Fox News hosts Sean Hannity and Dana Perino are giving speeches "sponsored by" major fracking companies while pushing for fracking on Fox.
The conservative commentators spoke at the Shale Insight 2014 conference on September 24-25. The two-day event was organized by the Marcellus Shale Coalition (MSC), an industry lobbying group that advocates for the "development of natural gas from the Marcellus and Utica Shale geological formations." MSC members include Chevron, Shell, and ExxonMobil subsidiary XTO Energy. The group spent over $900,000 on lobbying in Pennsylvania during the first quarter of this year.
MSC announced at the conference that it's launching an advertising campaign to combat negative connotations about fracking, the controversial method used to extract natural gas from shale rocks. MSC president David J. Spigelmyer said at the conference that "Folks have tried to hijack that word and paint it as something negative ... It's our effort to take that word back."
Both Perino and Hannity's speeches were sponsored by major energy companies.
Conservative media figures have been attacking climate change policies by claiming that they would harm the poor. But their feigned concern contradicts previous attacks on aid for the poor -- and the climate policies in question would actually help developing countries the most.
On September 23, President Obama spoke at the United Nations' climate summit to call for strong international action on climate change. His remarks were immediately met with mockery and criticism in conservative media, with Rush Limbaugh and Fox News' Greg Gutfeld claiming that climate action would hurt the poor. On Fox News' The Five, co-host Gutfeld complained that climate action is a way for "rich people" to "deny" resources to others, going on to say "there are no poor people in this fight." And on the September 23 edition of Limbaugh's show, Rush ranted that climate change regulations are going to keep "[t]hird world countries" poor:
LIMBAUGH: Do you know who these climate change regulations, this dream of limiting carbon emissions, do you know who it'll really affect? Third world countries are going to be kept poor. They are not going to be allowed economic growth.
So all of these things Obama and his buddies are dreaming about would keep poor people poor, and never allow them to make their way up.
But Limbaugh and Gutfeld -- and many conservative media pundits -- have a history of attacking policies that would help the developing countries for which they claimed to express concern. Limbaugh previously denounced United States' international aid efforts, lamenting that the U.S. is "practically the only one loaning any money" despite the fact that U.S. international aid programs at the time were less generous than some from other countries. Limbaugh also likened a United Nations Development Programme proposal to finance global problems to "rap[ing] the U.S. for $7 trillion."
Meanwhile, Gutfeld has mocked the serious security threat that small islands face from rising sea levels due to climate change, despite that many experts have determined that small islands "are expected to lose significant proportions of their land," and that many will become uninhabitable if global warming continues unabated. One such small island resident, Kathy Jetnil-Kijiner from the Marshall Islands, delivered a moving poem during the U.N. climate summit about how climate change could impact her child, and has impacted many nations already:
After hundreds of thousands of people participated in what may have been the largest climate change protest in history, National Review Online criticized the event, attacked environmental justice law that seeks to ameliorate health disparities, and misrepresented a study to argue "the effects of pollution on health have been exaggerated."
On September 21, an estimated 310,000 demonstrators took part in the People's Climate March, a multi-city event protesting inaction on climate change and its harmful effects on the planet. Although the Sunday news shows ignored this historic event, National Review Online was quick to condemn it. Editor Rich Lowry called it a "symbolic protest," questioned the settled science of the human causes of climate change, and dismissed advocacy on the dangers of climate change as "anti-industrial apocalypticism."
Lowry's NRO colleague Katherine Timpf specifically criticized protestors in Harlem who were calling for legal action that would protect communities of color from toxic pollutants, a type of civil rights advocacy that is based on decades-old precedent. Timpf complained that "environmental-justice legislation does more harm than good" because "demonizing corporations is not the best method for bringing economic development to a struggling city." Timpf also claimed that "the impact that pollutants actually have on poor communities is questionable," and because of that, she argued, communities of color should embrace the potential economic benefits that a pollution-causing factory might bring:
During one of the march-preparation meetings, the deputy director of the Harlem-based group WE ACT for Environmental Justice, Cecil Corbin-Marks, tells me he's fighting for "global climate policies that focus on the challenges that local communities are confronting."
"Not all communities have the same resources," he says. "People of color are disproportionately affected." He believes that world leaders must unite to stop destructive corporations from spreading the pollutants that sicken minority neighborhoods by causing asthma and cancer.
I don't support his cause. Am I callous and cruel? Am I just ignorant of the suffering of the residents of these areas?
"There is pollution, and it should be cleaned," Harry Alford, president of the National Black Chamber of Commerce says during an interview. "But to say that it's happening because of race? No. That's crazy to think corporations sit in boardrooms and design strategies to pollute races. That's Nazi stuff."
Politicians are responsible for keeping the neighborhoods clean, Alford says, so they're the ones who must be held responsible when they're not. All environmental-justice laws do is give these politicians more power.
Fox News contributor Steve Moore dismissed President Obama's U.N. address on climate change arguing that terror threats are "a security reason for the United States to develop our own oil and gas," ignoring a decade of warnings from the U.S. military calling climate change a national security threat and a terrorism threat multiplier.
On September 23, President Obama spoke at the United Nations Climate Summit calling for a more "ambitious" agreement to tackle climate change globally.
During the September 23 edition of Happening Now, Fox contributor Steve Moore complained that "the president is talking about climate change and reducing our output of oil and gas, when if we want to undermine and destroy the finances of ISIS and other terrorist networks, we should produce as much oil and gas and hurt them in the pocketbook":
But Moore's recommendations only serve to increase the threat of climate change by increasing our dependence on fossil fuels and undermining United States energy security. A report from the Energy Security Leadership Council determined that the addressing "the economy's heavy reliance on petroleum" is the key challenge for achieving energy security in the U.S.
Military officials have also warned of the negative impact of climate change since 2003. Most recently, the U.S. Department of Defense released the 2014 version of their Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) highlighting that "climate change poses another significant challenge for the United States and the world at large" and that its impacts are "threat multipliers" that "can enable terrorist activity." From the Review:
The impacts of climate change may increase the frequency, scale, and complexity of future missions, including defense support to civil authorities, while at the same time undermining the capacity of our domestic installations to support training activities.
The pressures caused by climate change will influence resource competition while placing additional burdens on economies, societies, and governance institutions around the world. These effects are threat multipliers that will aggravate stressors abroad such as poverty, environmental degradation, political instability, and social tensions - conditions that can enable terrorist activity and other forms of violence.
Moore, the Heritage Foundation's chief economist, also ignored a first of its kind statement from U.S. Treasury Secretary, Jack Lew, in which he labeled the threat of climate change as "one of the most important challenges of our time." Lew said during a September 22 interview on the economic costs of climate change, that "the economic cost of climate change is not limited to one sector of our economy. It threatens our agricultural productivity, our transportation infrastructure and power grids, and drives up the incidence of costly healthcare problems." Lew stressed that "global action is imperative, and it is a good investment in global economic growth."
From the September 23 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
Loading the player reg...
From the September 23 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
Loading the player reg...
From the September 22 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
Loading the player reg...
The Wall Street Journal sandwiched their coverage of the largest climate change march in history between commentaries that cast doubt on global warming and the need for action, fulfilling the newspaper's trend of pushing harmful rhetoric against international climate negotiations.
On September 21, hundreds of thousands of people participated in the People's Climate March to raise awareness about the need for climate action. The New York City march, which was "by far the largest climate-related protest in history," received front page attention nationally and around the globe:
But the Wall Street Journal, headquartered a few blocks from the march, did not include their story on the action on the front page -- it was buried in the local section. Moreover, the paper criticized the march and cast doubt on the state of climate science, providing ammunition for critics to argue against climate action in the days ahead.
The day before the march, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed headlined "Climate Science Is Not Settled," which cast doubt on the influence of human activities on global warming and argued for more debate about climate science's "uncertainties." Steven Koonin, former chief scientist of BP, claimed that the "climate has always changed and always will" to downplay the influence of human activities on climate change -- a favorite Fox talking point that is as inherently misleading as asserting that just because people have died naturally they can't be murdered.
The op-ed's flaws were broken down in a lengthy post from Climate Nexus. They explained that Koonin's extensive discussion about uncertainty ignores what those uncertainties actually entail, writing that the range of uncertainties will result in outcomes "from bad to worse." The Guardian's Dana Nuccitelli expanded that even the best case scenario will result in severe impacts, including "widespread coral mortality, hundreds of millions of people at risk of increased water stress, more damage from droughts and heat waves and floods, up to 30% of global species at risk for extinction, and declined global food production."
Moreover, Koonin's assertion that the "impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself" is false, according to Nuccitelli, as scientists have determined that human impacts have been the dominant cause of global warming since 1950.
Many experts say that the "uncertainties" around climate science are not an excuse for inaction, but rather should be looked at with a risk management perspective -- an apt description, as many top insurance companies are incorporating climate change into their long-term strategies and calling for climate action. Koonin himself admitted this, but only after discussing uncertainties for the bulk of the piece. According to a study from the University of Oxford, focusing on what uncertainties remain on the basic premise of manmade global warming -- as Koonin did -- can denigrate public understanding of climate science and the need for action.
Climate Nexus and Nuccitelli both noted that Koonin's op-ed was (for the most part) technically accurate, but that his framing would lead readers to reach inaccurate conclusions. They were right: the op-ed was picked up the next day by conservative news site Newsmax.com, which asserted that Koonin's op-ed "strikes a blow against climate change activists." And the National Review Online cited it as a "pathbreaking piece" in an article claiming that the scientific consensus on climate change is "crumbling" and equating acceptance of climate change to "hysteria."
Sunday news shows on NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and Fox failed to cover the People's Climate March, a massive protest against climate change being held September 21 in New York City in conjunction with events in more than 150 countries worldwide.
Meet the Press, Face the Nation, State of the Union, and Fox News Sunday ignored the event, which is being touted by participants as "the largest mobilization against climate change in the history of the planet." The Nation editor and publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel briefly mentioned the march on ABC's This Week while arguing that national security concerns surrounding climate change are not receiving adequate attention.
Environmental group 350.org has estimated that "hundreds of thousands" of people will participate in the event. According to MSNBC.com, "participants include dyed-in-the-wool environmental activists, but also elected officials, union members, nationwide community organizing groups, LGBT groups, members of indigenous communities, students, clergy members, scientists, private citizens, and a plethora of other concerned parties" all representing 1,400 partner organizations.
While environmentalists and others march in New York, activists worldwide will participate in 2,700 events held across more than 150 countries. The march comes days before world leaders will meet on September 23 at the United Nations to hold a climate summit. United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon will join marchers during the September 21 event in New York, saying at a news conference, "I will link arms with those marching for climate action."
Fox News host Sean Hannity promoted a new documentary on his show, suggesting it backs up his own views on energy. However, the film, Pump, calls for an end to America's "oil addiction," and makes several points that Hannity often fails to account for when pushing for more drilling.
On the September 18 edition of his Fox News show, Hannity promoted the new documentary Pump to call more drilling in the United States. He interviewed the film's producer Yossie Hollander and John Hofmeister -- former C.E.O. of Shell and current director of several oil and gas companies -- to discuss alternatives to oil that can be produced domestically. Hannity implied throughout the segment that their goals were in line, concluding by asking: "How many problems would we solve by doing what you guys are advocating? And what I'm advocating?"
But the message that Pump is trying to communicate is far different from Hannity's strong support for oil, according to reviews and clips from the film itself. Here are three things Hannity could learn if he watched the documentary Pump:
Hannity frequently touts domestic oil extraction and oil pipelines as ways to achieve energy independence. During the show, he asked his guests: "If we were to use our energy resources here at home, oil, gas, coal, all of these things, how long can we be independent?" to which Hofmeister responded, "We'd see ourselves through the century."
Yet on the film's website, a somewhat contradictory quote from Hofmeister is splayed on the homepage:
Hannity showed part of the trailer on his show, but cut it off right before the narrator stated: "Until we have a moment of truth with ourselves, this country is destined to not only be addicted to oil but addicted to all the terrible trappings that come with oil."
A flagship report found that acting on climate change and improving the economy go hand in hand, which was reported by business media outlets across the globe. But three prominent outliers left their audiences in the dark: CNBC, Fox Business, and The Wall Street Journal.*
On September 16, many major business media outlets from Fortune Magazine to BusinessWeek reported on a recent analysis finding that the next 15 years are essential for acting on climate change, and that it is possible to do so while simultaneously growing the global economy. The report, titled "The New Climate Economy" and carried out by the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, refutes the "false dilemma" between economic growth and climate change mitigation -- an important finding for businesses that want to thrive in the decades ahead. From Reuters:
Investments to help fight climate change can also spur economic growth, rather than slow it as widely feared, but time is running short for a trillion-dollar shift to transform cities and energy use, an international report said on Tuesday.
Yet the report was ignored by three prominent business media outlets -- a disservice to their business audiences who deserve to know the economic risks of global warming. The outlets that ignored the findings of the "New Climate Economy" report may not come as a surprise: CNBC, Fox Business, and The Wall Street Journal all have a sordid history with reporting on climate change.
When the "Risky Business" report was released earlier this year -- another report detailing the economic costs of climate change inaction -- CNBC was caught soliciting a writer to talk about "global warming being a hoax" to rebut the report's findings. The network's on-air coverage of "Risky Business" featured Squawk Box co-host Joe Kernen criticizing the acceptance of global warming as "Orwellian groupthink." Media Matters analyses found that CNBC misled their audience on global warming in the majority of their reporting on the topic in 2013.
Fox Business also regularly offers demonstrably false reporting on global warming. Co-hosts have often claimed that global warming is over, or even that we are in a period of global cooling. When the Risky Business report was released, Fox Business mocked its findings of heat-related mortalities and dismissed the report entirely as using "scare tactics."
Similarly, Wall Street Journal dismissed the findings of the Risky Business report, with its editorial board calling one of its authors' suggestions for a carbon tax as economically harmful as the 2008 financial crisis. The Journal has downplayed and dismissed the impacts of climate change and other environmental threats for decades, and gives a frequent platform to "skeptics" that urge inaction on climate change and dismiss the basic science behind the consensus.
The New Climate Economy was heralded by political leaders around the world advocating a transformation in the global economy. By ignoring it, these outlets are showing that their priorities are at odds with businesses that want to prosper in a changing climate.
*Based on a search of internal video archives from September 15 to 12 p.m. September 17 for "climate" for Fox Business and CNBC, and a Factiva search for "climate" for Wall Street Journal.
The textbooks that Texas adopts influence those that are chosen by districts across the U.S., which makes it all the more worrying that several textbooks under consideration by the state misrepresent what scientists know about climate change. The distortions in these textbooks mirror the misinformation that has been pushed in Texas media that has contributed to this dangerous ignorance.
A recent review by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) found that several textbooks under consideration by the Texas Board of Education, which includes numerous members who deny global warming, cast doubt on the basic fact that carbon pollution is driving climate change. National Journal explained that since "Texas is the second-largest market in the U.S. for textbooks after California," the textbooks chosen by the board could affect what publishers sell to states across the country.
Some of the misleading claims in these textbooks mirror the misinformation that has been pushed in the state's local media. For example, one textbook presents claims from the Heartland Institute, a climate "skeptic" organization that once compared those that "believe" in global warming to the Unabomber and in the 1990s denied the science demonstrating the dangers of secondhand smoke, as equally credible to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which assembles hundreds of scientists to review thousands of peer-reviewed articles on climate change. Some Texas media have similarly treated the Heartland Institute as equally or even more credible than the world's top scientists. For example, a news reporter for the Houston talk radio station KTRH hyped a Heartland Institute report when it was released in April 2014 with the headline "New Report Debunks Climate Change," and in May 2014 turned to the group to rebut an actual scientific report on climate change that was reviewed by a National Academy of Sciences panel. An on-air host at KTRH has also called global warming a "scam."
Other news outlets in Texas have also misrepresented climate science. For example, an East Texas Fox affiliate, KFXK, aired a commentary on September 9 that falsely claimed Arctic sea ice has "expanded":
Fox News lambasted local Texas schools' implementation of Meatless Mondays as anti-scientific "propaganda" that won't improve the environment. But several scientific studies show that reducing meat from the average diet brings considerable environmental benefits.
Texas Commissioner of Agriculture Todd Staples has been railing against the implementation of "Meatless Mondays" in several Texas elementary schools as "agenda-driven propaganda," and he continued his campaign on Fox News' September 15 edition of Fox & Friends. The lunch programs, taking place in several Texas and California schools, will serve vegetarian meals on Mondays, giving students the option of bringing their own non-vegetarian lunch as well. Staples berated the program as an "agenda-driven campaign" that's "really not sound science," and co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck agreed, wondering, "Why should our children be subjected to such propaganda?" And when co-host Steve Doocy asked Staples if Meatless Mondays are "brainwashing," Staples answered: "Clearly, it is," suggesting that it will not be "better for the environment":
Far from "brainwashing," the idea that eating less meat is better for the environment is based on sound science. Many studies show that meat production places a substantial burden on land and water use and contributes substantially to the greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change. A United Nations agency determined in 2013 that the agricultural sector is the third greatest contributor to global warming, largely due to livestock production. A 2014 study of over 50,000 United Kingdom residents found that switching to a meatless diet can cut an individual's diet-related carbon footprint in half. A study published in Climatic Change also found that greenhouse gas emissions for meat-eaters are substantially higher, meaning that "if agricultural emissions are not addressed ... meeting the climate target [is] essentially impossible" according to science news website Phys.org. Moreover, according a study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, a non-vegetarian diet uses "2.9 times more water, 2.5 times more primary energy, 13 times more fertilizer, and 1.4 times more pesticides," as a vegetarian diet, concluding that "[f]rom an environmental perspective, what a person chooses to eat makes a difference."
Reuters and CNBC uncritically promoted a new report claiming that government regulations cost the economy over $2 trillion each year, ignoring any benefits of regulation. But the study uses the same flawed methodology as an earlier report by the same authors that was so widely panned that even the organization that commissioned it distanced itself from it.