>> Peterson Toscano: Welcome to Hot Mess. How climate consensus turned into political chaos. We unravel the story of how once shared concerns about global warming fractured stalling progress on climate solutions. This special series is a production of Citizens Climate Radio, a project of Citizens Climate Education. I'm your host, Peterson Toscano. In previous episodes, we examined the initial bipartisan collaboration on climate action and the political shifts that spurred
increasing skepticism. Today, we continue our focus on the emergence of climate denial, exploring the emotional and psychological undercurrents that fueled it. We also shed a spotlight on the strategic role fossil fuel eaters played in deepening doubt. And we consider how actions by Democrats and environmentalists may have inadvertently widened the political divide. In the 1990s, the media
landscape underwent a, uh, transformation. Conservative media outlets amplified the voices of climate skeptics, giving them a platform to challenge scientific consensus and influence public opinion. This was a deliberate and strategic move to create doubt and confusion. As the 1990s progressed, climate politics became increasingly complex. Key players emerge not just from the fossil fuel industry, but from various sectors that had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
Chelsea Henderson is the host of Republic En's Eco Rights Speaks podcast. She's also the author of the Untold Story of Climate Politics. Chelsea Henderson discusses the role of conservative media in this process. >> Chelsea Henderson: I have two words, really, for how the conservative media has contributed to spreading climate skepticism, and that is Rush Limbaugh. Uh, that guy from the beginning was disparaging climate science and really targeting lawmakers who wanted to see climate action.
>> Speaker C: There hasn't been any global warming. Not man made. There isn't any of any kind. The number one agent causing it has increased in volume exponentially. CO2, and there hasn't been any warming. And yet they're still pushing it. If there's no other way to con, you've got to believe that this is all politics. It can only be politics keeping
this alive. And it is a politics that intentionally insults the intelligence of people and preys on the stupid and the dumb and the weak intentionally, in order to gain popular support. And by that I mean they focus on people who have, in their own estimation, meaningless lives. They're wondering what their purpose is. Why am I here? Why am I driving this clunker car? Why can't I get a good job? Why am I here? And then all of a sudden, those people here, they can save the planet.
Now that big, you go from mattering not at all to being a key ingredient to saving the planet. You sign up right then and you do whatever and then you let everybody know you're doing it. So you go buy a Prius and you go support all this mad cap crazy stuff and you become an evangel and you are saving the planet. Your new life has meaning. And that's what I mean by praying on the weak, the dumb, the stupid.
>> Chelsea Henderson: In glacial I detail how after the Wax Markey vote in 22, uh, thousand nine, um, their big, you know, cap and trade approach, economy wide approach to climate change, Glenn Beck, Rush, one of them, Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck dubbed the eight Republicans who crossed the party line, you know, crossed the aisle to vote for the Waxman marquee bill, called them Kappan trader T r a I T o r instead of T r a D E R happened traders, the carbon tax
8 like gave them these really disparaging nicknames. They threatened to have them lose the, to go after them on their election, their next reelection if they didn't either renounce their vote or vote against the bill, if it came back to them, if it passed in the Senate and then conferenced and came back. That kind of rhetoric really demonized not only those lawmakers, but climate
science. You see it on Fox News. And then there have been anchors who have left these network, you know, left a network like Fox News because they disagreed with the all or nothing climate messages that were being spread. They have such vast and rapt audiences that uh, their harmful messages really just threaten literally the lives of their listenership. There is so much fear mongering at that media
level. It's interesting to me as an author of a Book who did a countless amount of research, you know, to cover 60 years of climate history, when somebody would tell me a story, when I would interview someone, right, I would then go and find out how to kind of layer on the story that they told me. I wasn't just going to take one person's word for how something went. I wanted to see kind of the big picture. Somehow the listenership of some of these conservative media outlets
isn't looking at that big picture. They're not hearing, oh, they want to ban hamburgers and going up and like, uh, come on, is that really happening? And seeing that it's not right. They almost want to believe this very incendiary. And both, you know, both sides of the media do it. They stoke the fringes, they want the clicks, you know, they want the dramatic headlines. But I think the difference is that with some of these conservative media outlets, they're not presenting
the truth. And that could have life or death consequences. >> Peterson Toscano: But it wasn't just Conservative media and think tanks that contributed to the polarization actions by Democrats and environmentalists also played a role. For instance, the strong push for cap and trade policies in the 1990s and 2000s, which were seen by some as economically threatening, exacerbated fears and resistance. >> Chelsea Henderson: So cap and trade is not inherently
a democratic policy mechanism. It was a Republican market based mechanism. And the most successful application of cap and trade was the acid rain program. Acid rain was a problem in the 70s and 80s, where the manufacturers were putting the pollutants up in the atmosphere, the winds were blowing the pollution to the northeast, and then it was raining down and burning the forests, including the rivers. It was a huge regional fight over that for many
decades. When President George H.W. bush won election in 88, took office in 89, he vowed to break the stalemate on, um, the Clean Air act that was preventing a solution to the acid rain program from being realized. One of the reasons why he was so bullish on solving acid rain program was because policy wonks had come up with this idea called cap and trade, where they would cap the pollutants that
industries could emit. And then they left it up to those regulated entities to figure out how they were going to meet the cap. So if you are an industry with a fresh set of scrubbers, and if your cap was a hundred and you were only polluting, you know, 95 of that scale of a hundred, you could take that extra five and you could put it in a bank, or you could trade it to, uh, sell it to another company. You had options for what to do. This process was so popular that the acid rain program
was actually implemented faster. Caps were met quicker and at a lower cost than what anyone ever predicted, than what the modeling predicted. And actually the environmentalists were very skeptical of this approach. So it was definitely considered a Republican approach to pollution reduction. And then the first cap and trade bills on Capitol Hill were, um, championed by Senator John McCain, who was very much a
Republican. The polarization had less to do with the mechanism, cap and trade, and more to do with the polarization of Congress. By the time we got to that 2009, 2010 period, the last time that a cap and trade bill appeared on the floor of a body of Congress, you only had eight Republicans that voted for the Waxman Markey bill in the House in May of 2009.
Then the, uh, conservative influencers, as we would call them today, media, the money people, right, the big campaign donors, all kind of took on not only those eight lawmakers who had crossed the aisle to vote for the Waxman Markey bill. But they made threats, right? They made threats to senators that would vote for something similar. And so we started to see a, uh, more deeper polarization in Congress that had more to do with politics and less to do with the policy mechanisms.
>> Peterson Toscano: Environmental activists, while crucial in raising awareness, sometimes adopted strategies that alienated potential allies. Katie Zarkreski from Green Tea Party Radio sheds light on how some environmentalist strategies might have backfired. >> Katie: A lot of environmentalists at this time, I think panicked, they were like, okay, um, we're behind the ball, we're behind the curve. We really need to emphasize to the general public just how important this
issue is. Let's go for apocalyptic messaging. We started to see a big increase in a lot of fear based tactics. It was, oh, it's the end of the world, the polar bear is going to go extinct. This is be anxious, be afraid. If you use single use plastic, the planet is going to explode. Get really overly dramatized things. And it didn't make people cut back on environmentally unfriendly things. They did. I think it just made them terrified.
Uh, some people blocked it out and they were like, okay, this is ridiculous. They resorted to fear mongering. And I think other people just began to live in terror. I know within the last few years in particular, we've started to realize that that fear mongering didn't work because guess what, if you look at the stats still, we're still grappling with climate change. It did not motivate people to change their way of life. In fact, I think it just made a lot of people really, really
miserable. We saw a lot of people who were fluctuating between climate, uh, despair and climate grief and climate anger. And it was, oh, uh, well, nothing I do is good enough because not enough people are doing it. So I might as well just stop. I might as well just enjoy the time that I have left. And it really created this scary and anxious and not at all effective environment. A lot of people are paralyzed by fear. We've talked about this on Green
Tea Party Radio quite a bit. That Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth really contributed to this language. >> Speaker E: If you look at the 10 hottest years ever measured, they've all occurred in the last 14 years. And the hottest of all was 2005. The scientific consensus is that we are causing global warming. I am Al Gore. I used to be the next President of the United States of America. Temperature increases are taking place all over the world and that's causing Stronger storms.
>> Peterson Toscano: This is the biggest crisis in the history of this country. Early this morning, Hurricane Katrina slammed into New Orleans. >> Speaker E: Is it possible that we should prepare against other threats besides terrorists? >> Peterson Toscano: From Paramount Classics comes a film that has shocked audiences everywhere. They've seen it. >> Speaker E: The Arctic is experiencing faster Melbourne. If this were to go, sea
level worldwide would go up 20ft. This is what would happen in Florida, around Shanghai, home to 40 million people. The area around Calcutta, 60 million. Here's Manhattan. The World Trade Center Center Memorial would be underwater. Think of the impact of a couple hundred thousand refugees and then imagine a hundred million. We have to act together to solve this global crisis. Our ability to live is what is at stake.
>> Katie: It was terrifying. One of our co hosts on that show said that she remembers vividly being little, getting ready to watch Bambi and the preview for An Inconvenient Truth coming on and her just being mortified and terrified of it even as a child. And if it's having that impact on a child, just imagine the kind of impact that it's having on a full
fledged adult. I know that I had a discussion with a friend not too long ago about an episode of Captain Planet, that cartoon that came out in the 80s and 90s. >> Peterson Toscano: Fire, wind, water, heart, go Planet. By your powers combined, I am Captain Planet. >> Katie: Captain Planet. >> Peterson Toscano: He's our hero. >> Katie: Gonna take pollution down to zero. >> Peterson Toscano: He's our powers magnified and he's fighting. >> Katie: On the planet side. Captain Planet, He's a
hero. Made a lot of blue collar, low income workers look bad. This also contributed to one of the biggest divides in the climate movement that I still see and have to grapple with to this day. A lot of blue collar, low income working class individuals cannot afford to splurge on products that are, oh well, this is, this is recyclable. So it costs three times more than its other product is. They can't do it today, they certainly couldn't do it 30 years ago. And yet they were the ones
being blamed for things that were far beyond their control. That was a major turn off to a lot of people because it isolated people, it isolated the consumer, it isolated those groups of people who said, okay, this is clearly a group of very privileged, very wealthy,
very snooty people. If you have enough time to be an environmentalist and worry about the planet instead of work a job and put dinner on the table, we, we're way two different people, we're leagues apart and I don't want anything to do with you. Anyway, we saw a lot of that start to happen in the 90s and even still happen today. A lot of blue collar workers, low income folks, farmers, people who work the land, feel
alienated. In reality, anybody can be an environmentalist, whether you go to DC four times a year in private jet or not. Another thing that we still see the, the ramifications of today, I'm just going to be, I'm just going to be honest. Stupid protests, really forms of protest that make people go, okay, and how is this supposed to
save the planet? Uh, these inconvenienced people who were just trying to make ends meet, put dinner on the table, uh, whether they acknowledged that this was an issue or not, whether they had time to work on this issue or not. You had people doing blockades, people doing sit ins, people finding other ways to disrupt the general public flow of life because they cared about the planet. There's not a very good correlation there and we still see the
repercussions of this to this day. Anytime somebody my age throws a can of soup at, ah, ah, a van Gogh painting or super glues their hand to an oil painting, how do those things correlate to cooling down the planet? A lot of these dumb forms of civil disobedience and protests, and that's what they are, they're dumb forms of these things ended up having super negative repercussions by making people who don't have the time or the luxury to do those things go okay, this is
ridiculous. These people are crazy. So anything that they're agreeing with must be crazy too. It did infinitely more harm than good for the climate change movement and for, for the environment. >> Peterson Toscano: As these forces converged, public perception of climate change began to shift. The architects of skepticism were highly effective in their efforts. They challenged the science and framed climate action as an economic
threat. In episode four, Katie Zerkreski highlighted some of the psychological and cultural factors that made these messages resonate with the public. >> Katie: We start seeing a lot of cognitive dissonance arise with people. I think this is on both the left and the right. Nobody wants to admit during the 90s at this time, psychologically speaking, that hey,
maybe climate change is something we need to be concerned about. Now that we've got the economy going like a powerhouse, maybe we need to start talking about fossil fuels again. >> Peterson Toscano: Other psychological factors also contributed to the public's confusion over climate change. People exposed to messages about how climate action will harm the economy provoked anger and anxiety.
Added to these feelings can be a, uh, general feeling of uncertainty about how bad these impacts might be and when and where we will see them. Emotions like fear, anger, anxiety, uncertainty and shame are powerful forces that shape how we perceive the world and make decisions. But what if these natural responses were intentionally amplified or exploited?
For decades, the fossil fuel industry has been one of the most significant drivers of climate change denial, using strategic misinformation campaigns to tap into these emotions and sow doubt about the
reality of climate change. According to the investigative reporting by the Guardian and research from organizations like the Union of Concerned scientists, companies like ExxonMobil knew about the danger of climate change as early as the 1970s, but uh, they actively funded think tanks and media campaigns to mislead the public. By exploiting emotional vulnerabilities, they undermined public trust and climate science, delaying action and protecting their bottom line.
The psychological and emotional reactions to climate change can significantly impact our ability to process information and make clear decisions. Let's break down some of the key emotions involved and understand their effects on our brains. These emotions are, uh, fear, anger, anxiety, uncertainty and shame. Fear. Fear is a natural response to perceived threats and climate change is often portrayed as a looming
disaster. According to a study published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology, fear activates the brain's amygdala, uh, leading to heightened stress responses and a focus on immediate survival rather than long term planning and rational decision making. This can cause people to become overwhelmed, leading to paralysis or avoidance behaviors rather than proactive solutions.
Anger. Anger often arises when individuals feel their values or, uh, livelihoods are threatened, such as by policies perceived to harm the economy. Research by the American Psychological association indicates that when angry, the brain's prefrontal cortex responsible for rational thinking can be overridden by the more primitive limbic system which handles emotional responses. This can result in impulsive short sighted decisions and a resistance to compromise or consider alternative viewpoints.
Anxiety. Anxiety, a feeling of unease about future uncertainties, can be triggered by the unpredictable nature of climate change impacts. A UH study from the National Institute of Mental Health shows that chronic anxiety affects the brain's ability to process information clearly and can lead to difficulty in concentrating. This makes it hard to engage with complex issues like climate science or policy.
Anxiety can also lead to avoidance behaviors where individuals steer clear of thinking about or discussing climate change. Uncertainty. Uncertainty about the severity and timing of climate impacts can cause cognitive dissidence where individuals struggle to reconcile conflicting information or beliefs. Research published in the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience suggests that this can lead to mental fatigue and a tendency to simplify complex issues, potentially ignoring
important nuances. Uncertainty often results in decision making. Paralysis where people delay or Avoid taking action due to a lack of clear direction. Shame. Shame arises when individuals feel personally responsible for contributing to climate change or not doing enough to combat it. According to a study in the Journal of Environmental Psychology, this emotion activates the brain's default mode network associated with self reflection and rumination.
While some degree of, uh, self reflection can be motivating, excessive shame can lead to feelings of helplessness and disempowerment, reducing the likelihood of constructive action. These emotions, fear, anger, anxiety, uncertainty and shame. They can cloud our judgment and hinder our ability to address climate change effectively. Recognizing and managing these emotional responses is crucial for fostering a, um, more rational, balanced approach to
climate action. By understanding the psychological barriers, we can develop strategies to communicate climate issues more effectively and support clearer, more informed decision making. The fossil fuel industry's tactics were alarmingly effective, Using calculated strategies to manipulate public perception and stall climate action. By amplifying fear of economic ruin, such as claims that environmental regulations would lead to job losses and skyrocketing energy costs, well, they tapped into
public anxieties. For example, a report by the Guardian reveals that Exxon spent millions funding groups that falsely claimed climate policies would devastate the economy. They stoked anger over perceived government overreach, painting climate policies as threats to personal freedoms and national sovereignty. M To heighten anxiety about uncertain futures, fossil fuel interests spread misleading narratives about the feasibility and reliability of renewable energy
alternatives. Research from the Union of Concerned Scientists documents how industry funded campaigns, exaggerated the cost and downplayed the benefits of transitioning to green energy. The infamous doubt is our product strategy, originally coined by the tobacco industry, was adapted and weaponized by fossil fuel companies.
Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway, in their, uh, landmark Book, Merchants of Doubt, detail how the fossil fuel industry hired the same public relation firms and even the same scientists who had worked for the tobacco industry to manufacture doubt about the link between fossil fuels and climate change. Internal documents from Exxon Mobil, revealed by Inside Climate News, uh, show that the company knew about the risks of climate change as early as the 1970s.
Yet it chose to fund disinformation campaigns that questioned the scientific consensus, delaying public awareness and regulatory action. Today, as we untangle the web of misinformation and denial, it is essential to recognize how these industries weaponized our emotional responses. Fear, anger, anxiety and uncertainty to protect their profits at the
expense of the planet. By understanding the depth of this calculated deception, we can reclaim the narrative and foster clear, informed decision making to address the climate change problem we face today. So it's time to de stress. To get rid of the fear and the doubt, learn how, uh, you can be part of a bipartisan effort to pass meaningful legislation that addresses fossil fuels pollution. Visit cclusa.org action that is cclusa.org action.
Thank you for joining me for episode five of Hot Mess, How Climate Consensus Turned into Political chaos. I'm, um, Peterson Toscano. Coming up in the next episode. >> Katie: And he opens up like a Ziploc gallon bag and pulls out a snowball. I asked the chair, do you know what this is? It's a snowball that I just picked up from outside. >> Chelsea Henderson: Bernie Sanders was on that committee. And Bernie
Sanders didn't think our bill went far enough. And there was real concern that he was going to vote against it and that would have prevented the bill from getting to the next step, which was the full committee consideration. Knowing each other in this very tight. >> Peterson Toscano: Community and realizing it's all going to. >> Chelsea Henderson: Go underwater, I might be inclined to. >> Peterson Toscano: Deny it as well because the acceptance of it would be too terrible.
In this episode, you heard from Chelsea Henderson, host of uh Republic Ian's Eco Rights Speaks podcast. She's also the author of Glacial the Untold Story of Climate Politics. Learn more by visiting republicen.org you can listen to the podcast Eco Rightspeaks and Green Tea Party Radio wherever you get podcasts. The views shared by Chelsea and Katie are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of Citizens Climate
Education. The views expressed by Katie Zawkreski do not represent those of the Diocese of Little Rock Catholic Climate Covenant, or any of her employers. If you like this program and want to support the work we do, share this episode with a friend on social media. You can give a tax deductible donation by visiting citizensclimateducation.org Together we are making a difference. Hi, I'm Peterson Sentiscano, host of uh Citizens Climate
Radio. We highlight people's stories, we celebrate your successes, and together we share strategies for talking about climate change. We do all this by hearing from some pretty surprising climate advocates like indie race car driver Aaron Tillitz, choreographer Lynn Newman, and comedian Esteban Gast. We feature politicians, preachers and poets, and we explore unexpected questions like what does the Bible say about climate change? How are our pets
affected by extreme weather? And what about the children? By focusing our message so much about their future, are we overlooking the real risks our families and communities face? Today, Citizens Climate Radio is designed to inform you about the many ways people are addressing the causes and impacts of climate change. Subscribe and listen to Citizens Climate Radio wherever you get your podcast. >> Chelsea Henderson: Conservative and care about climate change.
You are not alone. Look or listen no further because we have a show for you, the Eco Rights Speaks podcast produced by the [email protected] featuring thought leaders, politicians, policy wonks, scientists, entrepreneurs, farmers. We have these voices and more for you every week with a new episode dropping each Tuesday on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you
listen to your favorite shows. I'm the host, Chelsea Henderson, asking you to check out our weekly climate focused podcast, interviews, conversations and weekly climate fun. We have it all for you on the Eco Right Speaks. >> Katie: Are you a young conservative who's passionate about the environment? Introducing Green Tea Party Radio, the show that blends conservative solutions with environmental advocacy. Hey there, I'm Hannah. >> Peterson Toscano: And I'm Zach.
>> Katie: I'm Katie. Join us every week as we discuss how conservatives can champion energy independence, tackle climate change and create clean energy sector jobs, all while staying true to our values. Get ready to pour the tea and join the Green Tea Party. Tune in and engage with thought provoking. >> Chelsea Henderson: Discussions that matter to you. >> Katie: Subscribe today and visit greent partyradio.com for more information.