On June 15 2013 I sent this opinion piece to the Otago Daily Times. They turned it down.
Urgent! What side are you on?
On one side the fossil fuel industries; on the other side the well-being of life on earth. It is that stark. It is that absolute. On one side, well-groomed, politely spoken, are those whose greed for short-term but enormous wealth make them prepared to change the composition of earth’s atmosphere. Facing them, without the gloss and the clout that money gives, are the rest of us.
On Wednesday I went to the public meeting to hear US environmental campaigner, Bill McKibben. He gave us the bad news, graphically, in colour. Of course. My feeling is that anyone who hasn’t got the rough idea by now, is choosing ignorance. Many do. But the context of the discussion matters and has to be spelt out again, again, especially as wild weather events keep coming and killing and destroying and verifying the abstract data. Again and again.
But Bill McKibben was there to give hope. Not a lot of hope, but some. He said that something has changed. He would not have said this a few years ago, but now, travelling the world speaking, he now believes: ‘There is going to be a fight.’ Ordinary people are standing up to the fossil fuel industries. A hopeless fight you might think, a David and Goliath battle, but he reminded us of how that story ends. And he suggested weapons that have been used successfully before.
One weapon: investment choices. When Nelson Mandela was released from prison and visited the US, before he called at the White House, he went to the University of California to say thank you. That university had been part of a global campaign to take investment funds out of South Africa. Mandela was acknowledging the role that campaign had had in bringing down the apartheid regime. Divestment worked.
Who invests in the fossil fuel industries? Our government gives them huge sums. It’s hard to believe that our politicians have no conception of what pouring more carbon into the atmosphere is doing. Theirs is a short term plan. Most of us hope to live longer than the short term and certainly intend that our children and grandchildren will. Their investment is morally bankrupt. In numbers, we can do something about this. We can tell them, in whatever way we can, to pull our money out of an industry that is destroying the kind of world that has sustained us for millions of years.
We can tell our local councillors the same thing. There are local body elections coming up. Let’s make it an issue. Do we want to welcome the oil companies into our beautiful city? Do we want to expose our stunning coast-line to any botch-ups they might make? Do we want to defer to them because there might be short-term jobs, short-term economic gain? What side are we on? Sanity, surely. Does Otago University invest in this industry? What about our banks, churches, and funds whose purpose is public good, such as ACC, Kiwi Saver providers, Superannuation?
Who else support the fossil fuel industries? As well as governments and investors, the advertising and public relations industries help to give them huge power to manipulate and to position themselves as the good guys. They are not the good guys. I’d like to call on divestment also from these industries that tell the lies. We could ask them what side they’re on.
Another weapon: question their good name. Bill McKibben cited the example of the tobacco industry. He talked about the astonishing cultural change that has happened in our attitude towards smoking. The truth was told about this industry, the harm they were (and still are) prepared to do for the sake of their own enrichment. Telling the truth is always a powerful weapon. The truth about the moral degeneracy of the fossil fuel industry, its pathological disregard for even the future of their own grandchildren must be repeated, repeated, until they are disdained and disbelieved, as has happened with tobacco.
I’d ask the media: what side are you on? In theory, they’re on the side of telling the truth. But recent figures showing that 97% of the world’s scientists agree that the changes in the global climate are man-made, and that only 45% of the general public understand this, shows there has been a massive failure in the dissemination of vital information.
To be fair, a section of the public isn’t listening. Fear of the facts is understandable. Anyone who isn’t afraid hasn’t grasped the situation. A debilitating rage and grief are also understandable. But the media have a serious responsibility which, in my opinion, they are not meeting. This is particularly true of television. But I am unaware of hard questions being asked anywhere of politicians or the representatives of the fossil fuel industries themselves about current policies and their long term consequences. Long term, they are being allowed to get away with murder.
So, specifically, Otago Daily Times, what side are you on? We all must ask ourselves that. I have to ask myself. It’s urgent. The Earth needs to know.
*****
In response to the polite, friendly rejection, I sent a letter to the editor:
… but the opinion piece about it that I sent to the ODT was turned down. That is your prerogative. But your reason stuns me: that there has been enough about this, that you suffer accusations of bias against the alternative side of the debate.
This is a society with a particular world view. We value an evidence-based understanding of reality, evidence that emerges from research, and is peer-reviewed. This view shapes our science, judicial system, education system, health system.
So I question your notions of ‘debate’ and ‘bias’. There is no debate. I read in your paper that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is caused by human actions, but that 45% of the public understands this. I’d suggest that part of the reason for this dangerous level of ignorance is media failure.
This is the greatest moral issue most of us will face. It requires moral courage from all of us.
****
They declined to publish this as well.
I don’t want to single the ODT out here. They have published a significant number of reports, articles and letters on the topic. Last Saturday there was an extended, informative and thoughtful report by ODT writer Tom McKinlay about the airline industry and its current position on climate change.
Their approach seems to be one shared by the media at large, that the issue is contentious and therefore equal space must be given to the contrary view. But why is it contentious, given the scientific consensus? Who is shaping the argument? To the degree that the media fail to ask this question, they put their considerable weight behind the short term interests of the rich and powerful who are prepared to sacrifice everything of true value. Their choice makes them complicit.