The new report succinctly explains how fossil fuel interests used the tobacco industry’s playbook and an extensive arsenal of lobbyists and “experts” for hire in order to manufacture disinformation designed to confuse the public and stifle action to address climate change.
ExxonMobil deservedly gets special attention for its role as the ringleader of the “campaign of denial.” As Greenpeace has documented meticulously over the years with its ExxonSecrets website, ExxonMobil is known to have invested over $23 million since 1998 to bankroll an entire movement of climate confusionists, including over 35 anti-science and right wing nonprofits, to divert attention away from the critical threat of climate disruption caused largely by the burning of fossil fuels.
Hours before President Obama leaves for the Copenhagen climate summit, Greenpeace activists deployed an emergency response team to declare the U.S. Chamber of Commerce headquarters a “Climate Policy Hostage Area,” and a “Global Warming Crime Scene.”
There will be a lot of noise around the world on Sept. 21st when people all over the globe - from New York to Guatemala to Dakar - join together in a Global Climate Wake Up Call.
Organized by the amazing folks at Avaaz, Oxfam, Greenpeace and 350.org the Global Wake-Up Call , will see people from all walks of life get together in public places to sound the alarm and urge our political leaders to stand up and take bold action at the Copenhagen Climate Treaty Summit scheduled for December of this year.
These will be peaceful, spontaneous “flash mobs” in public places where people will sound the alarms on their mobile phones, flood their governments with phone calls urging climate action, and make a tremendous noise. The images, sounds, and videos will be stitched together overnight for presentation to world leaders at the United Nations the next day.
To say that the Copenhagen Summit is a key moment in our history would be the understatement of the century. At this meeting our government representatives will decide the path we will take for the next decade: Will we continue to allow the unabated burning of dirty fossil fuels like coal and oil? Or will go down a path that starts to reduce this over reliance on fossil fuels and begins to take full advantage of clean, healthy, cheap and unlimited power sources like the sun and the wind?
Sometimes, toughing out a difficult relationship can be worth it in the end - as is the case with Greenpeace and tissue giant, Kimberly-Clark. Today Greenpeace announced that after a 5 year battle with with KC to adhere to stricter ecological practices, the two organizations have come to an agreement that “will ensure greater protection and sustainable management of Canada’s Boreal Forest”.
Close to seven years and several bruising court battles later, a coalition of environmental groups and eco-minded cities have succeeded in forcing the Export-Import Bank and Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) to do the unthinkable: acknowledge the reality of climate change and obey the law.
A New York Times article just after the UN climate-change conference in Indonesia identified China as the pivotal determinant on global warming. Now, the left-leaning Mother Jones magazine has drawn a scathing portrait of a nation that not only leads the world in coal consumption, but also uses more than the next three highest-ranked nations – the U.S., Russia and India – combined, with ominous implications for the planet.
China says that as a poor nation of 1.3-billion people, it is entitled to pollute and spew greenhouse emissions to alleviate poverty. But with its middle class projected to leap from less than 100 million to 700 million by 2020, and with sales of Porsches, Ferraris and Maseratis flourishing in Beijing, that argument is rapidly losing its edge.
Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.