Why on Earth would countering climate disinformation be at odds with building clean energy? Can’t we just do two things at the same time? Why would these even compete?
Five years ago, I would have said, obviously, we need to do all the things. There are some areas where these activities do not compete, like securing federal funding for climate resiliency programs. But there are other domains, like climate philanthropy and media attention, where the incentive structure leans toward disinformation work being a stand-in for more expensive, more transformative work.
Aaron Regunberg wrote a thoughtful response to my recent Jacobin essay, “Obsessing Over Climate Disinformation Is a Wrong Turn.” He characterizes my essay as “essentially claiming that climate disinformation is not a serious obstacle to climate action.” But people believing things that are not true — in one of his examples, that wind turbines kill whales — is a very serious obstacle to climate action. There is no question about this.
My main point is that “climate disinformation” or “climate misinformation” isn’t the right way to understand the situation. It’s the wrong mental model, frame, and language. The concept of “disinformation” does not lead us to genuine solutions for the problem. It leads us toward new risks.
When I called antidisinformation work a cheap hack, I meant it’s an attention-grabbing fix — often a technofix. It’s the charismatic megafauna of the sociopolitical climate action landscape, but it doesn’t address the root problems.
We have two deep issues with the social dimensions of the energy transition. One is engagement. To the extent that we have public engagement in the energy transition, it happens on the project level, as…
La suite est à lire sur: jacobin.com
Auteur: Holly Buck
