“Yes, Greenland’s Ice Is Melting…”
The headline of the interactive New York Times opinion piece (10/28
/22) by conservative columnist Bret Stephens is placed over an image of Greenland’s melting ice cap crashing into the slushy meltwater below. With one more scroll, the word “But…” appears over the ice, which resembles a melting snowplowed slush pile in a parking lot.
From just a glance at the headline, it was clear where this article was going. The 6,000-word piece went on to chronicle Stephens’ trip to Greenland as a self-proclaimed global warming “agnostic.” There, the dramatic effects of climate change “changed [his] mind” about the problem, but reinforced his “belief that markets, not government, provide the cure.”
Stephens’ point of view represents a new climate denialism: No longer can any rational person claim that climate change isn’t happening at an accelerated rate due to human causes, or that it’s not causing harm. Instead they argue, like Stephens, that the swift, decisive action scientists say is necessary is “magical thinking,” that genuine existential fear is “alarmist,” that most humans will be able to adapt to climate disaster.
In a nutshell, the new climate deniers say, “Yes, the climate is changing at an alarming rate, but the solution lies here in the status quo.”
Same data, opposite headlines
That same week, the New York Times served up two conflicting headlines. “Climate Pledges Are Falling Short, and a Chaotic Future Looks More Like Reality” (10/26/22) featured an image of a displaced Somali woman and her three young children, playing amid carcasses of cattle killed by the drought in the region this spring.
The front-page piece by reporter Max Bearak began:
Countries around the world are failing to live up to their commitments to fight climate change, pointing Earth toward a future marked by more intense flooding, wildfires, drought, heat waves and species extinction, according to a report issued Wednesday by the United Nations.
The article went on to explain that the planet is on track to warm 2.1–2.9 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels by 2100. The goal set at the 2015 Paris agreement was 1.5 degrees, above which scientists warn the risk for serious climate impacts increases.
Yet one day later, the Times‘ popular newsletter the Morning—read by millions every day—carried the subject line, “The Climate’s Improved Future” (10/27/22). The data cited in the newsletter by Times reporter German Lopez is no different than that in the dire news article published the day before: The Earth is likely to warm by 2–3 degrees Celsius by 2100, well above the target scientists have said would be relatively safe.
The difference is that Lopez was summarizing a new David Wallace-Wells cover story for the Times Magazine (10/26/22) that expressed the writer’s newfound optimism that the world won’t reach a worst-case scenario climate “doomsday” of 5 degrees of warming that he had explored five years earlier in a New York magazine piece (7/17). Wallace-Wells wrote:
The window of possible climate futures is narrowing, and as a result, we are getting a clearer sense of what’s to come: a new world, full of disruption but also billions of people, well past climate normal and yet mercifully short of true climate apocalypse.
Compared to five, of course, two to three degrees is better. But it’s important to keep in mind that the Earth’s temperature rising even by 1.5 degrees is still damaging. For context, in 2021 temperatures were about 1.1 degrees over the pre-industrial baseline (UN, 5/9/22).
In 2021, deadly heat waves spread across North America and the Mediterranean; cataclysmic floods devastated the European Union, China, India and Nepal; and sea levels hit record highs (World Economic Forum, 5/18/22; FAIR.org, 7/9/21, 7/22/21; US News, 12/23/21). With that 1.5-degree increase still to come, climate events around the world are already costing lives and livelihoods.
In the Morning, Lopez cited reasons for a possibly less catastrophic climate future: Coal is on the decline, renewable energy prices are dropping, and global powers are adopting policies to combat climate change. “Those countries include the United States, which recently enacted sweeping incentives for cleaner energy through the Inflation Reduction Act,” Lopez wrote.
It’s true, but just a day before, Bearak reported in the same outlet the following: “The new law will still only get the United States about 80% of the way to its current pledge to cut emissions.”
Once again, context matters.
Lopez was sure to note that “better does not mean good,” and that countries are falling short of their climate commitments. “Even under the most optimistic climate forecasting models, such extreme weather will get worse and become more common in the coming decades,” he wrote.
‘Manageable’ for the rich
Democracy Now! (11/9/22): “A new UN-backed report says the Global South needs at least $2 trillion a year to fight the climate crisis.”
Lopez concluded that “the takeaway is mixed”:
If you had asked a politically cynical person 30 years ago what the climate future looked like, they might have answered that we’d end up at a temperature level that was difficult but manageable for the rich countries of the world but much, much harder for developing nations. And that looks like what we’re heading for.
Continuing and worsening extreme weather making life “difficult but manageable” for rich nations and “much, much harder” for developing ones earns a headline celebrating the climate’s “improved future” at the New York Times, just a day after it warned (10/26/22):
With each fraction of a degree of warming, tens of millions more people worldwide would be exposed to life-threatening heat waves, food and water scarcity, and coastal flooding while millions more mammals, insects, birds and plants would disappear.
As climate justice activists have been saying for years, it is poor nations and individuals most affected by climate disaster. The centrality of the topic of “loss and damage” in the COP27 conference going on now further demonstrates this (Democracy Now!, 11/9/22).
An International Disaster Database report on the first half of 2022 lists the top 10 countries most impacted by natural disasters by number of deaths, number of people affected and economic damage, respectively. Every country on the “deaths” and “people affected” lists is in the Global South, and none are in Europe or the Americas.
Fossil fuel talking points
Guardian (10/27/22): “Current pledges for action by 2030, if delivered in full, would mean a rise in global heating of about 2.5C and catastrophic extreme weather around the world.”
Not only are we headed for at least a 1.5-degree rise, but a new UN report from October 27 says there is currently no credible plan in place for nations to meet that goal. Current pledges put us at about a 2.5 degree Celsius rise by the end of the century.
Inger Andersen, the executive director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), told the Guardian (10/27/22):
We had our chance to make incremental changes, but that time is over. Only a root-and-branch transformation of our economies and societies can save us from accelerating climate disaster.
Still, in his 6,000-word opinion feature, Stephens argues that the answer to the climate disaster lies in “the market” that got us here. As Judd Legum and Emily Atkin point out for Popular Information (11/3/22), the solution to capitalism’s problems being more capitalism is nothing more than a fossil fuel industry talking point.
So is the following:
Many people tend to think of fossil fuels mostly in terms of transportation, electrical generation and heating. But how often do we consider the necessity of fossil fuels in the production of nitrogen fertilizer, without which, [Canadian author Vaclav] Smil noted, “it would be impossible to feed at least 40% and up to 50% of today’s nearly 8 billion people”?
Stephens essentially argues that turning completely against fossil fuels is “against human nature,” and climate solutions thus far are all like a cancer treatment with painful side effects.
OK, let’s go with that metaphor: If current solutions are like chemotherapy for lung cancer, then fossil fuels are like cigarettes. You don’t keep feeding cigarettes to someone who is undergoing cancer treatment. It would be absurd to suggest that cigarettes were a necessary stopgap in treating cancer.
When the fossil fuel–friendly New York Times publishes arguments like Stephens’, and plays volleyball with whether or not the same climate data is horrifying or reassuring, it helps confuse the public and keep us complacent—and complicit. It’s this corporate propaganda—not “human nature”—that keeps our culture from making the shifts necessary to avoid an unpredictable and deadly future.
ACTION ALERT: You can send a message to the New York Times at letters@nytimes.com (Twitter: @NYTimes). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your communication in the comments thread.
Really excellent reporting here, Olivia. Let’s also all urgently know that it’s NOT JUST FOSSIL FUEL over-usage– we must all SHIFT EN MASSE TO PLANT-BASED EATING.
This is ESSENTIAL, as scientists Michael Clark, et al., presented to the world’s scientific community Nov. 6, 2020: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6517/705.full
And see this excellent summary article at VOX.com, MUST-reading: https://www.vox.com/21562639/climate-change-plant-based-diets-science-meat-dairy
We can’t otherwise stay below the 2° C threshold, let alone the 1.5° C threshold –even if humanity impossibly shifted away from all fossil-fuel energy sources tomorrow.
Please note the earlier crucial scientific studies strongly urging plant-based solutions to catastrophic warming (not to mention loss of potable water sources, ruination of oceanic ecosystems, rainforest destruction, species’ habitat loss, etc., for which meat/dairy is the #1 culprit), such as:
Joseph Poore & Timothy Nemecek (2018),
Robert Goodland & Jeff Anhang (2009),
Shailesh Rao (2021), et al.
Plant-based eating isn’t just an “individual” solution.
If major media, NGOs and govts put just several billion $$ toward a MASSIVE PUBLIC EDUCATION CAMPAIGN to shift consumers, restaurateurs, food-page editors, healthcare personnel, school & rest-home dieticians, et al. toward the triple benefits of plant-based eating (better planetary health & human health, and saving trillions of over-bred factory-farm animals from misery), we could make a HUGELY SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION of our GHGs–not just CO2 but also the insidious gas METHANE.
Thank you for listening….
Bad people deserve bad language.
Let lab people talk lab talk in the lab.
Climate collapse will be coming to every street wherever you go.
In street talk, this is serving up a bucket of
denierrhea with a supersized tub
of bullshit.
It’s a marketing theme – What’s old is new again.
He did say crapitalism was the remedy, didn’t he?
I’ve lost faith in FAIR…the fact that you support the climate alarmists indicate you are part of the global cables media network.
Yes Oil companies benefit. Yes pollution is a threat to natural habitat. No, the models and politics upon which climate change alarmism are based do not have humanities or the planets best interests at heart.
I am a vegan for six years now, and industrial meat production damages the environment. Plants need CO2 to flourish. The I’ve caps are increasing in size.
I’m a regular reader of Principia Scientifica and if you are really FAIR you should be reading both sides of the story.
Are you still peddling that old “carbon dioxide helps the growth of plants” misinformation? Even school children know better than you about that: the carbon cycle depends on the right amount for life to flourish. Too much and it is disrupted, leading to massive changes in the atmosphere that we are beginning to see.
“Those who benefit from the status quo of burning copious amounts of fossil fuels love to argue that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit plant life. It’s a favorite claim of climate contrarians like Matt Ridley and Rupert Murdoch.
New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’
A 16-year study found that we’re at a point where more CO2 won’t keep increasing plant production, but higher temperatures will decrease it
Composite image of Earth from the ring of geostationary satellites in orbit high above above the Earth.
Composite image of Earth from the ring of geostationary satellites in orbit high above above the Earth. Photograph: 2016 EUMETSAT
Dana Nuccitelli
Mon 19 Sep 2016 11.00 BST
949
A new study by scientists at Stanford University, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, tested whether hotter temperatures and higher carbon dioxide levels that we’ll see post-2050 will benefit the kinds of plants that live in California grasslands. They found that carbon dioxide at higher levels than today (400 ppm) did not significantly change plant growth, while higher temperatures had a negative effect.
Those who benefit from the status quo of burning copious amounts of fossil fuels love to argue that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit plant life. It’s a favorite claim of climate contrarians like Matt Ridley and Rupert Murdoch. It seems like a great counter-argument to the fact that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant – a fact that contrarians often dispute. However, reality is far more complicated than the oversimplification of ‘CO2 is plant food.’ Unlike in the controlled environment of a greenhouse, the increasing greenhouse effect on Earth causes temperatures to rise and the climate to change in various ways that can be bad for plant life. We can’t control all the other variables the way we can in a greenhouse.
So far, as contrarians like Rupert Murdoch love to point out, the plant food effect has won out. Earth has become greener in recent decades (although that trend may now be reversing). The evidence thus suggests we’re at or near the point where rising atmospheric CO2 levels will no longer benefit overall plant growth, while the rising heat that comes along with that carbon are generally detrimental to plant productivity.
There are also many ways in which dumping more carbon pollution into the atmosphere has negative effects, on plants and also animal species. Climate change is causing increased heat waves, flooding, and other extreme weather events; national security threats; ocean acidification; sea level rise; wide-scale species extinctions; and so on.
There will certainly be some positive climate change outcomes as well, but all evidence suggests the negatives will far outweigh the positives. Cherry picking one possible positive outcome and ignoring all the negatives as an excuse to maintain the status quo is simply a failure of basic risk management. And with a threat as dangerous as global climate change, engaging in proper risk management is incredibly important.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/sep/19/new-study-undercuts-favorite-climate-myth-more-co2-is-good-for-plants
Here is my brief statement to the NYTimes:
The fact that the NY Times published Bret Stephen’s opinion piece only serves to further serve the fossil fuel industry ‘s cause in confusing the public, adding to a general complacency that threatens to lead us all further towards the abyss of which there is no return.
Sent from my iPhone
I live in a Republican rural county where they’ve listened to AKA Hate Radio for 3 decades. There was/is a massive “conspiracy” to deny global warming, “it’s all a liberal lie”. I say conspiracy because almost all programs 24hours would have detailed shows , many with “experts” revealing the truth to prove global warming was a Liberal lie. Then I’d hear my Republican neighbors, people I’d meet 200-300 miles away from my home parrot identical words (they’re all listening to the same syndicated radio programming). For me it’s difficult to understand how you/corporate media/independent media didn’t know this was happening because you can hear this as easily as anyone, it’s being aired on free/no charge FCC licensed airwaves for anyone to tune it! The #1 global warming denier was/is Coasttocoastam host Art Bell now George Noory but obviously they were groomed/funded into this programming. The original corporation to air them was Clear Channel (monopoly) but Westwood One also did too. Investigate who actually was source funding! Also note that C2CAM created/popularized Roger Stone, Alex Jones, Jerome Corsi. C2CAM also created/supported every pro republican issue and spun Republican failures were actually caused by Democrats which C2CAM would always point out 4 weeks before an election. For example the Iraq War was actually a conspiracy caused by Democrats. (this is broadcast on public airwaves to millions yet media doesn’t know about it?). What Riggio wrote caught my eye because I’m now hearing similar from the rural Republicans in my area, some are changing their positions from (global warming) “it’s a liberal lie” to “climate change may be happening but there’s nothing we can do about it”. “So enacting any Liberal Scientists’ policies is no use”. I speak with these people daily and it’s nearly impossible to discuss issues with them, they respond/process info like 5th graders education/maturity often coming to anger when their points are refuted and always default to “that’s fake information you’re saying” “liberal scientists change the data to fit their position” “liberal scientists can make data show anything they want”. Also if you discussed issues with rural Republicans you’d quickly note most don’t listen to a word the other is saying, they’re are thinking of what they will say next not even giving any type of openness to another point of view (they actually do this to themselves too, Republican to Republican discussions). I have a few not MAGA nuts neighbors who mentioned they liked speaking with me because “you listen to us”. Even when it’s all Republicans in a discussion it often becomes everyone talking over each other and no one listening. You have to know what you’re dealing with to be able to formulate a plan to respond! Did you know almost the entire rural America burns their garbage and they want to keep doing this thus support Republicans. Do you know people who purposely purchase diesel vehicles because they want to make pollution? I do! It’s doesn’t matter the issue, if a Democrat said it it’s a lie. I know hundreds who were pleased when Gabriel Giffords was shot and nearly assassinated + wished Paul Pelosi was killed… I’ve been hearing violent hate on Paul Pelosi for 4 years as I have on Ilhan Omar and AOC.
What is important and even encouraging in some to the articles in the Times — like this one — are the comments which clearly demonstrate that the majority, even of the proffessional class, understand the utter corruption of the system and see through the lies of the embedded corporate media. The question is what does it take to set off a needed unity to topple the corporate dominance that is killing us?