Yes, misinformation about nuclear power and radiation hazards IS a large contributor to climate change. World electric power averages 3,000 GW. We could have been building 1 GW of nuclear power plants per week instead of fuel during plants. The purposeful disinformation campaigns have raised the costs and fears of nuclear power through thickets of needless regulations, interventions into legal proceedings, and propagandizing 'common knowlege' that all radiation is dangerous, by self-serving scientists trying to preserve careers with ICRP, NCRP, EPA, NRC etc. Today we limit radiation exposures to 1 mGy per YEAR, when there is no observed harm at 20mGy per DAY. Read my book, or just the Radiation chapter, linked from here, https://hargraves.substack.com/p/radiation
We could be off fossil fuels for non-transportation needs by now. Cheap-enough nuclear energy would also make manufacturing hydrocarbons from CO2 and water viable.
The biggest straw man, which is the fundamental flaw that taints all of BTI's work, is in the third-to-last graph, and that is that being against fossil fuels and over-industrialization, overconsumption and waste is equivalent to being anti-modern. Of course, it's actually completely the opposite, but by all means continue to project as you slide farther into irrelevance.
As a student of history, I would respectfully suggest another cause for the fixation on "misinformation" -- one that is more human. Whenever people are passionate about a cause, they seek to change society. Their motives are (usually) altruistic. They are true believers and want a better world. But importantly, they spend time in echo chambers and become increasingly convinced of their own worldview. They view it as so manifestly obvious and compelling that any person with an open mind would also share this cause -- and be passionate about it. Unfortunately, the way the world works is that 1) people do not agree or even hold the same premises in many cases and 2) human societies can only tolerate so much change (see the history of every revolution). Those in the "vanguard" push for radical changes, but people do not really want radical change, as much of their current lives actually works well and has been built over many generations.
This situation leads to the vast majority of citizens being unwilling to adopt the prescriptions -- and the overall cause -- of the truly committed. The passionate, then, must deal with this disappointment. Rather than accept that the population does not want rapid change (and may perhaps not want much change at all), it is the natural human reaction to find the source of the problem in a "nefarious" force which is clearly warping the judgement or understanding of the people. This justice-thwarting agent preventing the utopia from being born has taken various forms throughout the years. We know the common ones from the last 150 years: foreign provocateurs, capitalist-roaders, Communists, every minority group imaginable (especially Jews), etc. This phenomenon affects all sides of the political and social spectrum. In my mind, it is endemic to extremism of any type.
So when the world's population continues to use fossil fuels when it is so "obviously and self-evidently" immoral, the only explanation is that evil oil companies are creating misinformation.
The bottom line for me is that this is a result of sincere belief and a desire to improve the world. The problem, however, is that history shows that when the vanguard becomes frustrated with the population, their belief inevitably transforms to increasingly coercive methods. If unchecked, it has a track record of leading to great violence and social catastrophe.
Finally I would only note that this applies to all sides of the climate change debate -- the zealous advocates, but also the zealously opposed.
"anti-industrialism is the goal". Agreed. In the mid-1980s, I was active in the voluntary conservation movement in Western Australia. At a meeting of the peak body Conservation Council of WA, I was taken aside by another delegate and asked if I was aware of the latest campaign that was going to result in industries in western developed countries being transferred to developing countries? The campaign was 'global warming' and it's only goal was to de-industrialise developing countries.
"some climate activists have identified the chief obstacle to solving it: misinformation."
Uh, NO. None of them say that it is a THE CHIEF OBSTACLE. Hyperbolic misrepresentation. Why can't someone argue that is is a BIG problem without it being said that they think it is THE problem? There are obviously SEVERAL, and NUMEROUS ***BIG*** problems in our Ecological Crisis, which is why some have begun calling it a "Poly-crisis". Media, education, and political rhetoric are powerful communicators to the culture. There is NO denying this. To say that this is over-hyped is, frankly, BLIND.
Her is another hyperbole, and gross misrepresentation:
“instead of working with communities on the ground to deploy low-carbon technology and infrastructure, “the intellectual wing of the climate movement has decided to wage an information war focused on uncovering what Big Oil knew and policing speech.”
Uh, NO. Not "instead of". IN ADDITION to. Why do people twist things like this. Everyone I know that is concerned about the Ecological Crisis KNOWS how this is a multi-faceted problem. We know that this takes a "united" front, which means that people are working on MULTIPLE fronts, and many devote themselves to the areas in which they have gifts and expertise. Why is this hard to take into account? It's really not. They simply rush to continue their own role in misinforming and misrepresenting.
To close the article, the clueless misrepresentation is repeated:
"As this episode reveals, in the view of Guenther, McKibben, Mann, and their allies, the climate problem is not actually carbon emissions. The problem is propaganda, "
UTTER nonsense. Idiotic, actually. Childish. Libel. And ignorant. For the above reasons. Clueless about just why we have standards for journalism to actually tell the truth (although that is seemingly no longer as strong as it used to be). We have journalistic standards because communicating to mislead is seen as (and should be) a serious matter. That responsibility for agency and honesty is NOT itself more important than the problem it is misrepresenting. It IS , however, creating obstacles to action. It is an "obstruction to justice".
Standards of journalism? Have you ever read The Guardian's set of biased articles which ignore real world issues and focus overwhelmingly on theoretical make-believe issues? Misinformation is rampant from right across the political and journalistic spectrum.
Make-believe issues (in no particular order) include islands in the Pacific being lost to sea level rises (most are getting larger); the ease with which the world can achieve net zero and convert from fossil fuels to renewables; the importance of diversity, equity and inclusion and the unimportance of merit; the now discredited Modern Monetary Theory which the left said would have no adverse consequences (MMT has given us inflation and high interest rates); etc
"To Guenther and her allies, treating climate change as an infrastructural and technological challenge, as opposed to a political and linguistic one, is tantamount to climate denial. "
It is NOT ***EVER*** unaware of the "infrastructural and technological challenge". OF COURSE it is. This is a desperate reading that lacks even rudimentary reading comprehension, and insists that EVERY article or speech about Climate Change focus on EVERY aspect; apparently in one paragraph, lest they be accused of being unaware or a claim that their particular topic is the ONLY important topic. This is so typical of someone on the defensive.
The fact that these folks go after ExxonMobil and Chevron and ConocoPhillips and Shell and Total, and NOT Saudi Aramco, PdVSA, PEMEX, Equinor, etc. tells you all you need to know.
Uh, they "go after" them because these are the American companies. That does not mean that Americans don't also realize that there are OTHER fossil fuel companies with a lot of the responsibility for our problem. It largely means that these are the ones we as citizens should be demanding our government do something about, and as consumers, refuse to support by buying their product and investing in them. Easy enough to see.
Shell is British and Total is French. The difference is that the second group are all state-owned oil companies. KSA, Venezuela, Mexico, and Norway, respectively.
Whatever their origin or base of operations, those companies operate in the United States. Therefore, American citizens are consumers and can bring pressure to bear via those avenues.
Alex - I'm apparently one of the cynics you had in mind when you wrote the following:
"A more cynical interpretation would be that anti-industrialism is the goal, and that the apocalyptics provided by climate anxiety provide the best fodder for generating wider anti-modernist enthusiasm."
An important way that misinformation-obsessed climate advocates reveal their true nature is in their dismissal of my assertions that misinformation – often originated by fossil fuel interests – has played a key role in slowing nuclear energy capacity development.
They don't want to hear that we could have avoided most climate change threats if we had simply continued accelerating the pace of nuclear energy deployment achieved during the 1960s-1990s.
If we had done that, however, there would be no case for deindustrialization.
"Of course, fossil fuels are not “intrinsically indispensable.” Nuclear reactors, solar panels, hydroelectric dams, electric heat pumps, electric vehicles, and other technologies offer off-the-shelf alternatives to fossil fuels up and down the value chain."
I would put it another way. Mandating only one or two power generation technologies is inherently dangerous because one never knows what changes in public perception, politics and supply chains will make those technologies unacceptable or unavailable. Let's have every possible method in use and let the market sort them out - as indeed it has since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
When steam engines first came into use three centuries ago there was a considerable pushback in some quarters because they were perceived as 'unnatural' and 'befouling the air and water'. Climate activism is simply a modern-day manifestation of the same thing.
treating climate change as an infrastructural and technological challenge, as opposed to a political and linguistic one,
Where is the contradiction? How we talk about and politic about climate change leads to different policies which in turn drive technology and investment?
For example, "misinformation" about the (exaggerated) size of of the dead-weight loss of taxation of net CO2 emissions is an important obstacle to the implementation of this policy.
First of all, there has always been climate change. How can this 'conversation' go on for decades, with virtually no one on either side of it acknowledging that basic fact?
Is there a man-made component of climate change, and anthropogenic component? Yes. To what degree? Even real scientists aren't sure. But they are sure that there will always be climate change, no matter what. Get over it.
How can someone be so ignorant of the fact that there has NOT been this amount of Climate Change in such a short time in over a million years (since before there were humans)? Typical Denier nonsense.
Huh? You are exposing your own ignorance of the scientific method. BTW, I was a licensed earth science teacher, and TAUGHT climate change.
What are your sources for saying there has "not been this amount of climate change in a million years"? Why a million years? Why not ten thousand? Why not ten million? How do you define 'climate change'? Do you think there is only one climate? There are multiple climates, and they don't all change in unison.
It is beyond question that there has been radical climate change since before man made any difference. How do you explain any of that change, if climate change must always be blamed on man?
No, I am not the denier, you are. I question as much as my mind can handle, knowing still that there is much that my mind can't even encompass. You are the one that insists on easy answers. You start with the conclusion, and then cherry pick half-vast 'data' to prove your point. That is NOT science.
Your questions themselves expose your abject ignorance of Climate Science. Which is typical of Climate Crisis Deniers. I pity those students who were subjected to your “teaching” them “Obfuscation, noise, delay, and denial”.
LOL. “Science”. I believe that word does not mean what you think it means (as someone once said). And re: the item: “ What are your sources for saying there has "not been this amount of climate change in a million years"? It’s the scientists.
Yes, misinformation about nuclear power and radiation hazards IS a large contributor to climate change. World electric power averages 3,000 GW. We could have been building 1 GW of nuclear power plants per week instead of fuel during plants. The purposeful disinformation campaigns have raised the costs and fears of nuclear power through thickets of needless regulations, interventions into legal proceedings, and propagandizing 'common knowlege' that all radiation is dangerous, by self-serving scientists trying to preserve careers with ICRP, NCRP, EPA, NRC etc. Today we limit radiation exposures to 1 mGy per YEAR, when there is no observed harm at 20mGy per DAY. Read my book, or just the Radiation chapter, linked from here, https://hargraves.substack.com/p/radiation
We could be off fossil fuels for non-transportation needs by now. Cheap-enough nuclear energy would also make manufacturing hydrocarbons from CO2 and water viable.
The biggest straw man, which is the fundamental flaw that taints all of BTI's work, is in the third-to-last graph, and that is that being against fossil fuels and over-industrialization, overconsumption and waste is equivalent to being anti-modern. Of course, it's actually completely the opposite, but by all means continue to project as you slide farther into irrelevance.
As a student of history, I would respectfully suggest another cause for the fixation on "misinformation" -- one that is more human. Whenever people are passionate about a cause, they seek to change society. Their motives are (usually) altruistic. They are true believers and want a better world. But importantly, they spend time in echo chambers and become increasingly convinced of their own worldview. They view it as so manifestly obvious and compelling that any person with an open mind would also share this cause -- and be passionate about it. Unfortunately, the way the world works is that 1) people do not agree or even hold the same premises in many cases and 2) human societies can only tolerate so much change (see the history of every revolution). Those in the "vanguard" push for radical changes, but people do not really want radical change, as much of their current lives actually works well and has been built over many generations.
This situation leads to the vast majority of citizens being unwilling to adopt the prescriptions -- and the overall cause -- of the truly committed. The passionate, then, must deal with this disappointment. Rather than accept that the population does not want rapid change (and may perhaps not want much change at all), it is the natural human reaction to find the source of the problem in a "nefarious" force which is clearly warping the judgement or understanding of the people. This justice-thwarting agent preventing the utopia from being born has taken various forms throughout the years. We know the common ones from the last 150 years: foreign provocateurs, capitalist-roaders, Communists, every minority group imaginable (especially Jews), etc. This phenomenon affects all sides of the political and social spectrum. In my mind, it is endemic to extremism of any type.
So when the world's population continues to use fossil fuels when it is so "obviously and self-evidently" immoral, the only explanation is that evil oil companies are creating misinformation.
The bottom line for me is that this is a result of sincere belief and a desire to improve the world. The problem, however, is that history shows that when the vanguard becomes frustrated with the population, their belief inevitably transforms to increasingly coercive methods. If unchecked, it has a track record of leading to great violence and social catastrophe.
Finally I would only note that this applies to all sides of the climate change debate -- the zealous advocates, but also the zealously opposed.
"anti-industrialism is the goal". Agreed. In the mid-1980s, I was active in the voluntary conservation movement in Western Australia. At a meeting of the peak body Conservation Council of WA, I was taken aside by another delegate and asked if I was aware of the latest campaign that was going to result in industries in western developed countries being transferred to developing countries? The campaign was 'global warming' and it's only goal was to de-industrialise developing countries.
"some climate activists have identified the chief obstacle to solving it: misinformation."
Uh, NO. None of them say that it is a THE CHIEF OBSTACLE. Hyperbolic misrepresentation. Why can't someone argue that is is a BIG problem without it being said that they think it is THE problem? There are obviously SEVERAL, and NUMEROUS ***BIG*** problems in our Ecological Crisis, which is why some have begun calling it a "Poly-crisis". Media, education, and political rhetoric are powerful communicators to the culture. There is NO denying this. To say that this is over-hyped is, frankly, BLIND.
Her is another hyperbole, and gross misrepresentation:
“instead of working with communities on the ground to deploy low-carbon technology and infrastructure, “the intellectual wing of the climate movement has decided to wage an information war focused on uncovering what Big Oil knew and policing speech.”
Uh, NO. Not "instead of". IN ADDITION to. Why do people twist things like this. Everyone I know that is concerned about the Ecological Crisis KNOWS how this is a multi-faceted problem. We know that this takes a "united" front, which means that people are working on MULTIPLE fronts, and many devote themselves to the areas in which they have gifts and expertise. Why is this hard to take into account? It's really not. They simply rush to continue their own role in misinforming and misrepresenting.
To close the article, the clueless misrepresentation is repeated:
"As this episode reveals, in the view of Guenther, McKibben, Mann, and their allies, the climate problem is not actually carbon emissions. The problem is propaganda, "
UTTER nonsense. Idiotic, actually. Childish. Libel. And ignorant. For the above reasons. Clueless about just why we have standards for journalism to actually tell the truth (although that is seemingly no longer as strong as it used to be). We have journalistic standards because communicating to mislead is seen as (and should be) a serious matter. That responsibility for agency and honesty is NOT itself more important than the problem it is misrepresenting. It IS , however, creating obstacles to action. It is an "obstruction to justice".
Standards of journalism? Have you ever read The Guardian's set of biased articles which ignore real world issues and focus overwhelmingly on theoretical make-believe issues? Misinformation is rampant from right across the political and journalistic spectrum.
What are these "theoretical make-believe issues"? I have a suspicion about what your answer will be, but don't want to presume. Please specify.
Make-believe issues (in no particular order) include islands in the Pacific being lost to sea level rises (most are getting larger); the ease with which the world can achieve net zero and convert from fossil fuels to renewables; the importance of diversity, equity and inclusion and the unimportance of merit; the now discredited Modern Monetary Theory which the left said would have no adverse consequences (MMT has given us inflation and high interest rates); etc
Further, this is COMPLETE nonsense:
"To Guenther and her allies, treating climate change as an infrastructural and technological challenge, as opposed to a political and linguistic one, is tantamount to climate denial. "
It is NOT ***EVER*** unaware of the "infrastructural and technological challenge". OF COURSE it is. This is a desperate reading that lacks even rudimentary reading comprehension, and insists that EVERY article or speech about Climate Change focus on EVERY aspect; apparently in one paragraph, lest they be accused of being unaware or a claim that their particular topic is the ONLY important topic. This is so typical of someone on the defensive.
The fact that these folks go after ExxonMobil and Chevron and ConocoPhillips and Shell and Total, and NOT Saudi Aramco, PdVSA, PEMEX, Equinor, etc. tells you all you need to know.
Uh, they "go after" them because these are the American companies. That does not mean that Americans don't also realize that there are OTHER fossil fuel companies with a lot of the responsibility for our problem. It largely means that these are the ones we as citizens should be demanding our government do something about, and as consumers, refuse to support by buying their product and investing in them. Easy enough to see.
Shell is British and Total is French. The difference is that the second group are all state-owned oil companies. KSA, Venezuela, Mexico, and Norway, respectively.
Whatever their origin or base of operations, those companies operate in the United States. Therefore, American citizens are consumers and can bring pressure to bear via those avenues.
Alex - I'm apparently one of the cynics you had in mind when you wrote the following:
"A more cynical interpretation would be that anti-industrialism is the goal, and that the apocalyptics provided by climate anxiety provide the best fodder for generating wider anti-modernist enthusiasm."
An important way that misinformation-obsessed climate advocates reveal their true nature is in their dismissal of my assertions that misinformation – often originated by fossil fuel interests – has played a key role in slowing nuclear energy capacity development.
They don't want to hear that we could have avoided most climate change threats if we had simply continued accelerating the pace of nuclear energy deployment achieved during the 1960s-1990s.
If we had done that, however, there would be no case for deindustrialization.
"Of course, fossil fuels are not “intrinsically indispensable.” Nuclear reactors, solar panels, hydroelectric dams, electric heat pumps, electric vehicles, and other technologies offer off-the-shelf alternatives to fossil fuels up and down the value chain."
I would put it another way. Mandating only one or two power generation technologies is inherently dangerous because one never knows what changes in public perception, politics and supply chains will make those technologies unacceptable or unavailable. Let's have every possible method in use and let the market sort them out - as indeed it has since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
When steam engines first came into use three centuries ago there was a considerable pushback in some quarters because they were perceived as 'unnatural' and 'befouling the air and water'. Climate activism is simply a modern-day manifestation of the same thing.
???
treating climate change as an infrastructural and technological challenge, as opposed to a political and linguistic one,
Where is the contradiction? How we talk about and politic about climate change leads to different policies which in turn drive technology and investment?
For example, "misinformation" about the (exaggerated) size of of the dead-weight loss of taxation of net CO2 emissions is an important obstacle to the implementation of this policy.
I’m not sure the average voter knows what deadweight loss is, do they? Isn’t it simply that it’s easy to build a plurality against any new tax?
First of all, there has always been climate change. How can this 'conversation' go on for decades, with virtually no one on either side of it acknowledging that basic fact?
Is there a man-made component of climate change, and anthropogenic component? Yes. To what degree? Even real scientists aren't sure. But they are sure that there will always be climate change, no matter what. Get over it.
co2 not climate driver. co2 very good for plants. co2 should be 'bout 900ppm
How can someone be so ignorant of the fact that there has NOT been this amount of Climate Change in such a short time in over a million years (since before there were humans)? Typical Denier nonsense.
Huh? You are exposing your own ignorance of the scientific method. BTW, I was a licensed earth science teacher, and TAUGHT climate change.
What are your sources for saying there has "not been this amount of climate change in a million years"? Why a million years? Why not ten thousand? Why not ten million? How do you define 'climate change'? Do you think there is only one climate? There are multiple climates, and they don't all change in unison.
It is beyond question that there has been radical climate change since before man made any difference. How do you explain any of that change, if climate change must always be blamed on man?
No, I am not the denier, you are. I question as much as my mind can handle, knowing still that there is much that my mind can't even encompass. You are the one that insists on easy answers. You start with the conclusion, and then cherry pick half-vast 'data' to prove your point. That is NOT science.
No, "the science" is what actually COMES FROM THE SCIENTISTS in a peer-reviewed fashion.
Your questions themselves expose your abject ignorance of Climate Science. Which is typical of Climate Crisis Deniers. I pity those students who were subjected to your “teaching” them “Obfuscation, noise, delay, and denial”.
LOL. “Science”. I believe that word does not mean what you think it means (as someone once said). And re: the item: “ What are your sources for saying there has "not been this amount of climate change in a million years"? It’s the scientists.
Are you in seventh grade? Heaven help us if you are an adult.
No, I'm older than you are. Oh, wait, you're not in 7th grade?
"Got over it" is pretty defeatist. We can make cost effectively policies that reduce the emissions of CO2 and adapt to the CO2 already emitted.
OK, and then what happens? Does climate change strop happening?