Book Review: Guenther, G., (2024), The Language of Climate Politics: Fossil Fuel Propaganda and How to Fight It, Oxford University Press

This book is about how various stakeholder groups, primarily in the US, fight the efforts to limit or even abandon the burning of fossil fuels. While there is clearly an increase in our general understanding of the CO₂ emission problem, and global warming and climate changes stemming from such emissions, there still seems to be relatively little focus on this fundamental issue. For instance, according to researchers at Yale University, around 69% of Americans never discuss climate change in their social circles (Yale, 2023). Here lies much of the problem. The oil and gas industry has successfully been succeeded in delaying action to limit the burning of oil or gas. While there appears to be a gradual recognition that new regulation is needed when it comes to this, the proponents of its use have been relatively successful in delaying such actions.

The book describes many positions and actions of US politicians, including several presidents. Also, there is a great deal of discussion about how the US had/had positioned itself relative to the decisions made in several of the latest world climate conferences. Finally, there are discussions on major US legislation, such as the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, or the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. In this review, I shall not deal with these issues. While clearly important, as so uniquely US-specific, I have chosen not to examine these here.

This book takes a look at how to counteract the usage of fossil fuel propaganda. The author identifies six groupings when it comes to this issue:

-       Alarmists: People who speak out about climate change are often labelled alarmists by fossil fuel interests, explicitly attempting to brand such people as unrealistic.

-       Luke warmers: These are people that accept the reality of the climate crisis but believe that warnings about its dangers are being exaggerated. The agenda to phase out fossil fuel energy is impossible.

-       Techno-optimists: These believe that CO₂ emissions must be zeroed out as soon as possible, but that a relatively large amount of fossil fuel should be allowed to remain in use, due to new technologies such as carbon capture.

-       The alarmed: Their fear of climate disaster makes them call for drastic legislation and action to stop CO₂emissions. They are calling for a system change.

-       Climate scientists: There are researchers, usually neither intense nor emotional in their arguing. They tend to come up with estimates that often err on the side of less, rather than more, alarming estimates. As scientists, their instincts are to defend themselves.

-       Doomers: This sixth category of debaters not only say that it is impossible to halt global warming, but also that such warming is going to lead to the collapse of civilization within decades.

There does not seem to be a balanced debate. The US right is basically committed to promoting fossil fuel energy, and does not hesitate in using disinformation, even propaganda, to justify their deadly energy policy and create false beliefs in their policies.

With the way the evolution of CO₂ emissions is going, it may be realistic to expect that we will reach an increase in the world’s temperature levels of 3 degrees C by 2100. This may indeed be serious, but most scientists seem to agree that this is manageable.

Estimates of excessive costs are often given as arguments for non-action. But the author argues that such costs will lead to social and economic windfalls that will directly benefit most of the US citizens. Two famous economists are at the center of this debate. Dr. W. Nordhaus of Yale argues that costs will be very high. The late Dr. M. Weizman of Harvard in contrast, argues that such costs were manageable. For him, the prospect of societal collapse coming with high CO₂ emissions justifies the costs. And much such climate action has become increasingly reasonable – battery prices have dropped almost 90%, solar cell panels are now significantly cheaper than before, electric cars are priced more and more competitively, and so on. The author argues that we should see these emission-limiting actions as investments, since these might be expected to benefit in a similar way to what we saw with WWII efforts.

Some fossil fuel usage activists argue that significant curtailment of fossil fuel usage could hamper economic growth. They argue that economic growth will continue no matter how hot the world’s temperature will be. The worst consequences of such added heat might be ameliorated by investing in pointed ways, so as to be able to continue to grow. It is Dr. Solew at MIT who has articulated the way growth comes about, but he does not seem to consider the dysfunctional effects of added CO₂ emission on growth. For him, emissions are simply “waste”, which has no consequences for growth.

There seems to be plenty of evidence that may contradict Solew. The US agriculture sector, for instance, comes to mind. Draught and added regulations regarding the use of insecticides have led to a significant drop in agricultural output. The importance of agriculture to stability, and this to growth, will only increase as the climate breaks down.

The two hugely populated economic powers, India and China, are now discussed in the book. Often, actions regarding emissions from these countries are being used in the US debate on climate as obstructionist tactics.

Let us first briefly consider China. China has indeed become the world’s foremost producer of clean energy technology, such as solar panels, windmills and electric cars. But it is also the case that China’s consumption of coal has increased over the last few years. However, the severe draughts of 2021 and 2022 have largely contributed to this increase. Yet at the same time, China seems to be preparing for a future without fossil energy. The US should keep this in mind.

Now to India. Despite this country’s atomic power and highly successful space program, a large majority of India’s population is extremely poor. Thus, India may simply not have sufficient resources to shift its efforts awayvfrom fossil fuel power generated energy.

As already alluded to, innovation can increasingly be seen as a source contributing to the lessening of CO₂emissions. One type of innovation, having to do with so-called carbon capture, is not likely to become that significant. It requires too much energy, and the volume to capture is likely to be too small. So, this technology is simply too expensive. To argue for carbon capture may therefore represent a distraction.

The book’s final chapter deals with the resistance that people, communities and nations should try to cultivate in order to survive climate change. Regrettably, there are propaganda efforts here too. The word transformation could be used instead. It is hard to think about climate deniers talking about transformation.

All in all, this is a timely book. As noted, it is largely focused on the US but many of the arguments herein are equally relevant for the rest of the world. The main stakeholder group resisting the curtailing of fossil fuel-based energy is, of course, the oil and gas companies— as they would clearly become worse off in light of such new regulation. There are other groups on the conservative side too – politicians, financiers, researchers and members of the public at large. This book provides effective arguments for how to “win” debates against such stakeholders. This is indeed a plus! While the book offers great detail, including many arguments, the basic and simple message of this book is how to address these arguments, and is very valid!

REFERENCES

Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, (2022),https://climatecommunicaton.yale.edu/visualizations-data/yeon-us/