Politicizing the Environmental Debate, 2000–2017 229
though this lawyer/lobbyist had no scientific
training whatsoever, he was empowered by the
president to edit and censor all warnings from
the EPA and other government agencies about
global warming.
Political leaders—especially the president—
can have a major effect not only on public policy
(especially when Congress is controlled by the
president’s party, is compliant, and does what-
ever the president wants it to) but also on pub-
lic opinion, especially among those who count
themselves followers of the president.
Consider this fact: Even as Americans in gen-
eral have become increasingly concerned about
global warming, opinion polls show members of
the president’s own party becoming less concerned,
probably because they’re naturally more inclined
to give the president the benefit of the doubt.
The rationale offered by the so-called skeptics
for opposing any action to solve the climate crisis
has changed several times over the years. At first,
opponents argued that global warming was not
occurring at all; they said it was a myth. A few
of them still say that today, but now there is so
much undeniable evidence demolishing that asser-
tion that, most naysayers have decided they need
to change tactics. They now acknowledge that
the globe is indeed warming, but in the very next
breath, they claim it is just due to “natural causes.”* * *
Another related argument used by the
deniers is that yes, global warming does seem to
be happening, but it will probably be good for
us. Certainly any effort to stop it, they continue,
would no doubt be bad for the economy.
But the latest—and in my opinion, most
disgraceful argument put forth by opponents of
change is: Yes it’s happening, but there’s nothing
we can really do about it, so we might as well
not even try. This faction favors the continued
dumping of global-warming pollution into the
atmosphere, even though they acknowledge that
the crisis it’s causing is real and harmful.
* * *changes will turn out to be for the better—things
we really should do for other reasons anyway—
but they are inconvenient nonetheless. Whether
these changes involve something as minor as
adjusting the thermostat and using different
light bulbs, or as major as switching from oil and
coal to renewable fuels, they will require effort.
But the answer to the first question is also
linked to the second question. The truth about
global warming is especially inconvenient and
unwelcome to some powerful people and com-
panies making enormous sums of money from
activities they know full well have to change dra-
matically in order to ensure the planet’s livability.
These people—especially those at a few mul-
tinational companies with the most at stake—
have been spending many millions of dollars
every year in figuring out ways of sowing public
confusion about global warming. They’ve been
particularly effective in building a coalition with
other groups who agree to support each other’s
interests, and that coalition has thus far man-
aged to paralyze America’s ability to respond to
global warming. The Bush/Cheney administra-
tion has received strong support from this coali-
tion and seems to be doing everything it can to
satisfy their concerns.
For example, many scientists working on
global-warming research throughout the gov-
ernment have been ordered to watch what they
say about the climate crisis and instructed not
to talk to the news media. More important, all
of America’s policies related to global warm-
ing have been changed to reflect the unscientific
view—the administration’s view—that global
warming is not a problem. Our negotiators in
international forums dealing with global warm-
ing have been advised to try and stop any move-
ment toward action that would inconvenience oil
or coal companies, even if this means disrupting
the diplomatic machinery in order to do it.
In addition, President Bush appointed the
person in charge of the oil company disinforma-
tion campaign on global warming to head up all
environmental policy in the White House. Even