepare Florida’s coastal
communities and habitats for impacts from sea level rise.” From the guy
who once featured his infant son in a campaign ad teaching him how to
“build a wall” out of blocks and put the kid in a “Make America Great
Again” onesie, it was a stark departure from the Trumpian blueprint of
climate denial. This unexpected move as well as other motions to protect
the Everglades also got DeSantis accolades about being “bold on climate
change” early in his tenure.
The most recent bill is a striking illustration of the type of tightrope
DeSantis is seeking to walk that may provide a blueprint for other
Trumpy Republicans wondering how in the world they can address climate
change without being called antifa by the MyPillow guy making an
appearance on Newsmax or whatever. DeSantis told reporters during his
campaign that he’s “not in the pews of the church of the global warming
leftists.”
But as he prepares to campaign for reelection next year—and possibly
eyes a 2024 presidential run—he seems to understand that he needs to
find some way of talking about the increasingly clear threat that
climate change poses. This recent set of bills talks a big talk on
mitigating the impacts of sea level rise—but does nothing to explore the
causes of why that sea level rise is happening, make any sort of goals
for lowering statewide emissions, or encourage the development of
renewable energy.
“I think the irony of the proposal was that he listed all the impacts of
climate change but never actually said ‘climate change,’” state Rep.
Anna Eskamani told the Sierra Club Magazine in February. (It’s true in
the final bills, too: The phrase “climate change” doesn’t appear once in
either bill.) “And so we’re going to continue to spend money on
resiliency over the years where we could also be making investments in
taking the state off fossil fuels and actually tackling the climate
change crisis in front of us.”
Ultimately, what may be pushing DeSantis “left” on climate change is the
simple fact that sea level rise is hitting Florida, well, now. A report
published last year found Miami “faces the largest risk of any major
coastal city in the world.” When one of your major cities is projected
to be one-fifth underwater by 2045 (Miami, it was nice to know you),
it’s ignorant to not address that elephant in the room.
As more and more Republican politicians try to figure out how to seem
concerned about climate change, DeSantis is showing one way to do it:
Talk big on cleaning up the mess, but stay quiet about what caused it in
the first place.
Molly Taft
Writing about climate change, renewable energy, and Big Oil/Big Gas/Big
Everything for Earther. Formerly of the Center for Public Integrity &
Nexus Media News. I'm very tall & have a very short dog.
https://earther.gizmodo.com/florida-man-tries-to-hold-back-the-sea-1846889174
[Splash rescue message from Double Down News]
*Mental Health & Why It's Good To Talk | DMC from Run DMC on*
May 10, 2021
Double Down News
Mental Health problems affect everyone, even the mighty King of Rock.
This is why it's good to talk...
#MentalHealthAwarenessWeek #ItsOkayToNotBeOkay
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEgUdObiWZQ
[positive view of change]
*What 2050 could look like if we don’t do anything about climate change:
Hot, a constant cough, regular mask-wearing*
May 14 2021
Catherine Clifford
It’s 2050.
A climate change worst case scenario has come to pass.
The air is polluted, making you cough. You have to check the air quality
before even opening a window. When you do go outside, your eyes water
and you have to wear a mask — on bad days, a high tech mask, that is if
you can afford it.
Depending where you live, the temperature can be as hot as 140 degrees
Fahrenheit for more than a month each year. In public restrooms, you
have to pay to use water.
- -
“If we can decarbonize our economy rapidly ... down to near zero by
mid-century, we can ... maintain a livable planet and a vibrant economy
at the same time,” says Mann.
In that future, write Figueres and Rivett-Carnac, city streets will have
more trees and fewer cars and Americans can travel via high-speed
electric railroads.
Instead of fossil fuels, countries will rely on things like renewable
energy (wind, solar, geothermal and hydro), according to the book, while
artificial intelligence in machines and appliances will make them more
energy efficient.
The air will be “cleaner than it has been since before the Industrial
Revolution,” the co-authors write.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/14/what-2050-could-look-like-if-we-dont-do-anything-about-climate-change.html
- -
[here's the book]
*The Future We Choose*
THE STUBBORN OPTIMIST'S GUIDE TO THE CLIMATE CRISIS
By CHRISTIANA FIGUERES and TOM RIVETT-CARNAC
Paperback $16.00
Apr 06, 2021 | ISBN 9780593080931
ABOUT THE FUTURE WE CHOOSE
In The Future We Choose, Christiana Figueres and Tom Rivett-Carnac—who
led negotiations for the United Nations during the historic Paris
Agreement of 2015—have written a cautionary but optimistic book about
the world’s changing climate and the fate of humanity.
The authors outline two possible scenarios for our planet. In one, they
describe what life on Earth will be like by 2050 if we fail to meet the
Paris Agreement’s climate targets. In the other, they lay out what it
will be like to live in a regenerative world that has net-zero
emissions. They argue for confronting the climate crisis head-on, with
determination and optimism. The Future We Choose presents our options
and tells us what governments, corporations, and each of us can, and
must, do to fend off disaster...
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/623543/the-future-we-choose-by-christiana-figueres-and-tom-rivett-carnac/
[Digging back into the internet news archive]
*On this day in the history of global warming May 16, 2004 *
May 16, 2004: In the Washington Post, Koch acolyte Patrick Michaels
launches a preemptive strike against the upcoming film "The Day After
Tomorrow."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28338-2004May14.html
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
/Archive of Daily Global Warming News
<https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html>
/
https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote
/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe
<mailto:subscribe at theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request>
to news digest./
- Privacy and Security:*This mailing is text-only. It does not carry
images or attachments which may originate from remote servers. A
text-only message can provide greater privacy to the receiver and sender.
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used for democratic
and election purposes and cannot be used for commercial purposes.
Messages have no tracking software.
To subscribe, email: contact at theclimate.vote
<mailto:contact at theclimate.vote> with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe,
subject: unsubscribe
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for
http://TheClimate.Vote <http://TheClimate.Vote/> delivering succinct
information for citizens and responsible governments of all levels. List
membership is confidential and records are scrupulously restricted to
this mailing list.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/attachments/20210516/b235b827/attachment.htm>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list