It looks like my praise of The Oklahoman's recent coverage on global warming was a bit premature.
As an Ogle Mole pointed out in our comments section, the paper recently gave Robert "Spaulding" Hefner the V – the spawn of Crazy Carol Hefner, and guy who once wanted to meet me in a parking lot – some blank editorial space to criticize global leaders for "weaponizing fear" on global warming.
He's also mad that these leaders aren't not doing enough to give developing countries more access to fossil fuels so they can do their part to increase global temperatures.
If his mom still hasn't DMed a link to you via Instagram, you can check it out below:
The world needs climate leaders who prioritize people over molecules
World leaders descended upon Glasgow, Scotland, for COP26 at the end of the week to exert their Western arrogance upon the rest of the world, without a thought of the 1 billion people still living in energy poverty today.
These people are forced to cook with wood and dung in their homes, leading to indoor air pollution that kills about 4 million per year, making it the deadliest environmental problem facing the world today — 2,667% more deaths per year than those attributed to climate change.
They meet on the heels of the president of Uganda making a powerful statement that “Africa can’t sacrifice its future prosperity for Western climate goals” and ministers from the G-24 labeling net-zero goals “anti-equity.” They have a point, too. When did we start caring more about molecules than we did people?
Yep, when did we start caring more about molecules than we did people??? That's a great question, Mr. Trust Fund Kid That Comes From A Family Of Oil Overlords That Have Always Care About Petroleum Molecules More Than People.
That being said, Spaulding does bring up a decent point about indoor air pollution. It is a complicated, nuanced issue that the UN and governments are aware of. If you want to learn more about it, I'd suggest reading this article or this article.
If you want some misinformation, continue reading Spaulding's piece:
According to their millions of stakeholders, you might be surprised to learn that climate change ranks as the 13th-most-important Sustainable Development Goal at the United Nations (out of 17).
If you're surprised to learn that climate change ranks as the 13th-most-important Sustainable Development Goal at the United Nations, that's probably because that statement is not true!
In 2015, the UN did unveil a collection of 17 Sustainable Development Goals as a "blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future," but it wasn't a ranking like the AP football poll or 20 Hottest Women in the OKC Media. It was simply a table of interconnected goals the UN would like to accomplish. Framing it as the 13th-most-important UN goal means Spaulding is either foolish or dishonest, and probably both.
Also, I should probably point out that if The Oklahoman had an editor for its editorial page, maybe they would have caught the error and corrected it. Actually, I take that back. In the past, having an editor never stopped the Oklahoman from spouting off unfactual BS, especially in regards to global warming. If anything, it contributed to it.
Here's more:
Nonetheless, 56% of young people now think humanity is doomed because of climate change. According to a major study of 10,000 people across 10 countries, 45% of 16- to 25-year-olds said climate-related anxiety and distress is affecting their daily lives and ability to function normally.
Is this the impact climate leaders want to have — scaring the living daylights out of young people and causing mental distress so that people care about your cause?
First of all, why's it the fault of "climate leaders" that young people are scared and worried about climate change? Would we rather the leaders act like they're executives at oil companies – or Republican politicians – and pretend that global warming doesn't exist?
Also, I found a news report on the study Spaulding cited and it's actually a pretty interesting read. For some reason, he left out stuff like this:
The report says young people are especially affected by climate fears because they are developing psychologically, socially and physically.
The lead author, Caroline Hickman from Bath University, told BBC News: "This shows eco-anxiety is not just for environmental destruction alone, but inextricably linked to government inaction on climate change. The young feel abandoned and betrayed by governments...
The authors of the report, to be published in the journal Lancet Planetary Health, say levels of anxiety appear to be greatest in nations where government climate policies are considered weakest.
Once again, that’s an interesting article you can read at a legit news source called the BBC. Now back to The Oklahoman's Oil Overlord propaganda:
“Existential” is the word typically used to describe climate change. It is an adjective “relating to existence, especially human existence.” As Vox writes, “there’s a standard meaning of that phrase: that it’s going to wipe out humanity. Civilization will topple, and famine and natural disasters will pick off the survivors. Cockroaches will reign on earth — or maybe they won’t, since there’s a mass insect extinction underway.” Presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren, attempting to out-climate the field of 2020 presidential hopefuls, said climate change “is the existential threat. It is the one that threatens all life on this planet.”
Instead of describing what climate change is, The Economist described what climate change is not. “It is not the end of the world. Humankind is not teetering on the edge of extinction. The planet itself is not in peril.”
If you search his Twitter account, you'll see that Spaulding is obsessed with people using the phrase "existential crisis" when describing climate change. I guess you can't blame him. When you've entrenched yourself on the losing side of an argument, like the need to ignore global warming so that your family can make more money selling oil to underdeveloped countries, criticizing words and semantics is one of the only things you can do.
Showing complete disregard for suffering today, climate leaders work to solve for potential suffering tomorrow. They mandate rich-nation values upon cultures that have other priorities, like ending poverty, and ones that don’t share similar values at all. For example, climate funding is now channeled through agencies that require gender equality and other prerogatives of wealthy nations.
Climate leaders, like Al Gore, have weaponized FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt). To recruit believers to the climate cause, Gore is quoted saying, “we need to create fear!” as he lobbied the likes of the late Hans Rosling. What’s worse is that they seem to have portrayed the problem in such an extremist way that they’ve convinced a growing army of climate warriors that terrorism is justified as a means to an end.
In all fairness to Al Gore, you do need to create fear to get people's attention, especially when you have a trillion-dollar industry and major political party spending a lot of money to make the world think everything's fine.
Also, you'd think Spaulding would be all for using fear to get people's attention. His mom is great at it!
Anyway, let's wrap this up. Here's how Spaulding ended the piece:
Real climate leadership looks different. It cares about people’s suffering and seeks to improve the human condition. As the United Kingdom restarts coal-fired plants to keep the lights on in Glasgow and European energy costs soar to record levels, world leaders would be wise to start listening to the energy experts who predicted this global energy crisis instead of those who created it.
We need leaders who refuse to use click-farming hyperbole that risks people tuning out altogether; more importantly, we need leaders who prioritize people over molecules.
Know what else we need? Newspaper editors who won't give unqualified, agenda-driven hack's blank editorial pages to espouse stupid views just because of their last name. That would be awesome, too.
