4 ms·

This is a well known PR tactic, described in Merchants of Doubt and most recently in The New Climate War by Michael Mann. Interesting enough, this tactic can a

by Lutger 5y ago

This is a well known PR tactic, described in Merchants of Doubt and most recently in The New Climate War by Michael Mann. Interesting enough, this tactic can also be deployed on strong believers in climate change in several ways. For example, the very idea of a carbon footprint is invented by BP in order to shift responsibility towards the consumer, which deflates pressure on corporate action and regulation. The gun lobby, tobacco companies and softdrink industries have employed similar campaigns - such as inventing recycling. The very term 'climate change' is a friendlier and successful rebranding of global warming by the way. It suggests something natural, maybe even benign. That's why I prefer climate crisis. Another example is the idea that renewables are not 'green', like wind turbines kill birds, EV requires lithium etc. The proposed alternative is always either some future technology or a complete non-starter like dismantling capitalism and just stop using electricity. Yet another tactic is to make the case that we are doomed and no action can be taken. All these serve the interests of the fossil barons very well as they divide, cast doubt on, delay or otherwise frustrate the efforts to genuinely decarbonize our economy. Thus, one needs to be careful to distinguish between actual science and marketing disguised as science, or more insidious: bits of science employed in a psyop campaign.

vegetablepotpie 5y ago
If anyone is interested in the details of the history and mechanics of fossil fuel propaganda, this [0] podcast is a good resource. [0] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/drilled/id1439735906?i=1000436041593 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/drilled/id1439735906?i...
ZeroGravitas 5y ago
I would argue that the recyling example is one that they're still winning the PR war on, very similar to the carbon footprint one. Recycling is green and economic. This is the scientific consensus and also blatantly logical. Anyone arguing otherwise has consistently been in the pocket of big business or political parties that thrive on letting big business do whatever they want. We have decades of evidence of that. But the most common story you hear about recyling is that it's a pointless greenwash and the alternative is ..... the status quo. Constant stories of how it went wrong in some case, or got subverted by those same big companies and the moral always seems to be "don't try to do green stuff, it's all a scam and/or silly hippies who do more damage than good", which is exactly the "doomed" strategy you mention. Almost certainly a whole bunch of people reading this comment have a direct mental connection of "recycling" -> "scam", "waste", "not even good for the planet" similar to what has been cultivated for wind turbines, solar, EVs etc though most of those seem to be losing steam faster, probably only because those industries have their own lobby groups now.
- Lutger 5y ago
  My comment about recycling needs more nuance. Of course recycling as a mechanism is part of a sustainable economy. But much better to recycle a material is to reuse a product, and even better is for the thing to not have been produced in the first place. Recycling plastic for example is very limited. It's very hard to get everybody to perfectly recycle, then we can still only recycle a limited amount of plastic a limited number of times. Clearly, recycling plastic isn't green. It's only ever so slightly less harmful. We have been recycling plastic for a long time and we are still choking in it's waste. I still recycle myself though, even as I'm trying to reduce my consumption of (single-use) plastics, which isn't easy at all. But I also support a ban on as much plastic products as possible, since recycling is a non-solution and the problem unacceptable. I think such bans are gaining public support, at least in Europe. Just like the public is starting to become aware that individual action on reducing footprint isn't enough and even distracts from holding the right actors accountable. Landmark cases here in the Netherlands such as the Urgenda case and the case against Shell help spread that awareness.
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    I urge you to examine where you got the idea that recycling plastic is such a bad idea. "Biomass is so bad it's worse than coal" "EVs are so bad you're better of with an ICE" "Recycling is so bad you're better off not bothering" Notice a pattern there? Attacking alternatives that are better, but not perfect (nothing is) is an obvious tactic to fall back on once the more blatant denial starts to falter. Meanwhile, if you looked up a study about recycling, including specifically plastic, you'd see the consensus is that it saves energy, and carbon and money. There's definitely nuance but plastic is unavoidable in modern society. No one is going to ban it entirely, even if they do ban most disposable uses. And if they don't ban it, then the people who create products with it should be forced to pay for the recycling and someone should check it actually happens. There is no downside to this. The extra cost being borne by the producer even makes it less attractive to people who only care about money. Ignoring that easily achievable collective goal in favour of an impractical personal achievement of avoiding plastic is exactly the kind of thing people seem to be waking up to these days. Reduce reuse and recycle. Yes they all matter, but not bothering to recycle the stuff you don't reduce or reuse is obviously only beneficial to the people who sell the fossil based input materials.

by Lutger 5y ago

vegetablepotpie 5y ago

If anyone is interested in the details of the history and mechanics of fossil fuel propaganda, this [0] podcast is a good resource. [0] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/drilled/id1439735906?i=1000436041593 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/drilled/id1439735906?i...

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

I would argue that the recyling example is one that they're still winning the PR war on, very similar to the carbon footprint one. Recycling is green and economic. This is the scientific consensus and also blatantly logical. Anyone arguing otherwise has consistently been in the pocket of big business or political parties that thrive on letting big business do whatever they want. We have decades of evidence of that. But the most common story you hear about recyling is that it's a pointless greenwash and the alternative is ..... the status quo. Constant stories of how it went wrong in some case, or got subverted by those same big companies and the moral always seems to be "don't try to do green stuff, it's all a scam and/or silly hippies who do more damage than good", which is exactly the "doomed" strategy you mention. Almost certainly a whole bunch of people reading this comment have a direct mental connection of "recycling" -> "scam", "waste", "not even good for the planet" similar to what has been cultivated for wind turbines, solar, EVs etc though most of those seem to be losing steam faster, probably only because those industries have their own lobby groups now.

Lutger 5y ago
My comment about recycling needs more nuance. Of course recycling as a mechanism is part of a sustainable economy. But much better to recycle a material is to reuse a product, and even better is for the thing to not have been produced in the first place. Recycling plastic for example is very limited. It's very hard to get everybody to perfectly recycle, then we can still only recycle a limited amount of plastic a limited number of times. Clearly, recycling plastic isn't green. It's only ever so slightly less harmful. We have been recycling plastic for a long time and we are still choking in it's waste. I still recycle myself though, even as I'm trying to reduce my consumption of (single-use) plastics, which isn't easy at all. But I also support a ban on as much plastic products as possible, since recycling is a non-solution and the problem unacceptable. I think such bans are gaining public support, at least in Europe. Just like the public is starting to become aware that individual action on reducing footprint isn't enough and even distracts from holding the right actors accountable. Landmark cases here in the Netherlands such as the Urgenda case and the case against Shell help spread that awareness.
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  I urge you to examine where you got the idea that recycling plastic is such a bad idea. "Biomass is so bad it's worse than coal" "EVs are so bad you're better of with an ICE" "Recycling is so bad you're better off not bothering" Notice a pattern there? Attacking alternatives that are better, but not perfect (nothing is) is an obvious tactic to fall back on once the more blatant denial starts to falter. Meanwhile, if you looked up a study about recycling, including specifically plastic, you'd see the consensus is that it saves energy, and carbon and money. There's definitely nuance but plastic is unavoidable in modern society. No one is going to ban it entirely, even if they do ban most disposable uses. And if they don't ban it, then the people who create products with it should be forced to pay for the recycling and someone should check it actually happens. There is no downside to this. The extra cost being borne by the producer even makes it less attractive to people who only care about money. Ignoring that easily achievable collective goal in favour of an impractical personal achievement of avoiding plastic is exactly the kind of thing people seem to be waking up to these days. Reduce reuse and recycle. Yes they all matter, but not bothering to recycle the stuff you don't reduce or reuse is obviously only beneficial to the people who sell the fossil based input materials.