Climate Change. It’s never been about data. It’s about anger, and anger sells.

 

Good morning,    There was a moment, as I entered adulthood in the early 2000s, when the zeitgeist among people concerned over the climate crisis went something like this: the world may not support drastic action on climate change yet because we don’t understand the danger we’re facing — but when disasters start rolling in, we’ll unite under a common cause and fix this thing.  Well, the disasters keep rolling in. Since the start of the century, the 10 deadliest climate-related disasters alone have killed more than half a million people worldwide. Climate change has cost us $2.8 trillion over that same period. As Natasha Bulowski reported this week, climate disaster survivors are trying to raise the alarm and show us — physically show us — what happens when extreme weather comes for our homes and communities. But, at least among the most powerful, the response is often the opposite of unity. Instead, we get blame, division, paranoia and lies.  Take for instance the bickering between Alberta and Ottawa. Danielle Smith, the premier of Alberta — a place that lost one of its most iconic parks to fire over the summer and half the province is still grappling with drought — is facing a leadership review this week. So, Smith went back to the metaphorical well (which isn't running dry) and picked yet another fight with Ottawa over the carbon tax. It’s a tried-and-tested technique for firing up the base. In this case, Smith’s base are the rural Albertans whose fields are dry and homes vulnerable to fire; Canadians most in need of immediate climate action. Instead, they get tossed some red meat. In Ontario, Doug Ford is pandering to suburban commuters by pledging to rip out bike lanes, throwing out a modest yet effective climate solution in the hopes of riling up the drivers of Etobicoke and Brampton enough that they’ll reward him with his third majority government. Forget that bike lanes have been shown to benefit drivers as well as cyclists — not to mention boosting business traffic and sales — it’s never been about data. It’s about anger, and anger sells. The climate-skeptic games extend outside the public realm and into industry spaces, too. John Woodside reported this week that the head of the Canadian Gas Association (CGA) called the energy transition “cult-like” in a rage-baiting eight-minute speech to a far-right think tank audience. The association and its members, it appears, would rather people direct their skepticism to the bare possibility of averting climate disaster by transitioning off their products, than have them think too hard about how, for instance, exporting LNG has recently been found to be even worse for the climate than burning coal. It’s a smart strategy, especially when you consider that CGA member FortisBC is working hard behind the scenes to reverse Vancouver’s gas ban for new builds —  there’s no reason FortisBC shouldn’t lose out on any of its customer base when the energy transition is just a cult, right?   South of the border, this kind of rhetorical whataboutism, finger-pointing, misdirection, pandering and rage could be about to get so much worse. Another Trump victory, following a campaign fuelled in part by climate conspiracy theories, would effectively kill American involvement in the green transition. Worse, a second administration led by a famously climate-denying Trump would double down on oil and gas, throw out environmental regulations, and kneecap the growth of the green energy industry. I’m reflecting on all of this, not because it’s therapeutic (although maybe it is a little bit), but because based on what we’re seeing today, it doesn’t look like humanity is going to organically coalesce around solutions anytime soon. If that’s the case, we must find a way to demand those solutions from our leaders, no matter how deeply flawed and cynical the leadership class may be. We’ll have to fight disinformation with all the tools we have at our disposal, from inoculation to counter-messaging. First, let’s hold liars accountable.  If you’re reading this newsletter, you understand the position we’re in. That’s a start.  — Jimmy, managing editor