The Martlet

Living in an eco-conscious region, we take environmental knowledge for granted — especially the principles that global warming is real, that humans play a part in its causes, and that the effects are devastating our planet.

For some, however, the issue is still up for debate. Dr. Naomi Oreskes’ two recent lectures on the history of climate-change doubt shed light on this prevalent issue.

The lectures, organized by the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS), took place in Victoria on June 27 and Vancouver on June 28, and gave an in-depth look at the history of political reasons for doubting climate change. PICS is hosted and led by UVic and collaborates with the University of British Columbia, Simon Fraser University and the University of Northern British Columbia.

These four universities are committed to communicating with the public about climate change, including providing education and solutions. And it’s clear that PICS is doing a good job: the SFU Goldcorp Centre for the Arts, where the Vancouver version of Dr. Oreskes’ lecture was held, was full. Moreover, high-profile environmentalists such as David Suzuki attended the lecture, reflecting the importance of Oreskes’ contribution to the field of climate change.

Oreskes’ lecture summarized her 2010 book, Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Co-authored with fellow science historian Erik Conway, the book exposes reasons behind disbelief in human-caused global warming. Although climate change is a scientifically proven fact, Oreskes claims that Republican strategists exaggerated scientific uncertainty to prevent government intervention in the American economy. In other words, sowing doubt about scientific findings maintains the American neoliberal ideal of the free market.

Disbelief in scientific findings did not begin with climate change: it was the harmful effects of tobacco that set the precedent. In fact, Oreskes calls the persuasion of public and government regulators to doubt scientific evidence “the tobacco strategy,” after the infamous strategic campaign started by four tobacco companies in the 1950s. The campaign was wildly successful in convincing the public and the government that there was no scientific link between smoking cigarettes and cancer. According to Oreskes, this strategy was not only used for tobacco, but also for acid rain, the ozone hole, DDT and global warming.

Reviewing the history of the scientific study of global warming, Oreskes stresses that there was never any doubt among scientists about the matter. Efforts to invoke government action to combat global warming were present in the U.S. during the Johnson administration in the mid-1960s. By 1979, there was a general consensus among scientists about anthropogenic, or human-caused, global warming.

However, political and economic sentiments clouded environmentalists’ efforts. In 1984, three scientists, Frederick Seitz, Robert Jastrow and William Nierenberg created the Marshall Institute primarily for advocating Cold War defence tactics. But when the Cold War ended, the institute switched to advocating environmental scepticism. With an anti-Communist sentiment left over from the Cold War, the Marshall Institute sought to destroy all forms of socialism. Environmentalism was seen as the slippery slope to a socialist regime and thus was thought to require stopping in any way possible. When describing the assumption that every environmentalist has a hidden agenda, Oreskes quoted, “Environmentalists are like watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside.”

The fear of anything “Red” prompted a return to “the tobacco strategy.” Since the model had proved successful for deregulation advocates before, the institute fostered doubt about humans’ impact on global warming.

Oreskes clearly stated that the reason for spreading doubt was never about science; it was about politics. The Marshall Institute, anti-environmentalists and neoliberals simply wanted to prevent government intervention. In other words, all government regulation was negative, even if it was precautionary.

Oreskes pointed out the irony that the deregulatory lobbyists and doubt-spreaders were Republican while the Republican Party was historically connected with protecting the environment. For example, the Nixon administration created the Environmental Protection Agency. Nevertheless, according to Oreskes, free-market fundamentalism triumphed, and continues to triumph, over environmental regulation.

During the question and answer period at the end of the lecture, Oreskes’ background as a science historian shone through. With the thorough research of a historian and the precision of a scientist, Oreskes eloquently answered audience questions. She then concluded her presentation by explaining that doubt-mongering was not the only reason for climate change inaction.

Other reasons, such as the power of the fossil fuel industry, the lack of a central figure, misinformation in the media, and society’s cowardice in admitting we created this problem all play major roles in the lack of action concerning climate change.