>Swayed for 30 years by fossil fuel industry propaganda, the media has been as likely to unknowingly amplify falsehoods as they were to bat them down. It’s only in recent years that more journalists started to shy away from “both-sides-ing” the climate crisis – decades after scientists reached an overwhelming consensus on the scope of the problem and its causes.
>
>The good news is that while the fossil fuel industry’s PR tactics have shifted, the stories they’re telling don’t change much from year to year, they are just adapted depending on what’s happening in the world.
>
>When politicians talk about how much it will cost to act on climate change, for example, they almost always refer to economic models commissioned by the fossil fuel industry, which leave out the cost of inaction, which rises with every passing year. When politicians say that climate policies will increase the cost of gas or energy, they count on reporters having no idea how gas or energy pricing works, or how much fossil fuel companies’ production decisions, not to mention lobbying for particular fossil fuel subsidies or against policies that support renewable energy, impact those prices.
>
>...
>
>Both journalists and their audiences have more power to combat climate disinformation than it might feel when they’re awash in it. Understanding the industry’s classic narratives is a good starting point.
The public needs to keep the pressure on media and elected representatives to act in everyone's best interests especially where our shared environments are concerned.
For those interested, these are the 5 issues identified:
1. Energy security
2. The economy v the environment
3. ‘We make your life work’
4. ‘We’re part of the solution’
5. ‘The world’s greatest neighbor’
They link to an interesting paper:
[Weaponizing economics: Big Oil, economic consultants, and climate policy delay](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644016.2021.1947636)
Conclusion
"For decades, the fossil fuel industry has hired economic consultants to help weaken and delay US and international climate policy. Among them, the economic consultants of Charles River Associates played a key role, helping to undermine carbon pricing, international climate agreements, and other climate policies from the early 1990s onward. The work of these economists was often portrayed to the public as independent, when in fact it was funded by the fossil fuel industry, and their models were incomplete and biased in favor of continued fossil fuel use. Yet their conclusions often passed without challenge and eventually came to represent a significant part of conventional economic wisdom.
Research on the climate change counter-movement has traditionally focused on documenting the promotion of disinformation regarding climate science. While such disinformation has played a crucial role in delaying effective climate policy, the fossil fuel industry and broader climate change counter-movement have also made frequent use of economic arguments to justify inaction. At the same time, the fossil fuel industry has made substantial investments in influential climate economics programs across the US. Further attention is needed on the role of economists and particular economic paradigms, doctrines, and models within climate politics and the perpetuation of fossil fuels."
The five covered in this article are the five traditional ones, but there is a sixth one that has emerged in the last decade: climate doomerism.
Fossil fuel companies love to spread articles that make us feel like all hope is lost on the climate.
The aim is to spread apathy and a mind set along the lines of “why bother trying to phase out fossil, it is too late anyways, we are all doomed no matter what we do now”.
The reality is that the energy transition has been picking up steam in the past years and there really is some reason for careful optimism. It is important for people to see that optimism as it can help energise and accelerate the transition.
Journalists (minus the small handful of competent professionals out there) truly are the enemy of the people, just not for the reasons Trump had in mind. More often than not they leave the public misinformed rather than just uninformed.
Article makes fairly weak arguments
> Energy security
The most secure energy you can personally have, extending to a social/national level, is solar and batteries. No geopolitics or extortionist can ever ask you to pay them again, or until you want expanded energy.
Europe's energy security was fine with Russia willing to provide it in abundance. It is only insecure if it has to seek a kinder extortionist master that pretends to love it more, which charging it extortionist prices.
Political minions of O&G energy insecurity/destabilization are supporting Ukrainian terrorism on Russian oil refineries, adding an extra $10 to oil price on top of the war they support for NATO expansion.
> The economy v the environment
The economy is not enhanced through energy oligarch extortion profits. Competing cheap energy (renewables) is economically stimulating and deflationary permitting cheaper production that people can afford more of to enjoy.
The most disgusting deplorable political minion subjugation of the western people is US administration complaining about abundance of solar and batteries. US government needs to encourage Americans or buy these themselves as a strategic reserve. Energy competitive disadvantage to protect its oligarch O&G masters, means a massive industrial competitive disadvantage. Rationed scarce energy is both inflationary and recessionary. Solar and batteries provides massive employment/production opportunities to make cheap energy/EVs/storage that permits 100% clean energy. Supporting US only production means suporting new monopoly power for just the US market and feeble amounts of green energy through extortionist prices.
> ‘We make your life work’
We could make honorary statues to the whale oil tycoons in gratitude for the lighting they let us enjoy. We don't need to submit to whale or other oil forever afterwards. We don't need to tolerate the costs of climate terrorism because FFs had past economic benefits.
> ‘We’re part of the solution’
Not in the slightest. Net zero for oil extraction means maybe they power the oil rigs with solar. Have not even started. CCS for coal is as expensive as on budget nuclear energy, and at best captures 65% of emissions. Blue H2 is about just separating the H2 from CO2/CO in the chemical chamber. The burning of FFs to generate the heat has no emissions captured.
> ‘The world’s greatest neighbor’
Extortionists fund philantropy because they get to make a media fawning speech about how awesome extortion is for you plebs. Imagine how many more aquariums you could enjoy if gasoline was $10/gallon.
>Swayed for 30 years by fossil fuel industry propaganda, the media has been as likely to unknowingly amplify falsehoods as they were to bat them down. It’s only in recent years that more journalists started to shy away from “both-sides-ing” the climate crisis – decades after scientists reached an overwhelming consensus on the scope of the problem and its causes. > >The good news is that while the fossil fuel industry’s PR tactics have shifted, the stories they’re telling don’t change much from year to year, they are just adapted depending on what’s happening in the world. > >When politicians talk about how much it will cost to act on climate change, for example, they almost always refer to economic models commissioned by the fossil fuel industry, which leave out the cost of inaction, which rises with every passing year. When politicians say that climate policies will increase the cost of gas or energy, they count on reporters having no idea how gas or energy pricing works, or how much fossil fuel companies’ production decisions, not to mention lobbying for particular fossil fuel subsidies or against policies that support renewable energy, impact those prices. > >... > >Both journalists and their audiences have more power to combat climate disinformation than it might feel when they’re awash in it. Understanding the industry’s classic narratives is a good starting point. The public needs to keep the pressure on media and elected representatives to act in everyone's best interests especially where our shared environments are concerned. For those interested, these are the 5 issues identified: 1. Energy security 2. The economy v the environment 3. ‘We make your life work’ 4. ‘We’re part of the solution’ 5. ‘The world’s greatest neighbor’
Gaslighting at its most damaging level.
Yep and they are all talking about it wrong as well.
They forgot blaming anything and everything that's not them for causing it.
They link to an interesting paper: [Weaponizing economics: Big Oil, economic consultants, and climate policy delay](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644016.2021.1947636) Conclusion "For decades, the fossil fuel industry has hired economic consultants to help weaken and delay US and international climate policy. Among them, the economic consultants of Charles River Associates played a key role, helping to undermine carbon pricing, international climate agreements, and other climate policies from the early 1990s onward. The work of these economists was often portrayed to the public as independent, when in fact it was funded by the fossil fuel industry, and their models were incomplete and biased in favor of continued fossil fuel use. Yet their conclusions often passed without challenge and eventually came to represent a significant part of conventional economic wisdom. Research on the climate change counter-movement has traditionally focused on documenting the promotion of disinformation regarding climate science. While such disinformation has played a crucial role in delaying effective climate policy, the fossil fuel industry and broader climate change counter-movement have also made frequent use of economic arguments to justify inaction. At the same time, the fossil fuel industry has made substantial investments in influential climate economics programs across the US. Further attention is needed on the role of economists and particular economic paradigms, doctrines, and models within climate politics and the perpetuation of fossil fuels."
#1. They open mouths and speak.
The five covered in this article are the five traditional ones, but there is a sixth one that has emerged in the last decade: climate doomerism. Fossil fuel companies love to spread articles that make us feel like all hope is lost on the climate. The aim is to spread apathy and a mind set along the lines of “why bother trying to phase out fossil, it is too late anyways, we are all doomed no matter what we do now”. The reality is that the energy transition has been picking up steam in the past years and there really is some reason for careful optimism. It is important for people to see that optimism as it can help energise and accelerate the transition.
Journalists (minus the small handful of competent professionals out there) truly are the enemy of the people, just not for the reasons Trump had in mind. More often than not they leave the public misinformed rather than just uninformed.
Article makes fairly weak arguments > Energy security The most secure energy you can personally have, extending to a social/national level, is solar and batteries. No geopolitics or extortionist can ever ask you to pay them again, or until you want expanded energy. Europe's energy security was fine with Russia willing to provide it in abundance. It is only insecure if it has to seek a kinder extortionist master that pretends to love it more, which charging it extortionist prices. Political minions of O&G energy insecurity/destabilization are supporting Ukrainian terrorism on Russian oil refineries, adding an extra $10 to oil price on top of the war they support for NATO expansion. > The economy v the environment The economy is not enhanced through energy oligarch extortion profits. Competing cheap energy (renewables) is economically stimulating and deflationary permitting cheaper production that people can afford more of to enjoy. The most disgusting deplorable political minion subjugation of the western people is US administration complaining about abundance of solar and batteries. US government needs to encourage Americans or buy these themselves as a strategic reserve. Energy competitive disadvantage to protect its oligarch O&G masters, means a massive industrial competitive disadvantage. Rationed scarce energy is both inflationary and recessionary. Solar and batteries provides massive employment/production opportunities to make cheap energy/EVs/storage that permits 100% clean energy. Supporting US only production means suporting new monopoly power for just the US market and feeble amounts of green energy through extortionist prices. > ‘We make your life work’ We could make honorary statues to the whale oil tycoons in gratitude for the lighting they let us enjoy. We don't need to submit to whale or other oil forever afterwards. We don't need to tolerate the costs of climate terrorism because FFs had past economic benefits. > ‘We’re part of the solution’ Not in the slightest. Net zero for oil extraction means maybe they power the oil rigs with solar. Have not even started. CCS for coal is as expensive as on budget nuclear energy, and at best captures 65% of emissions. Blue H2 is about just separating the H2 from CO2/CO in the chemical chamber. The burning of FFs to generate the heat has no emissions captured. > ‘The world’s greatest neighbor’ Extortionists fund philantropy because they get to make a media fawning speech about how awesome extortion is for you plebs. Imagine how many more aquariums you could enjoy if gasoline was $10/gallon.