Modern climate denial has shrunk into a self-help movement for fossil fuel advocates
There’s been a very significant shift in climate activism over a small period of time. Two things have happened simultaneously — one bad, and one good.
First, the impacts of climate change have begun to accelerate, with extremes of heat manifesting with a wider geographic spread and higher intensity than predicted. Records dropping as summer hits each part of the world are now the norm. In Australia, fire seasons are getting worse.
Second, a 16 year old Swedish girl went on strike from school on Fridays to protest outside Swedish parliament, regarding her government’s lack of action on climate change. That was one year ago — it’s sparked a global movement culminating in worldwide protests involving millions of all ages.
Thunberg has become central to the global climate change debate, by virtue of both the bravery of her actions and the strength of her communication. Her accusation is true and powerful — adults have failed to take action on a problem that will cause her and her entire generation massive harm, long after we’ve lived long, happy lives. She is demanding immediate, strong action. Treat an emergency like an emergency.
A wide range of scientists have pointed out that she is making no exaggerations — the science is horrifyingly and verifiably clear on what needs to be done.
But with every climate action comes an equal and opposite climate reaction. Since scientists linked cause and (greenhouse) effect in the eighties, organised climate denial has operated in a variety of ways.
In the 2000s, it was political, operating through corruption and lobbying. In the 2010s, it was outright misinformation — fossil fuel companies, linked think tanks and conservative parties and groups aimed at introducing just enough doubt into the public’s mind to nudge them off supporting strong, immediate action to decarbonise society.
More recently, fossil fuel protectionism has operated by heavily targeting solutions. Renewable energy and carbon regulation will destroy the economy. Shutting down coal mines kills jobs. And in the past few months, it has comprised largely of direct attacks on Greta Thunberg.
Climate denial has operated on a seething, personal level for decades. Scientists and communicators aren’t hardened political warriors — they’re nerds. Fossil fuel advocates know that eroding spirit is far easier than publishing contrary research in journals.
Although the nature of the attacks hasn’t shifted much, this whole thing speaks volumes about how the directions of the flow of this steady stream of content has shifted. Today, the network of climate inaction content creation exists purely to convince the people who draw benefit from the extraction of fossil fuels — both corporate and political — that what they are doing is okay.
Sky News, Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones, Graham Lloyd, The Herald Sun, The Australian, The Daily Telegraph et al are no longer aimed at shifting public opinion. That, in Australia at least, has shifted wildly in favour of immediate and strong decarbonisation, even if climate action were to come at a short-term cost (mostly it doesn’t).
But in Australia, the media climate denial machine has predictably churned out reams of packaged reassurances — that Thunberg is being manipulated, that she is too young to remark on climate science, or, in a shockingly vile display of bile-flecked cruelty that only Australia’s media industry could tolerate unremarked, that she is ‘disturbed’. As horrible as that has been, it has inspired some refreshing parody, also hailing from Australian media:
For the last few years, and for the last few months of Thunberg-mania, conservative media climate content has served a primary goal of reassurance. Sky News Australia blasts into the Qantas lounges, as their hosts and their guests, including a ‘business astrologer’, issue soothing mantras and shareable memes.
Sea levels aren’t rising. Wind turbines cause global warming. The fossil fuel executives en route to meetings, clutching copies of The Australian issuing written, poly-syllabic versions of the same, all provide a soothing aura of calm.
It is okay that you run a company that hurts humanity. It is okay that you, a staffer in the Australian government, are walking to a meeting to figure out a way to frame rising emissions data so it looks like it’s falling. On the way, you are told by the Sky News hosts blaring on the screens in the hallway that there is nothing dissonant in your cognition.
And no, Herald Sun reader, you shouldn’t feel bad for having voted for the party least likely to reduce emissions — any party that would’ve reduced emissions would’ve also destroyed the weekend. What good is climate action if two sevenths of the passage of time are wrenched from reality by the introduction a vehicle emissions standard? No, this is right, you should keep doing what you’re doing.
And, of course, you are right to be concerned for the “well being” of a 16 year old figurehead, because there’s no way she could have agency, or independent thought. You aren’t wrong to work, every day, to aggravate an already existential threat — someone’s just pulling her strings, and that is the real outrage.
The climate inaction content farm has pivoted to therapy for coal barons. It is a self-help meme generator for the rich and anxious. Their creations are replicable, transportable memes. Some people are extremely good at creating, shaping and distributing pleas for climate inaction, and dishing up this comfort food for the people who gain profit or power from greenhouse gas emissions.
It is still wild to look back on where we were about a decade ago. So many people rejected the basic science, and plenty more rejected the need for action. Both measures have shot upwards. That isn’t enough to result in falling emissions, but it is the substrate for a louder, stronger global movement to encourage change. Climate denialism, luke-warmism, inactivism and do-less-ism are, increasingly, being relegated to a self-feeding, inward-facing bubble of reassurance.
It is spiritual nourishment for those with no soul, who are having increasing difficulty sidestepping their over-sized role in worsening the worst problem our species has ever faced.
