The Climate crisis has become a global issue that affects us all. The number of people affected by disasters, including droughts, has increased by 60 percent over the past four decades. Climate and weather-related events have been the main driver of these increases. However, climate-related events do not only cause displaced people to move to safer areas, they also present unique health challenges, such as urban crowding and trauma. People can also become vulnerable to infectious diseases, particularly those brought about by water scarcity and air pollution. Furthermore, climate change may lead to an increased incidence of insect-borne diseases.
Amnesty works with many different groups in key countries to promote climate action. It supports vulnerable communities, Indigenous peoples and trade unions, and other groups affected by climate change. In its climate justice work, the organization advocates for a rapid, just, and equitable transition to a low or no-carbon economy. It also calls for richer countries to provide financial and technical support to developing countries and to compensate people who suffer as a result of climate change.
While there is no scientific consensus on climate change, the majority of Americans believe that it is a real problem. According to a recent poll by Yale and George Mason Universities, 90 percent of Americans are unaware of the climate-change consensus. Meanwhile, just 17 percent are very worried about climate change and the vast majority view it as a distant threat.
The mainstream media’s coverage of climate change is dismal
In 2009, the number of climate-related stories in the mainstream media increased after a major international climate meeting. This was followed by a decline, however, after the release of an anonymous email campaign with the stated purpose of undermining the climate-change negotiations in Copenhagen, Denmark. The emails were part of tens of thousands stolen and released by an unknown source. The primary suspect was the Russian regime, whose economy relies on fossil-fuel exports.
Although climate change is a serious threat to the world, media coverage of the issue remains weak. In the United States, for example, climate-change stories tend to result in lower ratings. As a result, the press focuses on economic and scientific arguments for climate change policy formation while ignoring moral and legal arguments.
This may be a result of the election of Donald Trump, which made environmental concerns even more prominent. In fact, during Republican administrations, public support for environmental spending tends to increase, whereas under Democratic administrations, support drops. According to media watchdog groups like Media Matters and the University of Colorado Boulder’s Media and Climate Change Observatory, this increased concern about climate change has a direct correlation to media coverage of the issue.
Climate change has been a major issue for decades, but its coverage in the mainstream media has not kept pace with its importance. Despite this, it has become an economic, societal, and cultural story. According to the Media and Climate Change Observatory, newspaper coverage of climate change in October 2021 increased by more than two-thirds from October 2020. Radio coverage increased by 29% from September to October, while global coverage increased by 45% in October and November 2021.
The mainstream media’s coverage of climate change has not kept pace with developments in the scientific community. As a result, climate scientists are warning of potentially catastrophic effects. They are calling for action from governments to limit the emission of greenhouse gases. Meanwhile, heat waves continue to affect large portions of the United States. Old people die in cities, shops run out of air conditioning, and water rationing is in place in many communities. In addition, the Mississippi River became so low that barge traffic was halted.
Simple language is key to communicating the truth about climate change
Climate change is a complex topic, requiring research and data from thousands of scientists with various specialties. Using simple language and reducing jargon is crucial to getting the information across to policymakers and the public. But simple language is not always easy to come by. One scientist with an extensive background in language study, Susan Joy Hassol, has dedicated her career to simplifying scientific terms and bridging the gap between laypeople and scientists.
People understand climate change best when the message is in terms they can relate to. For example, it is easier for them to accept climate change information when they can see the impacts themselves. The key is to avoid using words like “catastrophe” and “global catastrophe,” which people may not understand. Instead, talk about “alternative energy”, “solar power,” and “ecosystem collapse.” These terms and phrases are familiar to people, and they will connect with the message more easily.
Communicating climate change is crucial, but it’s not easy. Using simple language is essential for engaging the public and convincing them that they can do something about it. The best climate messages begin with areas of broad agreement and move on to more complex issues. Make sure to emphasize the scientific consensus on climate change. Then, build on that foundation by emphasizing solutions and reducing fears.
The scientific community needs to use simple language to communicate the truth about climate change to the public. Its research and evidence need to be presented in an accessible manner, and people need to understand the implications of their actions. Not only are scientists and environmentalists important in this endeavor, but individual citizens, NGOs, and social influencers play an important role in the communication process.
The most successful climate change communications are supported by institutional resources. It is important that climate change communication is valued by institutions and is encouraged by the funding they receive. Furthermore, stricter funding requirements must be introduced to prioritize this type of work.
ExxonMobil defrauded shareholders by downplaying climate change risks
The Massachusetts Attorney General, Maura Healey, has sued ExxonMobil, a major oil company, for “greenwashing,” a practice where companies falsely promote themselves as leaders in climate action and clean energy research. She argues that Exxon defrauded investors and made its assets appear more secure than they really were by downplaying the risks associated with climate change. She says Exxon’s actions damaged the stock price by misleading investors and burned through millions of dollars in taxpayer money.
While the lawsuit doesn’t charge Exxon with contributing to climate change, the company has acknowledged that burning fossil fuels has a large impact on global warming. Shareholder fraud lawsuits have long been prosecuted under state law by attorneys general. The Massachusetts investigation, which is ongoing, was launched in 2016 after investigative reporting revealed that Exxon knew about climate change for decades.
The lawsuit cites evidence that ExxonMobil executives knew about climate change but downplayed the risks. This allowed the company to undervalue its assets by over $25 billion. Exxon also provided false assurances that it would manage risks and promised to meet strict regulations.
The lawsuit follows a three-year investigation and accuses ExxonMobil of defrauding its shareholders by downplaying the risks associated with climate change. The lawsuit could cost the oil giant hundreds of millions of dollars and damage the company’s reputation.
ExxonMobil is committed to reducing its risk of climate change. However, it is now facing lawsuits by Massachusetts investors and the financial markets. In the late 1980s, the oil company was aware of the risks associated with global warming. It even knew it was facing regulations against fossil fuels.
Exxon claims that the revelations from the Canadian planners will have no effect on its earnings. It also says that the changes won’t directly impact the company’s oil reserves. However, Zweig questions this statement. He points to Exxon’s corporate presentations to investors touting its total reserves and the billions of dollars spent on projects.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has begun investigating the oil giant for defrauding investors. The Attorney General’s Office has the authority to prosecute securities fraud and has issued subpoenas for documents and emails related to Exxon’s climate change research. The investigation is broader than just ExxonMobil’s climate change investments in Canada.
ExxonMobil
Scientists at ExxonMobil understood the science behind climate change and actively engaged in it. Starting as early as the 1970s, they employed some of the world’s most influential scientists and embarked on a major research program. They empirically sampled CO2 and created rigorous climate models to assess the impacts of human activity on the atmosphere. One of their most ambitious projects involved the development of a model that could calculate the amount of CO2 that the oceans absorb each year. They published their findings in three peer-reviewed journals in 1983 and 1984.
One reason why ExxonMobil is delaying and denying climate change is that it has a history of denial. Since the 1970s, Exxon has known that their products will likely cause dangerous global warming. ExxonMobil’s trade association, the American Petroleum Institute, has been biased toward denial. Its communications have been so sophisticated that they can be considered sophisticated propaganda.
While the oil giants are making efforts to reposition their corporate culture, some climate scientists are skeptical of these efforts. In a recent letter to ExxonMobil’s chief executive, the Oversight Committee said it was concerned about a “coordinated effort” of disinformation to mislead the public and prevent action on climate change.
ExxonMobil has faced criticism for its insincere words and actions, but they are now standing by their commitment to the Paris climate agreement. Although they have not been fully transparent about their plans for the future of energy, the company’s statements make climate change deniers very angry. But the Woke ESG crowd is trying to take down the American energy industry.
The Royal Society, the United Kingdom’s science academy, has accused Exxon of misleading the public about climate change. The Society’s senior manager for policy communications Bob Ward asked the company to cease funding groups that distort the science. This prompted Exxon to withdraw its financial support to prominent climate deniers.
In September 2015, two major news outlets, the Los Angeles Times and Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, published a story about Exxon’s knowledge of climate change and its potential impact on its Arctic operations. The story sparked an outrage and a Congressional investigation into Exxon and its practices. Meanwhile, Exxon’s CEO Darren Woods said that Exxon still supports the goals of the Paris climate agreement and is committed to climate action.
