► An oil industry that profits from global warming and is determined to continue.
► A party of politicians that would like to keep being bankrolled by that same oil industry.
► A Climate Denialist Coalition that is funded by -- yep, the oil industry.
► Very poor climate coverage by the Mainstream Media which is beholden to the oil industry for ad revenue.
► A piece of bad luck that has been taken advantage of by, you guessed it, the oil industry.
If the CO2 were brown or orange or visible at all we would not be now facing the ruin of the planet. In 1908 we would've said to Henry Ford, "You need to stop that s#!% immediately!"
In fact, they've been fighting climate science since the late 70's. They knew what effects CO2 had on the planet and they lied about it. They've been lying about it for 40 years.
After all, they were Energy Companies. In fact, engineers and researchers at Exxon in the ‘80s were sure that new sources of energy would be developed, given that Exxon’s own research predicted dire consequences for the environment from the continuous burning of fossil fuels. (See "Drilled" for the complete story.)
They looked at the evidence of impending disaster and decided, "We'll take the low road." Is there another U.S. industry that is this devious? Even Big Pharma has the forthrightness to say, “... possible side effects include spasms that may become permanent,” or “this product may cause vomiting, diarrhea or death.”
These oil companies are truly the bottom of the barrel.
Or this guy.
Another elected politician shilling for the oil companies.
"There is only one major political party in the world that denies the existence of climate change. "
"(The oil companies) got [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell totally in their corner with the floods of money they're pouring in to support his candidates."
The oil companies are offering the money, but these buyable politicians are taking the money. So the question is:
The briber (Exxon, Koch Bros, etc.) or the bribees (Republican senators and congressmen)?
The Rebublican politicians take tens of millions more dirty oil money. As a result, the Republicans do and say exactly what the Oil Companies tell them to. Their voting record shows this.
So instead of listening to the people, 80% of whom believe the climate scientists and want action on global warming, these corrupt, pay-for-play Republicans take the money and refuse to deal with global warming in any way, guaranteeing billions in profits for the oil companies. Pretty slimy.
This is real corrosive slime, the kind that eats away at people's belief that the government can do anything right or effective or meaningful.
Mark Hertsgaard and Kyle Pope write: "...newsroom managers have failed to see the climate crisis as fundamental, all-encompassing, and worthy of attention from every journalist on their payrolls."
Let’s say you in fact are a newsroom manager. The Koch Bros. and the American Petroleum Institute and Exxon Mobil advertise on your network. Are they going to love your news segment about the petroleum industry funding a giant misinformation campaign on global warming? Not hardly.
The freaking oil companies are paying the New York Times and the Washington Post to produce and run
advertisements for them. Yes! These newspapers are making advertorials about the 'decent motives' and the 'good citizenship' of the oil companies!
This is a big fat whopper. They are spending a miniscule part of their R&D budget on "algae" and the mega giant-sized part on drilling for oil.
1) TV networks and producers are afraid to step on oil advertisers' toes.
2) The print media are doing the oil companies' dirty work.
3) Facebook is using Koch Bros fact-checking "experts" on climate change.
4) Outfits like American Enterprise Institute and Americans for Prosperity and 254 (!) other Climate Denier Organizations are promoting climate denial in the media.
Obstacle 1 — The invisible carbon dioxide
Think about the continuous CO2 being dumped into our atmosphere. Here’s an artist’s version of what is happening all day, every day.
This is bad news. We deal with it by letting it serve as motivation.
Obstacle 2 — Outmaneuvering the Oil Companies' Shenanigans:
Burning petroleum is responsible for 82% of the CO2 that is fouling our atmosphere and causing global warming.
How do we deal with that? We join together and convince them to reexamine their business plan. We cause them to branch out into renewable energy.
How do we do that?
According to this Yale study, there are 219 million climate-aware people in the U.S.A.
Plus 6 billion people around the world.
219 million people (in the U.S. alone) can make a big dent in the oil companies' control of the situation.
Obstacle 3 — The Republican Politician Problem:
Again, according to the Yale study, there are 219 million climate-motivated people in the United States.
Interestingly, according to Gallup, this roughly coincides with the number of Democrats plus Independents in the U.S. now. (226 million).
So does that mean that if the Democrats, Independents and some Republican climate-conscious voters join forces, we can vote the miscreants out of office?
Obstacle 4 — The Miserable Mainstream Media:
It's the Mainstream Media that is doing all the foot-dragging and excuse-making and general equivocation when it comes to talking the truth about global warming.
Who are they? The Big Six.
Who are they really? A bunch of billionaires who will be insulated from the daily calamities of climate change by their money.
Is it reasonable to expect a decent response from the Big Six about some theoretical future climate problem?
But — is it reasonable to expect a response when their profits are affected — negatively?
The objective is to get more climate coverage in the mainstream media.
We will use the "carrot and the stick" approach.
The carrot is the massive ratings boost CNN (let's say) will get when they run a Climate Debate between a world-class asshat climate denialist (from Fox News or the Competitive Enterprise Institute) vs. say, Bill McKibben or Katherine Hayhoe or Greta Thunberg. Or a team of all three. It won't matter who "wins" or "loses" the debate: the objective will have been reached -- more climate coverage.
Okay, okay. That's a bad idea. I am chastised by Greta Thunberg, who recently said, "Where I come from, there is no debate." Right. The whole idea is to reject and throw out the whole "the science is debatable" falsehood.
So we will use the stick exclusively. We send the news outlets our petition for more climate coverage. The stick is when they waffle about that we say "OK, perhaps we stop buying the products that you advertise for a while." And we write to the advertisers and tell them "We want more climate coverage, but your cable channel refuses, so we have no recourse but to stop buying your products for a while," which will cause a spirited interchange between the advertisers and the cable channel.
More actions you can take in terms of affecting the media.