02/07/2021

(Al Jazeera) The Climate Crisis Is A Crime Story

Al JazeeraMark Hertsgaard

Fossil fuel companies lied for decades about climate change, and humanity is paying the price. Shouldn’t those lies be central to the public narrative?

 
Author
Every person on Earth today is living in a crime scene.

This crime has been going on for decades.

We see its effects in the horrific heat and wildfires unfolding this summer in the American West; in the megastorms that were so numerous in 2020 that scientists ran out of names for them; in the global projections that sea levels are set to rise by at least 20 feet (6 metres).

Our only hope is to slow this inexorable ascent so our children may figure out some way to cope.

This crime has displaced or killed untold numbers of people around the world, caused billions of dollars in economic damage and ravaged vital ecosystems and wildlife.

It has disproportionately affected already marginalised communities around the world, from farmers in coastal Bangladesh, where the fast-rising seas are salting the soil and slashing rice yields, to low-income residents of Houston, Chicago and other cities, whose neighbourhoods suffer higher temperatures than prosperous areas across town.

 This crime threatens today’s young people most of all and calls into question the very survival of the human civilisation. And yet, the criminals responsible for this devastation are still at large. Indeed, they continue to perpetrate their crime, and even make money from it, not least because their crime remains unknown to most of the public.

This is enough to make your blood boil, especially if you are a parent. My daughter just turned 16, and I have been thinking about the safest place she can spend her adult life since she was a baby and I first started writing about adapting to climate change. The orange skies blanketing her hometown of San Francisco after last summer’s record wildfires were a heartbreaking, infuriating sign that California will not be that safe haven.

A pump jack operates in front of a drilling rig owned by Exxon near Carlsbad, New Mexico on February 11, 2019 [File: Reuters/Nick Oxford]

The crime in question is the fossil fuel industry’s 40 years of lying about climate change. Arguably the most consequential corporate deception in history, the industry’s lies have had the effect of blunting public awareness and governmental action against what scientists say is now a full-fledged climate emergency.

As a candidate in the 2020 US presidential elections, Joe Biden said he would support efforts to prosecute the oil giants for their lies. It remains to be seen whether he will keep that promise.

Journalists have dedicated years to documenting the crime scene evidence. In 2015, an investigation by the Columbia Journalism School and the Los Angeles Times blew the case open by tracing the crime link to ExxonMobil, then the world’s largest oil company.

Internal records showed that by the late 1970s, Exxon’s own scientists were briefing its top executives that man-made global warming was real, potentially catastrophic, and caused mainly by burning fossil fuels. Climate activists seized on the revelations, launching the hashtag #ExxonKnew.

Further investigations found that Chevron, Shell, and other oil giants likewise knew that their products threatened to render the earth’s climate uninhabitable. In short, it was not just Exxon that knew. They all knew.

And they all chose to lie about it.

Beginning in the 1990s, oil companies spent millions upon millions of dollars on public relations campaigns to confuse the press, the public, and policymakers about the dangers posed by burning fossil fuels.

Their aim was “to reposition global warming as theory, not fact”, one planning document stated. Front groups and friendly politicians spread the companies’ lies.

News outlets, especially in the United States, swallowed and regurgitated those lies to an unsuspecting public.

Humanity ultimately wasted precious decades arguing about whether global warming was real rather than defusing the threat. Instead of launching a transition to renewable energy, the consumption of fossil fuels increased.

More than half of the total greenhouse gases now overheating the planet were emitted after 1990 – after Exxon and other fossil fuel giants privately knew what havoc they were seeding.

Exxon “could have ended the pretend debate over climate change as early as the 1980s”, author and activist Bill McKibben later wrote. “When scientists like NASA’s Jim Hansen first raised public awareness of climate change [in 1988], think of what would have happened if Exxon’s chief executive had gone to Congress, too, and said that their internal scientific efforts show[ed] precisely the same thing.”

Firefighting vessels attempt to extinguish the blaze aboard the supertanker Mega Borg in the Gulf of Mexico in June 1990, near Galveston, Tex. The vessel, which carried more than three times as much oil as the Exxon Valdez, burned uncontrollably for two days. (Paul S. Howell / Liaison)

While pockets of the American public may already know about big oil’s crime, the vast majority of its victims almost certainly do not. How could they?

Big Oil’s record of lying never became part of the public narrative about climate change, largely because most news outlets did not incorporate it into their continuing coverage of climate change.

The initial “Exxon knew” revelations in 2015 received relatively little follow-up coverage beyond the outlets that published them. Television, which even in the internet era remains the primary source of news for most people, ignored the revelations entirely. There were a few stories in the business press and independent media, especially years later when New York state and other local governments began suing oil companies for damages. But the media as a whole seems to have forgotten that Big Oil’s climate lies ever happened.

It is long past time to right these wrongs. To date, the oil companies, the executives in charge of them, the propagandists they have employed and the politicians they have funded have largely escaped blame, much less had to pay – whether through financial penalties or prison time – for the immense damage they have done.

News outlets also owe the public an apology for mishandling this story, along with a commitment to doing much sharper coverage in the future.

Humanity cannot get back the 40 years lost to Big Oil’s climate lies. It is now beyond urgent that rich and poor countries alike quit fossil fuels in favour of renewable energy and other climate-smart practices.

Equally crucial is that we fortify our communities against the fearsome climate impacts that, because of our decades of delay, can no longer be avoided.

All this will cost money – lots of it. The world’s governments will be arguing from now through the make-or-break UN climate summit in November about who pays how much.

Restoring Big Oil’s lies to their rightful place at the heart of the climate story would offer an answer to that riddle, one that Biden should be pressed on: Big Oil knew – shouldn’t Big Oil pay?

Links

Greening Australia And WWF-Australia Announce New Climate-Ready Restoration Partnership In Response To Increasing Natural Disasters

 Business Insider - PR Newswire



Key Points

The Climate-ready Restoration partnership between Greening Australia and the World Wide Fund for Nature takes a science-led approach to developing large-scale, practical action to help nature adapt to a changing climate.

Climate-ready Restoration solutions include (but are not limited to):

  • Practical, nature-based solutions such as 'climate-ready seed'
  • Planting designs that measurably reduce climate-induced risk for plants, animals and people
  • Exploring new technologies, partnerships and funding models to deliver restoration at the scales required to build nature's resilience in a changing climate
SYDNEY -- Two of the country's leading environmental organisations, Greening Australia and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)–Australia, today announced a strategic partnership galvanised during the 2019-20 Australian bushfire season, with the primary goal to mainstream innovative, nature-based and scalable solutions that will build nature's resilience in a changing climate.

The partnership will experimentally test, validate and scale practical climate-ready restoration approaches nationally, designed by eminent scientists across Australia.

In an example of just one of the series of innovative projects within the partnership, Greening Australia and WWF-Australia will employ eco-evolutionary approaches to identify 'super seed' that has enhanced climatic and fire-tolerant traits to replant trees in bushfire-affected areas. 

Climate-ready restoration activity will be experimental in nature, informed by existing scientific and Indigenous ecological knowledge, and delivered using scientific methodology that sets and tests hypotheses through data collection, modelling and on-ground experimentation.

Importantly, these science-led projects will be tested for their feasibility and ability to mainstream on-ground delivery across the restoration sector.

The two organisations have committed a total of $20 million in initial climate-ready restoration projects and are calling for an additional $30 million in funding from the Australian public and private sectors to enable delivery of the total proposed program of work. 

Brendan Foran, CEO, Greening Australia said, "We are now living with recurring natural disasters across Australia that are affecting people and nature in ways and at scales that we have not previously witnessed – including the devastating bushfires of 2019-2020.

"Our partnership for Climate-ready Restoration is designed to improve the long-term resilience of the Australian environment in the face of climate change. It is focused on biodiversity and ecosystem restoration, with an emphasis on supporting communities and strengthening the economy.

"To help us prepare for and adjust to both the current effects of climate change and the predicted future impacts, we urgently need to mainstream new, practical, nature-based solutions. This is the driving mission of our partnership."

After the NSW south coast bushfires

Dermot O'Gorman, CEO, WWF-Australia said, "This program is not business as usual. We are already witnessing the impacts of a changing climate and need to urgently think and act differently.

Science and innovation that translates into on-ground delivery are at the heart of our climate-ready approach. Many of the projects that will be funded by this program will trial innovative technology or science-led approaches that aim to accelerate delivery, amplify data collection and fast-track outcomes."

"This partnership is an example of how the environmental sector can lead collaboration between other strategic partners, universities, business, government and the community and find new ways to work together to ensure the Australian environment is climate-ready and our flora, fauna and communities are resilient to the changing climate," O'Gorman continued.

Adrian Turner, CEO Fire and Flood Resilience initiative, Minderoo Foundation and one of the first partners to come onboard said, "We are pleased to be part of this program, to pilot new ways to regenerate landscapes in Australia's most vulnerable regions so that they can be more resilient against fires.

"It is essential that we work together across sectors to optimise our environments so that we can reduce the devastating impact of these climate induced extreme weather events in the future.

"The Climate-ready Restoration program is directly aligned with the Healthy Landscapes Mission, which is part of a national blueprint to reduce the harm caused by fires and floods and lift resilience by 2025."



Links

(AU ABC) These Electorates Have The Highest Climate Risk. So Why Are They Less Likely To Demand More Action?

ABC Science | James Purtill | Matt Martino

Sea-level rise will be one of the main drivers of climate risk in Australia after 2050, experts say — but that doesn't necessarily mean people want the government to take action on it. (Fairfax Media: Peter Rae)

Australia Talks

Australia Talks is a research-based initiative developed by the ABC, in collaboration with social and data scientists from Vox Pop Labs.

The University of Melbourne is the Australian academic partner on the project. An advisory panel of academics from other Australian universities has also helped shape the initiative.

The 2021 Australia Talks National Survey asked more than 60,000 Australians from across every state and territory and every federal electorate about their attitudes, behaviours and experiences.
Australians in electorates that are generally more exposed to the impacts of climate change are less likely to demand more action, according to a comparison of survey results and climate risk data.

The Australia Talks National Survey 2021 asked a cross-section of Australians: "How much should the federal government do to tackle climate change?"

The answers ranged from "more" to "less" to "about the same", but when these results were cross-referenced with the estimated climate risk in each electorate, the results were surprising.

People in electorates threatened by the impacts of climate change — such as those in Queensland's Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast — were less likely to say climate change is a threat, or demand government action.

So why is that the case?

Understanding the estimated climate risk

Climate risk data is used to estimate the future impact of climate change on property and infrastructure.

The data we compared with the Australia Talks National Survey 2021 results has been calculated by the firm Climate Risk, whose work is widely used by banks and other organisations that rely on accurate predictions of threats.

Karl Mallon, director of science and systems at Climate Risk, said the calculations "combine engineering data about buildings with weather data, climate change data, data about forests, soils, elevation, and height above sea level".

"And that all goes into like a washing machine of computer code," he said, and the computer spits out a raw figure: the climate risk.

This climate risk figure (on the x- axis) isn't a monetary value, but simply quantifies the combined risk to all properties in the designated area as a result of the predicted impacts of climate change.

Electorates above the graph's dotted horizontal line are more likely to say the government should do "about the same" or "less" to tackle climate change, while those electorates to the right of the dotted vertical line have a higher climate risk than most.

You might expect electorates with a high climate risk to want more action on climate policy, but that's not always the case.

Look at the upper-right quadrant: about a dozen electorates (mostly in Queensland) have both a higher climate risk than others, and a lower appetite for climate action.

This is a national trend. The diagonal line running through the centre shows the relationship between risk and attitude for all electorates.

It angles up, which points to something counter-intuitive: Australian electorates generally tend to be less likely to demand more action, as the climate risk within their electorate increases. 

City-country divide in climate attitudes

To understand why this is the case, we asked John Henstridge, chief statistician at Data Analysis Australia and former president of the Statistical Society of Australia, for his opinion on the data.

Dr Henstridge confirmed the relationship shown in the trend line appeared to be "statistically significant".

But not wanting more government action doesn't necessarily mean a person is sceptical about climate change; they may simply doubt the government's ability to mitigate the threat.

However, a second question asked by the Australia Talks National Survey 2021 shows a clear city-country divide in whether people see climate changes as a threat.

Floods in Queensland's Western Downs in early 2020. (Supplied: Queensland Fire and Emergency)

Australians in rural areas are generally more exposed to the impacts of climate change, including extreme weather events and more frequent and severe natural disasters.

Yet according to the Australia Talks National Survey 2021, they're also generally less likely to say climate change is a threat.

The survey asked respondents: "To what extent do you consider climate change a problem for you personally and Australia generally?"

In inner-metro areas, 73 per cent said it was a personal problem, compared to 61 per cent in rural areas.

Rebecca Huntley, a researcher on social trends, said this phenomenon of concern declining "inverse to the actual impacts of climate change" was almost unique to climate change.

With an issue such as emergency department wait times, for example, concern generally increases with impact, Dr Huntley said.

"There wouldn't be a person in regional or rural Australia who isn't doing some kind of climate mitigation in the work that they do," she said.

"They're at the frontline of extreme weather events."

Why do some electorates have such high climate risks?

According to the Climate Risk data, several electorates most threatened by the impacts of climate change but less likely to demand government action are on Queensland's Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast.

They include the "outer-metro" electorates of Moncrieff, McPherson, Fisher, Fadden and Fairfax.

 
"The Gold Coast is a bit like our Florida Keys," Dr Mallon said.

"We've got flood risk, forest fires, and we've obviously got coastal inundation."

The answer to why people here are less likely to say climate change is a threat is complex, but one factor may be what Dr Mallon calls the "Noosa effect".

A high-profile group of Noosa residents is currently fighting the local council's plan to prepare for sea-level rise, saying this climate action will hurt property prices and insurance costs.

"You've got short-term versus a long-term interest," Dr Mallon said.
"The long-term self-interest says I should protect my property, but the short-term says these warnings on my sales certificate will devalue my property."
An aerial general view of the Gold Coast skyline. (Getty: Mark Kolbe)

Dr Mallon added that there was "probably a point" where the sentiment will flip from "suppression" to "protection".

"In Miami, the Republicans are pro-climate action," he said.

"It's undeniable now."

He said flooding was currently the most important driver of climate risk in Australia.

"After about 2050, coastal inundation will start to become one of the dominant causes of risk," he said.

Does education affect attitudes?

Another important factor in attitudes to climate change is education.

The Australia Talks National Survey 2021 data revealed that respondents who had completed a higher level of education were more likely to say climate change was a serious problem.

Among respondents with a level of education of "high school or below", 61 per cent said that "climate change is a serious problem and immediate action is necessary".

For Australians with a bachelor degree, that figure was 70 per cent; those with a graduate degree were even more likely to hold this view at 75 per cent.


The NSW communities standing
in the path of climate change
The forests of the NSW south coast are shooting green new leaves — but local residents face a dangerous, expensive and uncertain future. Read more
Dr Huntley said this correlation had been picked up in other surveys.

"It's got nothing to do with intelligence," she said, instead attributing it largely due to the fact climate change is typically communicated by people who come from a higher education.

"Regardless of whether people esteem climate scientists or not they don't always identify with them."

In addition to this, people with a higher education tend to consume a wider range of media and be less likely to be swayed by fringe views.

"When we look at people who are climate deniers or disengaged, their media diet is very narrow," Dr Huntley said.

Did the Black Summer bushfires shift attitudes?

Experts say the idea that a succession of climate-related natural disasters will eventually convince the doubters is flawed. (AAP: Dean Lewins)

Climate risk data aside, more Australians say climate change is a serious problem that requires immediate action now than it did two years ago.

The  Australia Talks National Survey 2021 revealed 64 per cent say this is the case, compared to 60 per cent in the previous survey, conducted in 2019.

According to Dr Huntley, that's a fairly large shift in a relatively short space of time, especially "given how long it takes to shift people on climate".

One cause of this shift may be the Black Summer bushfires, she said.

The worst fire season on record destroyed more than 3,000 properties, killed more than three billion animals and exposed 80 per cent of the country's population to unhealthy smoke.

A royal commission confirmed that climate change had intensified the fires.

But the idea that a succession of climate-related natural disasters will eventually convince the doubters is a flawed one, Dr Huntley said.

"Natural disasters don't shift all people in the same way," she said.
"If you were already really concerned about climate change, the fires made you tip over into something else.
"It creates activists, but it doesn't move mountains."

Links