Environmentalists were appalled — if not necessarily surprised — by Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s statement Tuesday that she does not “have firm views” on climate change, an ostensibly neutral comment that critics said is tantamount to denial of the science.
“Quite simply, if you’re neutral on climate change, you’re complicit in the collapse of the planetary ecosystem upon which the survival of every living thing depends,” meteorologist Eric Holthaus wrote late Tuesday in response to Barrett’s remarks.
Asked by Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) — an outspoken opponent of bold climate action — whether she has “opinions” on climate change, Barrett said during Tuesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that she is “certainly not a scientist.”
“I mean, I’ve read things about climate change,” the judge added. “I would not say that I have firm views on it.”
Watch:
Barrett: "I'm certainly not a scientist. I have read things about climate change. I would not say I have firm views on it."
We don’t need a climate denier on the Supreme Court.https://t.co/hSud9hNYwx
— Dr. Leah C. Stokes (@leahstokes) October 13, 2020
Barrett’s comments drew immediate backlash from environmentalists and experts who noted that one need not be a scientist to recognize the reality of human-caused climate change.
“Not being an astronomer, I can’t really offer an opinion on whether a giant asteroid crashing into the planet would be desirable,” joked 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben.
In his newsletter on Tuesday, Holthaus wrote that he is “pretty f’n pissed” at Barrett’s casual refusal to acknowledge the reality of the “most consequential issue of our time.”
“It’s the line ‘I’m certainly not a scientist’ that is perhaps so surreal,” wrote Holthaus. “This has been the standard, canned answer that climate deniers have given for years. But now it’s 2020. We’re in a pandemic. You don’t need to be a scientist to be able to listen to scientists. For someone whose ENTIRE JOB depends on carefully evaluating evidence, not having any ‘firm views’ on climate change is an unrecoverable fatal flaw.”
Andy Rowell, a staff blogger for advocacy group Oil Change International, noted Tuesday that while Barrett’s record on cases related to the environment “is sparse, there are deep alarm bells ringing.”
“Our colleagues at Earthjustice have been fighting in the courts on behalf of our planet and its people for decades,” Rowell noted. “They have expressed ‘deep concern that the rush to confirm Amy Coney Barrett could threaten our shared future.’ Earthjustice also argues that ‘Judge Barrett appears willing to undermine our environmental laws’ and that her ‘record demonstrates her willingness to interpret environmental laws like the Clean Water Act narrowly in favor of industry interests.'”
The Daily Poster’s David Sirota, Andrew Perez, and Walker Bragman reported Wednesday morning that as Senate Republicans rush ahead with Barrett’s confirmation process, the Supreme Court is “preparing to hear a climate case involving fossil fuel giants, including Shell Oil, where her father spent much of his career.”
“Less than two weeks before the confirmation hearings, the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal by Royal Dutch Shell and other oil giants that are being sued by cities and states for the climate damage those companies created,” the journalists wrote. “Shell and the others are asking justices to allow the case to be heard in federal court… The upcoming climate case is particularly important for the fossil fuel industry as it seeks to ward off a wave of climate litigation.”
Unlike mainstream media, we’re not capitulating to Trump.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.