How Climate Activists Successfully Fight Obstruction

like it for a reference. I highly recommend you download it and read it and keep all the footnotes links to all the different studies. It's a super super handy reference. Today the final episode maps to the final chapter in that book, which is looking at one of the tactics that works to combat obstruction. Last week we talked about litigation, and this week we are talking about activism of various kinds.

To do that, I'm joined by Jenny Stephens at National University of Ireland Manuth and Sharon Yadin from the University of Haifa. Each of them walked me through a different type of effective activism against obstruction, and I found both of those conversations super super interesting.

is another big part of it. So those are kind of the three different areas that we looked at of how we can and we are and people have been for decades trying to resist and confront the denialism, the delay,

and then also the distraction. Right because I think a lot of what we see is you know, putting up other issues that are trying to just kind of distract us from fossil fuel phase out or more transformative climate policy that's urgently needed and the science has showed us for so long that that it is needed.

Sometimes it's hard for people to acknowledge that there's any credibility in the research that's happening outside of universities, in part because of you know, the think tanks and all of that stuff that have been involved in obstructionism too. So, yeah, examples of what the fossil fuel capture looks like and this sort of no fly zone of even researching fossil fuel phase out and things like that, and then what is the research that's happening outside of universities.

by fossil fuel interests. Right. They actually Charles Koch back in the seventies identified invest in universities because it can legitimize this market fundamentalism, pro business, anti regulatory regime, and universities are so powerful and legitimizing certain approaches, including fossil fuel friendly technologies like carbon capture and storage and solar

gew engineering. And so my own experience in academia a lot of engagement with people, mentors who I looked up to, who then I started realizing are promoting fossil fuel climate obstructionist talking points, you know, in their academic research. So this is this is the idea of academic capture or

corporate capture of higher education. And as part of the Climate Social Science Network, I was part of a group that you know, kind of has exposed some of this the degree to which fossil fuel interests have been investing in higher education, particularly in the United States, in the UK, in Australia and Canada for big fossil fuel countries, you know, is much deeper than many of us recognize, and it's been going on for decades. So it's deeply embedded within

the academic climate and energy research culture. And so this is where you know, I started. Many of us have started to notice, why aren't we doing research on how to phase out fossil fuels in our universities? That should be the number one priority, right, but it isn't because

of this capture. So I think what's been really really important is, as you mentioned, the non academic research, right, there's so many NGOs, investigative journalists like yourself and others who are you know, digging in exposing greenwashing and delay tactics, exposing carbon offsetting strategies and how those are not you know, just delaying things and net zero claims and corporate interests

in climate policy. So there's NGOs around the world. Many of them are international and collaborating, some are specific to specific countries that are really trying to and have been really really important in exposing and how fossil fuel interests are so deep and in particular. I think some of the really important work has not just been with science and kind of exposing the corporate interest, but in climate finance, and I think you know, organizations like Oil Change International,

they're banking on climate chaos. They've really just kind of exposed in ways that no academic is doing with the same rigor and focus and really, you know, really being able to create kind of a whole structure for trying to hold accountable year after year what's going on in

all of these different contexts. So I think it's been that's where the non academic research is just so important because academic research, although it's supposed it is supposed to be independent and you know, free and academic to study what we want in the universities, there actually are these deep constraints because of funding. I've been told all kinds of things, very condescending, like, oh, you're so smart, why aren't you focusing on this, you know, this kind of thing.

You know, I have a science an engineering background, like a lot of these people that we're talking about, and why.

the climate energy research and universities as well. Yeah, yeah, so little in the social science and the well.

tech companies have become major climate obstructionists. Right. They used to have kind of sustainability climate but they've kind of dropped a lot of that and they're now essentially getting into the fossil fuel business because they need so much energy for all the data centers and so they and I think that's what the Trump administration and this new era we're in, they are, you know, collaborating complicit in

ways that it's just so powerful. And I don't think we even wreck you know, we're all coming to terms with how much power they have. But I would say that that is climate obstructionism, you know, but it isn't often framed that way. We don't think of it that way because it's climate is kind of off the agenda

for in many of these discussions. But that's exactly you know, the most effective denial delay tactic is just don't talk about it and just pretend it's not there and proceed as if everything's fine and we can have all this AI proliferation and data centers everywhere and increase our energy demand for what. Like, it's not clear what AI is offering in terms of the multiple the humanity is facing right other than exacin no.

role of news media. Like people talked about how it was impacting the ad revenue model and you know, traffic and this and that, but not necessarily like connecting the dots to oh yeah, now it's becoming the way that people get information.

degree to which the claims made can be verified. So you mentioned a couple of countermeasures that are combating that issue, especially around monitoring, and I'd love to have you talk about those, And I also am curious for your take on this attempt to label those kinds of measures as censorship, which has been an interesting and kind of effective strategy.

I would say as well, So, yeah, what's working? And then what's your response to the idea that any attempt to I guess prioritize more factual information over not so factual information gets branded as censorship.

So I think, you know, and there's there's many different ways that people are trying to do this, and I think one really interesting one is the Climate Action against Disinformation, which is a global coalition that is, you know, really trying to combat the spread of misinformation, particularly on tech platforms.

And you know, I think that is just so important in terms of trying to hold accountable Google x Meta, like these big platforms that as we all know, have so much power in terms of influencing what we see, what we see, right, and what we don't see, and what we learn about and what we don't learn about.

So I think these kinds of efforts are just so important, and you know, and and but they're under attack, as you mentioned, right, with being claims of of censoring the media or also you know, being being attacked or losing their funding. Right. I think that the Climate Nexus is one of these organizations that closed in twenty twenty four. But again, like throughout I mean the work that Drill does,

d smug in Australia, there's Skepticalscience dot org. There there's also like Conscious Advertising Network, which is trying to get advertising to be more responsible make sure it's not promoting misinformation. So there are a lot of different efforts. The challenge obviously is that we're what we're up against, right in terms of the coordination and the very strategic algorithms that are able to filter what we see and what we

what we have access to. So, I mean, these efforts to kind of monitor and counter the disinformation and misinformation are so important, and you know, it's really really hard work, right, as we all know, like it's it's really and being attacked. So it's it's challenging, challenging times for sure.

information about the severity of climate risks. Right, There's a lot of part of climate obstruction is saying, oh, it's not that bad, we don't need to worry about it. So this disinformation rebuttal phrase that we is about refuting

these obstructionist narratives in the policy process. The other term is counterbalancing, which is more about actually another form of counterpl structionist lobbying where actually refute the claims by pointing out alternative benefits or reasons why that climate obstruction narrative you know, in the policy process is it doesn't make sense.

So for example, one example that I think is helpful to understand both of these is, for example, in twenty twenty three in the EU, there was effort to weaken the ban on fossil fuel internal combustion automobiles by twenty thirty five, and Germany as a country was advocating on behalf of their auto industry, let's try to weaken this because you know, it's going to be too costly and

we don't need it. So that disinformation or rebuttal was kind of saying, actually, it'll be more expensive, right if we don't do it because of these reasons there, and it will there will be environmental impacts if we don't do it, right, this kind of thing, and the counterbalancing is pointing out if we weaken the band, that would hamper all kinds of decarbonization plans that all these companies have across Europe, that would undermine the trust in public policy and climate

policy and so like. So that's an example of those two the tactics I guess of counter obstructionist lobbying.

kind of seeing that spread a little bit. So I'm wondering if you could talk through the Bohol protests as an example of that.

they very strategically, you know, used social media. They had a joint position paper that argued for the next you know why, it would be all kinds of negatives for the and they had public events and they really were successful and used kind of the local commitment to kind of protecting what you love. That was their social media campaign to protect our beautiful place and our space, but connecting it with larger national and international campaigns and struggles.

And they were very effective and shifting kind of the goals and frames by connecting the local with the global in a powerful way. And it led to the government prohibiting future coal based development and they really had a very clear and coherent vision of a coal free future. And it was quite quite a powerful example. And one of our co authors on the chapter, Lawrence Delina, had studied that specific case in quite detail, and so it was it was a a powerful example of local mobilization.

And this is in the whole section in the chapter about protests and campaigning and mobilization and I think there are so many examples, and it is especially now when you know there's so much at this high level, macro level. The news is kind of saturated with big picture geopolitical highlights, right, We're missing all of the resistance that is going on

all around the world in so many different ways. And I think that, as you said, that is where people get empowered, that's where people can feel hope, and there's so much happening, and you know, this is where I think there's This is where we need to and there's so much opportunity for elevating these stories of resistance and

demonstrating how mainstream it is. Right in such a distorted landscape in that we're told, oh, people don't care about climate anymore, it's off the agenda, and you know, but really it's not. It's just the powerful interests are controlling and limiting what we're seeing day to day, so it feels like it's off the agenda. But then I know that's I mean the work that you do as well, and I know that was one of the messages also

in the Carbon Bros. Podcasts that you know, it's just the loud people are making these claims, but they actually don't represent the majority at all. They're just quite influential and powerful, and they're taking up a lot of space. But most people do want transformative climate action and do want a better future right, and are working toward that in different ways.

many other people also care. There was actually in one of the other chapters in the book, John Cook talked about how that actually is a form of obstruction and of itself, that like when you reinforce the idea to people that nobody else cares, it has a silencing effect because people think right that like, oh well, I don't want to I don't want to be the squeaky wheel.

Nobody else really cares about this or whatever. Anyway, I'm curious for your thoughts on how and whether better coverage of these things or information about these things, either in traditional media or in social media, could help to I don't.

people are doing and or want to do. But I but at the same time, I think we're seeing now, you know, just this morning, what's happening in Nepal like major resistance. Right We're at a point where there's you know, going to be more of this resistance because there's no other options, like you know, at what point you know?

So I think there's I think the coverage of resistance and the coverage of protests and campaigning and local mobilization is restricted, definitely, and there's often an underestimation right of protest numbers like how many people showed up here or there? And I've seen that here also in the Irish media with protests. And this is where obviously in the United States it's very scary because protesting is being increasingly outlawed right, like it's it's you really risk being arrested or or

work or violence. So I think the the upholding the right to protest right and the is so important and being involved in multiple different ways, right, There's so many ways that all of us as citizens can engage and in our professionally and then in our personal capacity within our communities at different scales, and I think that is what people are eager for confirmation of right that yes, you can connect with your community and get involved and there is a lot happening. So I think those those

messages are are really valuable right now. But as you said, constrained because of the larger powerful interests that are trying to control a lot of what happens and also what we hear about.

you know, it's like, yeah, I don't know. I just people are like, oh, you know, how do we connect to populism?

not a technical problem that needs to fix. It's actually a symptom of this larger, extractive exploitative system that is coming to the four of how detrimental and destructive it is both for the environment and for people and communities and families and right, so we are in a new phase, I think with climate justice because it is more obvious, especially with the tech bros and with the authoritarian games, which are all showing off their petrovasculinity. And it's so blatant,

right that this is counter to plauser for everyone. So I think that's where climate justice, or at least the framing that I use to talk about climate justice and the climate justice movement, and I mean it's you know, trans rights, it's connecting people and the humanization of people

with what people need with a transformative change. And I think it's and again this is what you know, many of our those of us who've been working on this for decades, see that the mainstream techno fix approaches are never going to be sufficient or adequate, right, Like, we need the bigger transformative change and that comes with change

in economic power, political power, and redistributing things. And that gets into stemach structural changes, which are a lot harder to do research on, harder to know, you know, how to promote but I think it's coming to the fore and people are realizing that in many more ways. So that's why I think these larger coalitions of climate justice connecting with a lot of other social movements around the world, it is really really powerful and gives me inspiration.

as well as the public at large. So this can be also a lot of other groups like suppliers and creditors or NGOs, and these stakeholders can object to a company or an industry is operations in a way that can create problems for that industry and in terms of

financial harm. So that's the social license. Regarding the social exposure, it refers to actions from civil society or even governments that expose wrongdoing by corporations, for example, climate obstructive actions like lobbying or litigating against clean energy bills, especially when

they're doing it based on disinformation. And also social exposure is about highlighting greenwashing tactics that firms use, or sometimes we call it even climate washing in the context of climate change, and social exposure can be carried out through naming and shaming, which involves publication of the information as well as condemnation, and it can also be carried out through media coverage and other means. And it also aims to spend the public's awareness of climate obstruction and sometimes

nudge stakeholders to act. So basically, a social exposure aims to revoke a company or an institution's social license, and it can do so, for example, through research in academia, and there's for example, there's a research uncovering shifts in narrative that the fossil fuel industry uses, like climate denial,

the move from climate denial to climate delay. So that means that there's a shift from arguing that the science is wrong to arguing that no response is needed or urgently needed on a policy level.

or unethical that they're doing so. In the context of climate obstruction, both civil society and government actors can expose individuals, organizations, and even countries for their actions, omissions, or decisions that obstruct climate policy or may impede climate action. And these tactic targets firms, corporate executives, and even policy makers engaging in climate washing that I mentioned earlier also anti climate litigation or anti climate organizational policies, and the goal is

to hold them accountable and deter ongoing or future climate obstruction. Importantly, shaming involves a moral message exposing the deceitful nature of climate obstructionists, usually naming specific people or entities. So this is the naming part in the naming and shaming, and the idea is to motivate action to counter these obstruction efforts, not really causing feelings of shame, especially when we are

targeting entities or companies. And so this is basically the mechanism in my book Fighting Climate Change Through Shaming, I argue that regulators should use shaming tactics in addition to their more traditional tactics, which often do not achieve the

desired fact. And I suggest that they convey what is oftentimes perceived as credible information to the public corporate unharmful corporate behavior that is contributing to climate change, with the aim of inducing corporations to comply with climate laws, rules, regulation, but also to adopt voluntary climate norms. Because we often lack climate laws and rules, et cetera, so we need to compliment that with with voluntary no norms as well.

And the idea of regulatory climate chaming is that companies that wish to avoid being named or presented as contributing to climate change will adjust their actions so to refrain from reputational damage that may translate into financial damages.

just talking to a group of people. They're like professional winter sports athletes and they work on climate staff, and they were saying that, you know, the number one problem they have and that, especially when when they're trying to get other athletes to work with them, is that as soon as they say anything online, they get people saying, well, if you care about climate change, then you shouldn't be, you know, flying around the world snowboarding for example, if

they're like as pro snowboarder or whatever.

the NGOs, academia even media to hurt the other person's credibility or the other organization, and this may also create a cycle of shaming and promote shaming or a cancel car culture, which can be toxic for us as a society, so we need to be careful of that. However, many many shamers or those taking part in the shaming process by responding to it for example through the investment campaigns, remain anonymous and can't be shamed back, so in the

age of social media, etcetera, this is very common a situation. However, I do think that when that happens to NGOs or a media platform for example, they need to highlight the significant difference in scale because most of the time the industry is put much more more than them, but more importantly, they engage in greenwashing on a much larger larger scale and operate behind the scenes to impede climate law and regulation. And that's that's that's what the message should be.

this stance of yeah, whatever, we're oil companies. So yeah, I'm wondering what you think of that, and what regulators can do in response to these entities that sometimes seem you know, shameless.

it's not doing so well. So international agreements are very weak and the Paris Agreement goals are not being met. And as we all know, global temperatures keep on rising and extreme weather events are happening all over the globe. And when we look at climate laws and regulations in various jurisdictions, they are insufficient and they're applied very loosely if they exist at all. So formal legal and regulatory tools, the Harlow tools, don't seem to do their job very well.

So I think it's important to harness public opinion when we can and the public resources, which is the public's ability to put pressure on firms and to expose facts versus misinformation, disinformation and greenwashing, and highlight obstructive or manipulative corporate behavior. Each time companies want to influence narratives, public perceptions and therefore policy, we should expose that. I think we shouldn't give up so, and of course combines softlaw

with hard low tools. But if we can't use shaming, then it would be so easy, too easy to influence people's perception, perceptions and promote false idea about climate change. And it's implies. So I think we need to try and encounter that by pointing the finger towards responsible entities and their manipulative tactics.

because it concerns public health. And the agency that is responsible for Occupational Safety OSHA use this tactic, this regulation by shaming tactic for several years, and it used social media Twitter now x to a name and shame employers that were involved with the injuries or deaths incidents in their workplace, and the agency would post facts as well as very harsh condemning texts saying that this employer doesn't respect its employees' health and wellbeing and it prioritizeses the

company's incomes rather than the employee's safety gear, et cetera. And so, of course they had a major backlash from the industry, but this is something that research has shown that is very effective. In fact, one press release about this was also accompanied with press releases. One press release by Ocean Naming and Shaming Employers was equivalent to two hundred physical inspections in terms of the deturns that it

caused in the industry. So this really highlights the effectiveness as well as the resources that we can save by just using communication and words and texts and narratives and social media and we don't have to rely so heavily on agencies budget, which is not always so great.

And I'm curious for your thoughts on that, because I do think that the the climate movement tends to suffer from like magpie syndrome. You know, the next shiny object is always attracting attention, So yeah, I'm curious when you think about it, why is it hard to measure effectiveness and why is there such a tendency to kind of throw out tactics so quickly within the climate space.

obstruct climate policies. And this makes the problem very complex, and it's often hidden from public eye, so it's difficult to fight what we don't know that exists and where and how it takes place. At the same time, when when people are trying to counteract it, it's it's really hard to track it because it's happening on so many levels, from just regular people to companies and NGOs. There are that are trying to monitor monitor the web for this

information for example, and even governments or international organizations. It's happening, I think, on too many levels and too many arenas. And as you mentioned, it's very dynamic, it keeps changing, so it's very hard to track its effectiveness. While at the same time, as I mentioned earlier, it's it's hard to see results and to measure the results. How do I know that lobbying efforts and litigation efforts have reduced as a result of specific action from trying to fight

climate obstruction. So trying to resist climate obstruction, it's very hard to put the finger on the right tactic or person or initiative, and so as it's complicated to monitor climate obstruction, it's also complicated from a policy or research or point of view to measure its effectiveness.

from reputational damage. So some of the schemes discussed in discussed in my book include, for example, implementing carbon rating and labeled labeling systems for products and services, And this is something we're starting to see sometimes from private organizations, but I think that policy makers should also develop these tools.

Another type of scheme is publicizing regulatory rankings and blacklists of oil and gas companies or other companies that are also contributing to climate change, and this would be according to indicators of their level of contribution. We can also think about publicizing the details of climate litigation cases and enforcement actions that are brought against companies, posting condemnatory messages

on social media like OSHA. And also we can think about the opposite of naming and chaming, maybe naming and faming just by lauding firms that are voluntarily reducing greenhouse guest emissions and are adopting climate friendly practices. So it's interesting to think about schaming more broadly and to think

about various communication tactics. And what's interesting about regulatory climate shaming is that many people are very much interested in someone telling them how they can help in this climate crisis, what they can do, And there are a lot of informational gaps, as we discussed earlier, and people don't have enough information on who is responsible for the climate crisis and what to do about it. So I think it's important that regulators fill this gap by capturing the public's attention,

especially with new and important information like climate obstruction. And I found that climate changing is especially effective when it points to corporate deceit or intentional harms like climate denial and climate washing, and when the information revealed is surprising.