Skip to content Skip to footer

Shifting the Terms of the Debate: How Big Business Covered Up Global Warming

The late Aaron Swartz wrote this entry in 2006 at the age of 19 for his blog.

(Photo: Smokestacks via Shutterstock)

Aaron Swartz was an outspoken computer genius with a strong streak for justice until the US government hounded him to his death. Bittersweet and “impossibly brilliant,” The Boy Who Could Change the World collects more than a decade of Swartz’s essays on topics from intellectual property and politics to media and pop culture. Order your copy of the book today by making a donation to Truthout!

The late Aaron Swartz wrote this entry in 2006 at the age of 19 for his blog. It is included in the book The Boy Who Could Change the World: The Writings of Aaron Swartz:

In 2004, Michelle Malkin, a conservative editorialist, published the book In Defense of Internment. It argued that declassified security intercepts showed that Japanese internment during World War II – the government policy that relocated thousands of Japanese to concentration camps – was actually justified in the name of national security. We needed to learn the truth, Malkin insisted, so that we could see how racial profiling was similarly justified to fight the “war on terror.” Bainbridge Island was the center of the evacuations; to this day, residents still feel ashamed and teach students a special unit about the incident, entitled “Leaving Our Island.” But one parent in the district, Mary Dombrowski, was persuaded by Malkin’s book that the evacuation was actually justified and insisted the school was teaching a one-sided version of the internment story, “propaganda” that forced impressionable children into thinking that the concentration camps were a mistake.

The school’s principal defended the practice. As the Seattle Times reported:

“We do teach it as a mistake,” she said, noting that the US government has admitted it was wrong. “As an educator, there are some things that we can say aren’t debatable anymore.” Slavery, for example. Or the internment – as opposed to a subject such as global warming, she said.

True, Japanese internment isn’t a controversial issue [that is to say, it cannot be factually contested as an injustice] like global warming, but ten years ago, global warming wasn’t a controversial issue [that is to say, it was generally factually accepted] either. In 1995, the UN’s panel on international climate change released its consensus report, finding that global warming was a real and serious issue that had to be quickly confronted. The media covered the scientists’ research and the population agreed, leading President Clinton to say he would sign an international treaty to stop global warming.

(Image: The New Press) (Image: The New Press) Then came the backlash. The Global Climate Coalition (funded by over 40 major corporate groups like Amoco, the US Chamber of Commerce, and General Motors) began spending millions of dollars each year to derail the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty to help reduce global warming. They held conferences entitled “The Costs of Kyoto,” issued press releases and faxes dismissing the scientific evidence for global warming, and spent more than $3 million on newspaper and television ads claiming Kyoto would mean a “50-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax.”

The media, in response to flurries of “blast faxes” (a technique in which a press release is simultaneously faxed to thousands of journalists) and accusations of left-wing bias, began backing off from the scientific evidence. A recent study found only 35% of newspaper stories on global warming accurately described the scientific consensus, with the majority implying that scientists who believed in global warming were just as common as global warming deniers (of which there were only a tiny handful, almost all of whom had re ceived funding from energy companies or associated groups).

It all had an incredible effect on the public. In 1993, 88% of Americans thought global warming was a serious problem. By 1997, that number had fallen to 42%, with only 28% saying immediate action was necessary. And so Clinton changed course and insisted that cutting emissions should be put off for 20 years.

US businesses seriously weakened the Kyoto Protocol, leading it to require only a 7% reduction in emissions (compared to the 20% requested by European nations) and then President Bush refused to sign on to even that. In four short years, big business had managed to turn nearly half the country around and halt the efforts to protect the planet.

And now, the principal on Bainbridge Island, like most people, thinks global warming is a hotly contested issue – the paradigmatic example of a hotly contested issue – even when the science is clear. (“There’s no better scientific consensus on this on any issue I know,” said the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “except maybe Newton’s second law of dynamics.”) But all this debate about problems has kept us away from talk about solutions. As journal Ross Gelbspan puts it, “By keeping the discussion focused on whether there is a problem in the first place, they have effectively silenced the debate over what to do about it.”§ So is it any wonder that conservatives want to do the same thing again?

And again? And again?

Writings of Aaron Swartz copyrighted (2015) by Sean B. Palmer. Not to be reposted without permission of the publisher, The New Press.

​​Not everyone can pay for the news. But if you can, we need your support.

Truthout is widely read among people with lower ­incomes and among young people who are mired in debt. Our site is read at public libraries, among people without internet access of their own. People print out our articles and send them to family members in prison — we receive letters from behind bars regularly thanking us for our coverage. Our stories are emailed and shared around communities, sparking grassroots mobilization.

We’re committed to keeping all Truthout articles free and available to the public. But in order to do that, we need those who can afford to contribute to our work to do so — especially now, because we only have the rest of today to raise $20,000 in critical funds.

We’ll never require you to give, but we can ask you from the bottom of our hearts: Will you donate what you can, so we can continue providing journalism in the service of justice and truth?