169
or witnesses so far to expose this supposedly wide-ranging, nefarious plot. The
logic of the contrarians leads to the unlikely conclusion that if not for a plucky band
of billionaires, oil company executives, and well-funded politicians, the common
people would be overrun by dangerous Green Energy schemes that seek to declare
a war on coal, raise taxes, and put miners and drillers out of work.
To complicate the issue even further, there is an organized and well-funded
opposition to climate change concerns. Robert Brulle at Drexel University in
Philadelphia conducted an analysis in 2013 of the financial resources used to fund
organizations and institutes he described as “the climate change countermovement“or CCCM in the United States (Brulle 2014). The annual average
funding from 140 different foundations for the 91 CCCM organizations identified
by Brulle totaled $64 million. The money came overwhelmingly from conservative
foundations, who generally attempted to conceal it through the use of donor-directed
philanthropies. The CCCM-funded think tanks and institutes have been using tactics
developed for the tobacco industry (by some of them, as a matter of fact) to create
uncertainty and doubt in the minds of the American public about the reality and
seriousness of climate change.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D) of Rhode Island has called for the so-called
anonymous “dark money” funding climate contrarians to be unmasked and stopped,
saying it has “poisoned the U.S. political process” and blocked action on climate
change (Showstack 2019). Senator Whitehouse indicated that when he arrived in the
Senate in 2007, bipartisan efforts to address climate change were moving forward
slowly but steadily. After the U.S. Supreme Court passed the Citizens United decision in 2010, which allowed corporations to provide essentially unlimited funding
to political action committees (PACs), Congressional climate change efforts “fell
apart” under a flood of fossil energy and conservative PAC money reaching
Washington.
Efforts like the Green New Deal, introduced by Representative Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) early in 2019 contain many
ideas for combating climate change. Some of these are good and others less so, but
there has been little meaningful debate or movement on it because it is stalled in a
reluctant and combative Congress. Nevertheless, the U.S. House Committee on
Energy and Commerce has made 2050 the target date for reducing U.S. greenhouse
gas emissions to zero. This aligns with similar zero-GHG emission target dates in
France, Germany and Japan, and follows recommendations from a 2018 report by
the IPCC to limit global warming in the twenty-first century to 1.5 °C (IPCC 2018).
Climate change has been called a “Chinese hoax” by some U.S. leaders,
supposedly so China can get away with burning more cheap coal while forcing other
countries to use low carbon energy or implement expensive carbon capture and
storage programs. China is indeed the major emitter of carbon dioxide of any nation
on the planet, but unlike the U.S., it has chosen to remain committed to the 2016
Paris Agreement to mitigate GHG emissions and adapt to climate change. China is
also developing an active and robust carbon dioxide capture and storage program
larger than the one in the United States.
9.2 Climate Contrarians
or witnesses so far to expose this supposedly wide-ranging, nefarious plot. The
logic of the contrarians leads to the unlikely conclusion that if not for a plucky band
of billionaires, oil company executives, and well-funded politicians, the common
people would be overrun by dangerous Green Energy schemes that seek to declare
a war on coal, raise taxes, and put miners and drillers out of work.
To complicate the issue even further, there is an organized and well-funded
opposition to climate change concerns. Robert Brulle at Drexel University in
Philadelphia conducted an analysis in 2013 of the financial resources used to fund
organizations and institutes he described as “the climate change countermovement“or CCCM in the United States (Brulle 2014). The annual average
funding from 140 different foundations for the 91 CCCM organizations identified
by Brulle totaled $64 million. The money came overwhelmingly from conservative
foundations, who generally attempted to conceal it through the use of donor-directed
philanthropies. The CCCM-funded think tanks and institutes have been using tactics
developed for the tobacco industry (by some of them, as a matter of fact) to create
uncertainty and doubt in the minds of the American public about the reality and
seriousness of climate change.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D) of Rhode Island has called for the so-called
anonymous “dark money” funding climate contrarians to be unmasked and stopped,
saying it has “poisoned the U.S. political process” and blocked action on climate
change (Showstack 2019). Senator Whitehouse indicated that when he arrived in the
Senate in 2007, bipartisan efforts to address climate change were moving forward
slowly but steadily. After the U.S. Supreme Court passed the Citizens United decision in 2010, which allowed corporations to provide essentially unlimited funding
to political action committees (PACs), Congressional climate change efforts “fell
apart” under a flood of fossil energy and conservative PAC money reaching
Washington.
Efforts like the Green New Deal, introduced by Representative Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) early in 2019 contain many
ideas for combating climate change. Some of these are good and others less so, but
there has been little meaningful debate or movement on it because it is stalled in a
reluctant and combative Congress. Nevertheless, the U.S. House Committee on
Energy and Commerce has made 2050 the target date for reducing U.S. greenhouse
gas emissions to zero. This aligns with similar zero-GHG emission target dates in
France, Germany and Japan, and follows recommendations from a 2018 report by
the IPCC to limit global warming in the twenty-first century to 1.5 °C (IPCC 2018).
Climate change has been called a “Chinese hoax” by some U.S. leaders,
supposedly so China can get away with burning more cheap coal while forcing other
countries to use low carbon energy or implement expensive carbon capture and
storage programs. China is indeed the major emitter of carbon dioxide of any nation
on the planet, but unlike the U.S., it has chosen to remain committed to the 2016
Paris Agreement to mitigate GHG emissions and adapt to climate change. China is
also developing an active and robust carbon dioxide capture and storage program
larger than the one in the United States.
9.2 Climate Contrarians