I truly believe that the reason it’s hard to know when and how to refute disinformation is because we’re asking the wrong question.
We shouldn’t be refuting climate disinformation in the first place.
The science is settled. To say otherwise is like saying 2+2=5, or that the moon is made of cheese. There are no cabals trying to lock us in our neighbourhoods via 15 minute cities. It’s nonsense.
The question, when faced with climate disinformation, isn’t ‘is this true or false?’. We shouldn’t be asking ‘How do we debunk these lies?”
“Who is behind these lies, and why are they telling them?”
Prof Steinberger gets to the heart of answering that crucial, important question. In doing so, she takes us far beyond the issue of climate disinformation, and she moves us beyond even climate change. She exposes climate change for what it is – a symptom of a far greater problem, and one that we cannot tackle until we recognise the big picture, and the motivations behind why they do what they do.
Steinberger explains the ‘how’, the ‘why’ and, to a large extent, the ‘who’.
So here is my ask
Firstly, please take the time to read, process, reflect upon and talk about Prof Steinberger’s article, which she herself described as ’some of the most important writing I have ever done’.
(If you know Prof Steinberger, you’ll know she has written some pretty important stuff already…)
Secondly, be bold enough to do things differently. To not ignore disinformation; nor try to correct it. But simply to call it out – to draw attention to where it comes from, and why.
And that leads to the third part of my ask.
The Atlas Network and 55 Tufton Street; Koch and Cato; Heartland and Heritage.
What if these names were as mainstream as Exxon and Shell; Marlboro and Phillip Morris?
What would happen if people understood where disinformation comes from, and why and how it is created and spread?
What if we were all crystal clear in our understanding that we – and the media – are even less likely to receive a ‘balanced view’ from these ‘think tanks’ and organisations than we are from Exxon or Shell?
Please, share ‘What we are up against’ far and wide. Because, to quote Prof Steinberger: “Exposing the making of the climate crisis should change everything about how to stop it”.
What we are up against – Julia Steinberger
Extract…
Exposing the secret history of the making of the climate crisis should change everything about how we act to stop it.
The cause. We know the climate crisis is brought to us by highly unequal and undemocratic economic systems.
The rise. The recent history of these economic systems, in the Americas and Eurasia, is dominated by the ascendance of neoliberal ideology.
The threat. Neoliberal ideology is antidemocratic at its very core. Its aim is to give free-reign over our societies to corporations, not citizens.
The promoters. The fossil fuel industry is a long-time promoter, as well as beneficiary, of the neoliberal takeover of our societies.
The coordination. The organisation of this takeover is not haphazard: it is coordinated through think tanks, lobby groups, public relations & legal firms. These in turn are coordinated internationally, for instance via the Atlas Network, which is involved in more than 500 think tanks worldwide.
The buildup. These think tanks train their cadres internally, and promote them to places of influence in policy and communication.
The message. These think tanks replicate their materials and strategies worldwide. Their poisoning of our public sphere runs the gamut from advocating brutally unequal neoliberal economic policies to promoting climate science denial. They also dabble in divisive culture war topics, on gender (equal rights for women, queer & trans rights), race or migration, for instance.
The influence. One core goal of these organisations is to replace university research expertise by their own materials, influencing the influencers, with journalists and teachers identified as prized targets.
The implication. To counter such centralised and coordinated actors, the climate movement (and indeed all movements attacked by neoliberalism) should change radically, both in orientation and strategy.
The direction. Democracy, the fearsome foe of neoliberalism, should be at the heart of our new direction.
A couple of disclaimers to start.
This essay will be short (compared to its scope) to enable as many people as possible to read it. This is not a scholarly treatment, but a bar-room pitch. Inaccuracies are inevitable.
I am going to link & cite the main works & ideas I draw upon, however, so people can look up, verify and correct my main claims.
I am not an expert in most topics here. My pledge is to make this a living document: if & when I need to correct it, I will make tracked updates.“
