I just got off the phone with Suzanne Shaw, the Director of Communications at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a 40 year-old non-profit organization headquartered in Boston. I made the call because I wanted an independent read on what I see as a change in public perception about global warming. To me, it seems that for the first time in years, a significant number of people are questioning the theory – and some actually perceive the whole idea is a hoax. Has there truly been some movement here, and if so, how did it happen?
Suzanne denies that there has been a change. “The people who attend to science believe that global climate change is underway, and that it’s largely due to human activity — mainly burning the forests and consuming fossil fuels,” she told me.
“So what I thought I was seeing doesn’t exist?” I asked.
“It is true that the companies in the fossil fuel industries have a vested interest in our continuing to consume these forms of energy; they have mounted powerful political campaigns to convince the public that global warming is not an issue, and to persuade Congress not to act. These campaigns take various forms, for example, the industry has formed allegiances with groups like the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers to tackle the issue from the economic perspective, convincing people that there will be dire consequences of taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
“But don’t you find that unconscionable?” I asked.
I could hear a slight, uncomfortable chuckle on the other end of the phone. After a slight pause, she spoke: “Craig, I don’t pretend to see into the hearts and minds of other people. I can speak only for my organization and myself. Let’s just say that all of us here feel an obligation to future generations, to ensure that our children and our children’s children can enjoy a reasonable quality of life.”
“But let me ask you about the economic issue you raised. Don’t they have a point, given the financial pressure people find themselves under?” I asked.
“Ironically, the exact opposite is true.” Suzanne pointed out an article in today’s Wall Street Journalthat attempted to quantify the costs of various directions that could be taken regarding environmental protection. The article quoted a study by The NYU School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity, which asserted that there is a total of $2.27 directly saved from every dollar spent to reduce the activities that contribute to global warming.
There is climate legislation currently in the House. I guess we’ll find out soon how powerful these two positions are.
As I continue to learn and write about the energy industry I feel a growing need for fairness. Anyone can sit on the sidelines and throw stones. And Lord knows, there are plenty of great targets for stones when you look at where the oil and coal companies have taken us over the last century. But here, I provide a brief examination of the need for fairness in reporting on the subject.
Recent Comments