Fighting Back Against Attacks On Climate Change

Monday, September 24, 2018 Event Write-up

By Shruti Nayar

Welcome Remarks

Warmly welcoming the audience, Andrew Sabin Professor Michael B. Gerrard underscored that the purpose of environmental policy in the US is "largely about taking the findings of science… and turning it into laws and regulations." It is unsurprising, then, the entities charged with creating and enforcing these regulations "sometimes fight back… in part, by attacking the… underlying climate science." Since the uptick of climate science denial in the late–2000s, "the climate science has become even more compelling," yet current ruling political sentiment continues to reject it, and, indeed, entire publications have become veritable "megaphones" denouncing it. Sobering statements notwithstanding, Professor Gerrard succinctly set the stage for the panelists with his assertion: "this evening's program is about fighting back."

Columbia University, Climate Week NYC 2018

Columbia University Law School, CWNYC 2018

CWNYC 2018 Kick-off Event attendees gather

Cli-Science Panel coming to order

Professor Michael Gerrard of the Sabin Center: "this program is about fighting back."

Keynote Speaker Gina McCarthy, former EPA Administrator, Director of C-CHANGE

Sallan Foundation Executive Director introduces the panel

Lisa Garcia: "There's a joke around the office, every ten days we file a law suit."

David Biello: "The danger with defeatism is we just give up and let things proceed."

Jeff Nesbitt: "Climate Science denial in the mainstream media is almost gone."

Attendee directs a question to the panel

Attendees continue the discussion with the participants

Participants discussion continued

It's a wrap

Previous Next

Environmental Activism In A Historical Context

Keynote speaker, former EPA Administrator (2013–2017), and Harvard Professor Gina McCarthy began by emphasizing, "The US has made an incredible amount of progress." Presenting historical anecdotes that classified mid-20th Century Los Angeles as "the preeminent pollution capital of the world," Professor McCarthy explained the consequent rise of environmental action, because "people took action about pollution they could see, and feel, and taste." This eventually gave rise to Earth Day. "We still do those!" she wryly reminded the audience.

The EPA was created shortly after the first Earth Day, in 1970. Almost immediately, Congress charged the agency with administering The Clean Air Act of 1970; the resulting emergence of technologies made the world cleaner and healthier. "We took big leaps forward… because we worked together," Professor McCarthy maintained. "We will continue to take big leaps forward," no matter the political landscape, because "We are a democracy" and "it's time for us to speak."

The Detrimental Effects Of Unfounded Doubt

Professor McCarthy's enthusiasm was contagious and her optimism regarding support of the climate action movement was buoyant. Her alarm about current dynamics, however, eventually surfaced:

Underpinning the visible attacks and rollbacks [on environmental policy], there is an insidious movement… which is really about attacking the science and the scientists themselves… It could be… damaging… even if the rollbacks don't succeed, because it's continuing the mantra that government is not your friend, it's not working for you, that it is a political entity solely, that it has vested interests… which aren't based on science and reality and what humans need to be, need to have in order to ensure their basic right to clean air and clean water and clean land. That's what [the] EPA is designed to protect, and these insidious attacks on science are real challenges to the very fabric of why government exists, why a democracy exists. Nothing could be more visible in this attack, than the attack on climate.

She continued, "Science on climate is, without a doubt, the most robust science that we have available to us." At the same time, a "science issue" has been transformed into a partisan one. Professor McCarthy urged a perspective that focused on the future of the US and she issued a direct challenge to those who fixate on the historic role carbon-intensive energy sources have played. "Science," she declared, "must always be, the engine that drives prosperity and innovation. We're not just denying climate science, we're denying the economic benefits and the jobs and the leadership, internationally, that come along with embracing what we know climate science tells us, and the actions we need to take to move increasingly toward a clean energy economy."

Keep It Simple, And Keep It Going

Embracing climate science need not be difficult! When she reminded the audience, "Climate change is nothing more than carbon pollution," Professor McCarthy simultaneously articulated the simplicity of the problem and moved the audience to hope: if the US can successfully combat other pollutants, the US can successfully combat this one. Articulating climate change as a vague, far-off obscurity elicits panic and despair, whereas the country needs impetus to move forward with confidence and enthusiasm.

Based on her experience in the public sector, her message can be summarized in a phrase: successful momentum relies upon consistent grassroots activity. Focusing on "what's happening in our own communities," rather than on the action — or inaction — of the federal government, makes a difference. Although the link between planetary health and human health is certain, Professor McCarthy urged people to do two things. First, "Put a face on climate change," by appealing to what matters to humans most — themselves and their families, and, second, rally against the current attacks on science and scientists themselves. She closed with the query, which echoes the hopelessness felt by many in the fight for climate justice and environmental equity: "How do we generate momentum, rather than the anxiety we're feeling today?" Here's her answer, "Fight for the science. Defend the scientists… That's how this country has always moved forward. That is what it is going to take to turn this into an opportunity for all of us."

Prior to introducing the evening's panel, Sallan Foundation Executive Director Nancy Anderson took a moment to reflect on Professor McCarthy's thoughts, and remarked that although the current administration did not birth climate science denial, it's legitimized it. "This damage to the credibility of climate science is as much cultural as it is political, and attacks on it won't disappear" with transitions of administration. Hence, the necessity of continuing to "resist and persist in the defense of the scientific enterprise".

The True Effects Of Attacks On Climate Science

New York Times climate beat reporter and panel moderator John Schwartz began by asking about the effects of attacks on climate scientists — especially women. Professor Robin E. Bell of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory was the first to spell out that to fully understand the extent of the Earth's reaction to anthropogenic climate change, "we need the smartest… most diverse brains at the table." Attacks succeed in driving talent from the fields of science and technology — at the most vulnerable time. TedEd Science Curator David Biello followed up on Professor Bell's thoughts by noting the treatment of climate scientists, and using that as a proxy for, "what's coming in our future." Biello drew parallels between Climategate and the US's most recent presidential election, remarking that the public should "keep their eye on the climate scientists" to monitor politically motived "tricks that may be tried in our broader democracy." Lisa Garcia, Vice President of Litigation for Healthy Communities stressed that such attacks could have consequences not only for today's climate science practitioners, but also for future scientists. As well, such behavior undermines educational initiatives encouraging young girls to pursue careers in STEM.

"Fear Does Not Work"

Given the shared understanding about the importance of science-based action, Schwartz asked panelists about the importance of effective scientific messaging, and how best to oppose climate defeatism. Biello was quick to dismiss any value in defeatism, citing only two possible outcomes to that train of thought: inaction or negative action. Professor Bell continued, stressing, "Fear does not work." It doesn't elicit conversation — in fact, quite the opposite. Executive Director of Climate Nexus Jeff Nesbit agreed. "When people feel like they can't… make a difference, they're going to go do other things." For people to abandon the cause would be unfortunate to say the least; Nesbit insisted, "We still have time to turn this around… I believe we will turn this around [and] see an energy transformation." Despair will only inhibit our ability to catalyze real change, which, as Garcia aptly noted, does not happen overnight and often takes a long time.

So, What Does Work?

Schwartz and all panelists agreed: Doom and gloom does not work." What then, he asked, comprises a compelling and motivating statement?

According to Nesbit, honest conversation is the most effective. "You have to talk about the problem… then you deliver the treatment. They go hand-in-hand." Though a "doom and gloom" approach doesn't work, "it certainly wakes people up." Conversely, naive optimism, given the gravity of our climate challenge, doesn't work either. Only collective knowledge will deepen an honest public and professional discourse and aid in finding solutions.

Professor Bell uses a threefold approach in her communications: she engages data-driven conversations, she describes her personal actions, and she focuses on tangible effects that resonate with people. For example, coupling the beauty of the planet with a scientific understanding of how the planet works.

In Biello's professional experience, contrary to the currently polarizing political situation, climate science denial has not been as much a political issue as a regional one; talking to people "where they are" has proven effective. Indeed, Professor Bell noted the difficulty of explaining climate change when its effects aren't geographically ubiquitous. "Everybody is not seeing our planet, and how it's changing, the same." Nationally and globally, "there are places where it's actually not getting warmer."

Schwartz pressed on: if personal experience plays a large role in climate change discourse, what reaches people who are "set" in their disbelief?

Nesbit concentrates on (often otherwise conservative) voters under 35. This younger demographic, once its members begin truly voting in numbers, gives him hope for positive movement on climate change.

Garcia underscored the importance of focusing on a bipartisan narrative that is engaging and personal with everyone in the US's diverse population. Garcia observed, people aren't "Publicly connecting the dots," so she talks to people in ways that "don't politicize" the issue. She won't "talk about 'climate' and certainly won't talk about whether it's a Democratic issue or a Republican issue." Instead, she focuses on heightened economic benefits, advances in technology, which concurrently reduce pollution, and the effect environmental degradation can have on public health. "Usually," she explained, "when you talk about children and public health everyone kind of agrees, we want to reduce pollution, we want to protect the children." She finds that these methods elicit a less angry conversation.

Conclusion

The take-away: the consequences of attacking climate science are damaging to academic legitimacy, sound and effective public policy making, journalism, public health, ecological welfare and our collective future. Professor Gerrard, Professor McCarthy, and Dr. Anderson's call to arms, to fighting back, was motivational, and the panel brought an optimism, humor, and poignant relatability that was both concrete and inspirational. While the US has much work to do, our panelists reminded us to be neither hopeless nor despondent. We owe dedicated engagement to what we hold dearest and to which we believe in: our families, our homes, our communities, and our nation. We are fortunate, as Nesbit noted, that given the US' "temperate zone," climate change has not affected us as it has some countries, such as "sub-Saharan Africa." In return, we must persevere by engaging in kind, civil, personable discourse and, in the words of Gina McCarthy, by "turning the climate change challenge into an opportunity."

Event Video

Where To Go To Find Out More

Participant Bios

Twitter Coverage