Memo to Media: Industry Spin on Climate is Still Deceiving You

The New York Times' Andy Revkin has a blockbuster story showing that the Global Climate Coalition, the main industry group that spent much of the 1990's seeking to sow doubt in journalists' and politicians' minds about the reality of climate change, knew all along that it was real and dangerous:

"The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood," the coalition said in a scientific "backgrounder" provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that "scientists differ" on the issue.

But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.

"The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied," the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.

The amazing thing about this story is not that industry deceived journalists about the threat of climate change, but that journalists are still buying industry deceptions to this day - just different ones.

Having finally lost the battle about the reality of climate change, these same industries and their backers in Congress have come up with a different deception: that bold action on climate change would somehow negatively affect the economy.

In fact, there's overwhelming evidence showing that climate change is causing hundreds of billions of dollars in drag on the U.S. and world economies as a result of drought, flood, sea level rise (Hurricane Katrina alone caused more than $100 billion in damage), and greater spending on hot-weather accoutrements like air conditioning. NRDC estimates the damage from just four impacts at $2000 per family every single year. And that number doesn't even consider, for example, the $167 billion annual health care costs attributable to regular old cancer-and-asthma inducing coal fired power plants.

Nevertheless, many journalists, including even many at The New York Times (here and here (h/t Joseph Romm) for instance) repeat as received truth the industry's latest myth that continuing to spew pollution is somehow good for the economy.

I'm sure the oil and coal industries have a memo somewhere that will come out in 15 years showing that, in fact, their economists knew the environmentalists were right all along: a clean energy economy will in fact boost GDP, create millions of new clean energy jobs, and save consumers money on their electricity bills.

But until that memo comes out, they're going to continue peddling totally concocted junk economics about dirty energy to reporters - and impede the creation of the clean energy economy.

It's time for journalists to learn from experience that no matter what your instincts or how slick and knowing the industry flacks seem, they cannot be trusted. They can't be trusted when they say tobacco is safe, they can't be trusted when they deny the need for seat belts, they can't be trusted when they deny the dangers of climate change, and they most certainly can't be trusted when it comes to the new green economy.

Comments

[Biodiversivist]

Glenn nails it,

"...the industry flacks ... cannot be trusted..."

For the latest incarnation, I give you the corn ethanol lobby:

"...the ethanol industry has lobbied that ethanol is being held to unfair standards..."

http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=5606

http:www.biodiversivist.com

[Rhetticent]

Glenn, do you really think it's even logical to use a 1995 report in the context of the 2009 reality? Is there any effort to talk to the authors of that report to find out if they still adhere to it, or if research in the intervening 14 years has changed their opinion? Our world was much differerent 14 years ago: I was using a dial-up 56K modem to access the internet: remember that?

Do you people really think that the energy companies are going to absorb a dime of the cost of cap and trade? Every penny of that tax will flow through to you. Current estimates show in increase in the cost of living of $4,000 per year per family in increased energy costs. No corporation will pay those costs, they will simply adjust their prices to collect that tax for the government.

There is no free lunch, guys. Alternative energy like wind and solar will never be more than a supplementary source of energy, and if we were truly serious about alternatives, we would be building nuclear reactors by the dozen. Please take the time to look behind the allegations, verify for yourself if they make sense, read all you can on the topic before you make up your mind. It's important to expose yourself to both sides before you come to a conclusion.

[HeevenSteven]

"....4,000 per year per family...."

You probably skipped econ 101; but for a quick refresher, that is meaningless without a comparison to the opportunity cost of doing nothing.

[LeftRight]

It's not that dirty energy is good for business, it's that with the current way dirty energy is created and harnessed it allows the companies that produce to externalize many of the costs, which they SEE as cheaper for them. What people fail to understand is that there ARE costs, just not DIRECT costs. Not to mention the fact that Green Energy would be a MAJOR boon for the economy, much like the Interstates were in the 50s, and that while corporations might have a slightly smaller profit margin with green energy, they would have enough new business to MORE than make up for it!!

[GulfAaron]

When will they learn? Of course, given the polluting corps ability to sponsor every public event, think tank, trade association, earth day festival, and member of congress that will have them, it's almost as if the media is simply the cherry on top - not necessary or good for you, but hard to resist.