Paradoxical Attempt to Use Big Money to Steer the U.S. Government Leaders Towards Environmentalism
Billionaire Tom Steyer is known for spending significant pieces of his net worth on environmental issues, especially climate change mitigation. Here is a video and article that summarize his plan to defeat climate change deniers who are running for office in the 2016 election.
According to the article, the spokesperson of Steyer’s organization (NextGen Climate) says:
The group’s mission heading into 2016 is to “disqualify” candidates who deny that climate change is real or caused by human activity by proving that “they don’t have what it takes to be president.”
It will involve media and on-the-ground campaigns in key electoral states aimed at linking Republican deniers to the Koch brothers and other interests that seek to undermine climate science.
The spokeseperson adds: “If you’re in a position that is different from 97 percent of scientists, that does raise basic competency questions in terms of whether people are going to want to give you the keys to the White House.”
Will it work? The short video, which seems compelling to me, suggests that perhaps at least some of this money would be better spent elsewhere, especially where it’s targeted in the heavily “red” (Republican-dominated) states. The speaker’s rationale: few people are going to change their minds on the issues until “the beaches disappear and we see penguins on our doorsteps.”
This, of course, brings back to mind some of the key issues that lie behind U.S. voters’ relative apathy on the subject:
Issue fatigue: climate change is a long-term issue, and Americans are notoriously short-term in their attention spans.
Jobs and economic growth: though it’s untrue, most Americans have bought into the anti-environmentalist propaganda that only fossil fuels are good for the job market. This should come as no surprise, given the fortunes being spent in advertisement and public relations to jam this erroneous concept down our throats.
It also reminds me of why I try to avoid all this in social situations, i.e., the guy in the video is right: the fact that I can rattle off a few facts on the subject is supremely unlikely to change anyone’s mind, so why not talk about something else?
