Workshop - Supporting the Deployment of Renewable Energy in the Caribbean

The workshop "Supporting the deployment of bankable renewable energy projects in the Caribbean" will take place on March 15 – 18, 2020 in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. In recent years, a range of stakeholders, including governments, development banks and official development assistance providers have made significant efforts to foster the inclusion of renewable energy in the Caribbean. These efforts include comprehensive planning processes, sectorial roadmaps and in some countries the adjustment of the institutional and regulatory framework. While these actions are key, there is a need to move from planning to action and thus to support the development of bankable renewable energy projects in the Caribbean.

To expand from assessment and planning to the effective implementation of renewable energy projects, the workshop presented tools and methodologies centred in assessing the renewable readiness in the Caribbean region, enhancing capacities in preparing bankable project proposals, and discussing the key setbacks and technical challenges associated with the implementation of renewable energy projects, as well as practices to evaluate and mitigate these risks.

The specific objectives pursued as part of this regional workshop included:
  • Capacity building in the content, application and usefulness of the Quickscan for the development of sectorial analysis;
  • Demonstrating how the Quickscan supports the identification of barriers to renewable energy deployment and opportunities for further assistance from development partners;
  • Providing tailored support on the elaboration of bankable proposals for the Caribbean region based on Project Navigator guidelines towards structuring projects in a way that match expectations and needs of financiers;
  • Sharing best practice experiences, including on micro-financing of renewables through dedicated coaching on how to pitch renewable energy projects to funding agencies.

The Heartland Institute's Answer to Greta

To counter the appeal of Greta Thunberg the fossil fuel funded Heartland Institute has hired a young German women by the name of Naomi Seibt. The institute is known for its disinformation efforts including targeting public school children with "educational" materials that misrepresent the facts about climate change.  Like Seibt, Heartland casts aspersions on science, sews doubt and muddies the waters to weaken support for climate action.. "Climate change alarmism at its very core is a despicably anti-human ideology," she has said.

James Taylor, director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center for Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute, described her as a "star". At the end of last year Heartland showcased Seibt at the U.N. climate conference in Madrid. More recently Seibt made her American debut at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), an annual gathering of hard-right conservatives.

Seibt calls scientific warnings about climate change "exaggerations". "Are man-made CO2 emissions having that much impact on the climate?" the 19 year old asked rhetorically. "I think that’s ridiculous to believe" she added.

The mother of the German youth is a lawyer who has defended politicians from the racist Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party and the young Seibt has spoken at the group's rallies. In addition to disliking climate activism, she is also skeptical about feminism and immigration.

While Greta is an inclusive advocate who calls for climate action, Seibt promotes climate denial and draws inspiration from white supremacists. The other major difference between the two is that Greta's message is rooted in science while Seibt depends on lies.

Related
Greta is Steadfast Despite Being the Target of Generational Warfare
A Greta Thunberg Christmas Carol - Hope that Augurs Action
The Search for Greta - A Short Film about Hope as we Teeter on the Cusp of an Apocalypse
Greta Says World Leaders are Doing Nothing Except "Clever Accounting and Creative PR"
Greta's Scowl Speaks for Millions
Climate Leader Greta Thunberg GMO's Person of the Year
Greta's Strikes for Climate Action and Her Game-Changing Global Movement
Like a Dickensonian Ghost Greta Thunberg Offers a Chilling Rebuke and a Haunting Warning

Coronavirus Related Stock Losses in 2 days Equal to the Cost of Climate Adaptation for the Next 10 Years

Stock market losses associated with coronavirus (COVID-19) equals the cost of climate adaption over the next decade.  Standard and Poor's 500 recorded a $1.7 trillion loss in two days of trading due to coronavirus. This is roughly equivalent to the estimated cost of climate adaption until 2030. This according to a 2019 report from the Global Commission on Adaptation which is led by former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, World Bank chief executive Kristalina Georgieva and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates as well as and 31 other world leaders.

The report indicated that investing $1.8 trillion in climate adaptation could yield benefits worth more than $7 trillion. This involves investments in warning systems, infrastructure, agriculture, mangroves, and water. They say these investments would provide a "triple dividend" that includes avoiding future losses, generating positive economic gains through innovation, and delivering social and environmental benefits. All together this dividend is valued at $7.1 trillion.

The stock market's multi-trillion dollar hit from the coronavirus would more than cover the cost of climate adaptation for the next decade. As reported by CNBC, the S&P 500 alone lost an estimated $1.737 trillion in value in two days (February 24 and 25). That is the biggest loss for the S&P 500 in five years. The S&P is negative for the year as is the Nasdaq Composite and the Dow Jones Industrial Average. The Dow lost 1,000 points on Monday, 900 on Tuesday, 1,000 on Wednesday and almost 1,200 points on Thursday. This was the worst single day loss in the history of the Dow and the worst four day decline in a dozen years.

Despite U.S. President Donald Trump's assurances, the crisis is far from over, in fact, the pandemic is just beginning. Amid fears of supply chain disruptions blue chips like Apple and Nike are predicting lower earnings. Bond yields have plunged, the10-year US Treasury note fell to a record low and oil is also down below $47, a new 53-week low.  The American economy is expected to grow at an anemic 1.25 percent in the first half of this year and it could get far worse.  Concerns about the incompetence of the Trump administration are only adding to the economic uncertainty.

Related
The Coronavirus Reduces China's Emissions by 25 Percent

Climate Related Excertps from the Tenth Democratic Presidential Debate in Charleston

Seven candidates participated in Tuesday’s Democratic primary debate in Charleston, South Carolina. The participants in the tenth Democratic presidential debate were Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg and Amy Klobachar. Here are excerpts of the six times that climate change was mentioned in the debate.

STEYER: And let me say that I got into this race because I wanted to fight for economic justice, for racial justice, and to make sure we had climate justice for the American people.

SANDERS: In the White House today -- in the White House today, we have a self-described "great genius" -- self-described -- and this "great genius" has told us that this Coronavirus is going to end in two months. April is the magical day that this great scientist we have in the White House has determined -- I wish I was kidding; that is what he said. What do we have to do? Whether or not the issue is climate change, which is clearly a global crisis requiring international cooperation, or infectious diseases like Coronavirus, requiring international cooperation, we have to work and expand the World Health Organization. Obviously, we have to make sure the CDC, the NIH, our infectious departments, are fully funded. This is a global problem.

BLOOMBERG: But we -- make no mistake about it, we have to deal with China, if we're ever going to solve the climate crisis. We have to deal with them because our economies are inextricably linked. We would be -- not be able to sell or buy the products that we need.

STEYER: I want to say something about foreign policy, which is this, we keep acting as if we're in the 20th Century or the 19th Century. If you look at the biggest threats to the United States, we're talking right now about coronavirus that cannot be solved within the borders of the United States. We're talking about climate change which is a global problem where we need U.S. leadership for countries around the world. In fact, Mr. Trump's policy of us going it alone, of "America first," of having no values, no allies, and no strategy is disastrous for us. The biggest threat to America right now in terms of our safety of our citizens is climate. And it's time for us to deal with it that way. Every single foreign policy issue is about American leadership and coalition.

SANDERS: Misconception -- and you're hearing it here tonight, is that the ideas I'm talking about are radical. They're not. In one form or another, they exist in countries all over the world. Health care is a human right. We have the necessity, the moral imperative, to address the existential threat of climate change. Other countries are doing that. We don't need more people in jail, disproportionately African-American, than any other country on earth -- not a radical idea. The motto, the saying that -- that moves me the most is from Nelson Mandela. And Mandela said, "Everything is impossible until it happens." And that means, if we have the guts to stand up to powerful special interests who are doing phenomenally well; if we can bring working people together, black and white and Latino, we can create a nation... where all people have a good standard of living.

BUTTIGIEG: I seek to live by the teachings that say if you would be a leader, you must first be a servant. And, of course, the teaching, not unique to the Christian tradition, but a big part of it, that holds that we are to treat others as we would be treated. And when I think about everything at stake, from racial and economic justice to our stewardship of the climate, to the need to heal the sick and the need to heal this country, I seek for those teachings to order my steps as I go through this campaign and as I go through life.

WARREN: Understand this, the filibuster is giving a veto to the gun industry. It gives a veto to the oil industry. It's going to give a veto on immigration. Until we're willing to dig in and say that if Mitch McConnell is going to do to the next Democratic president what he did to President Obama, and that is try to block every single thing he does, that we are willing to roll back the filibuster, go with the majority vote, and do what needs to be done for the American people.

Related
Climate Related Excerpts from the Ninth Democratic Primary Debate in Las Vegas
Climate Related Excerpts from the New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Debate
Climate Excerpts from the January 14th Democratic Presidential Debate
Climate Excerpts from ABC News' 3rd Democratic Presidential Debate
Climate Related Excerpts from the July 31st CNN Democratic Presidential Debate
Climate Related Excerpts from the July 30th CNN Democratic Presidential Debate
Climate in the Second Democratic Presidential Debate
References to Climate in the First Democratic Presidential Debate

A Turning Point for Canada as Protestors Diffuse a Massive Carbon Bomb

A massive environmental disaster has been averted in Canada. The interrelated combination of protest and economics have killed the Frontier tar sands mine. Citing the ongoing debate over climate policy in Canada, Vancouver-based Teck Resources Ltd., has withdrawn its application to build a massive tar sands project in northern Alberta. The result is that hundreds of square kilometers of pristine land will not be destroyed and millions of tons of carbon will be left in the ground.

The $20.6-billion Frontier mine, was to be located 110 kilometres north of Fort McMurray. It was the largest tarsands mine ever proposed. A July 2019, joint federal-provincial review panel concluded that the mine would adversely impact 292 square kilometres of wetlands and boreal forest. It also would have been a climate catastrophe producing 260,000-barrels-per-day and generating 160 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions over its 40 year lifespan.

This decision is a demonstration of the power of protest. Petitions and actions across the country helped Teck to come to the conclusion that public opinion is against them. Canadians led by Indigenous communities and young people are saying no to fossil fuel developments. This is the same kind of people powered protest that killed the Energy East Pipeline.

"Unfortunately, the growing debate around this issue has placed Frontier and our company squarely at the nexus of much broader issues that need to be resolved. Teck CEO and president Don Lindsay said in a letter to the minister. "In that context, it is now evident that there is no constructive path forward for the project."

Although Lindsay portrays this as a Canadian issue, is is actually part of a global trend. Fossil fuels are increasingly being shunned not just by Canadians but by people, investors, insurers and banks around the world.  Rather than political considerations market forces are a major part of the reason why fossil fuel industry is dying.

Alberta's Conservative Premiere Jason Kenney blames Ottawa and warns about the erosion of national unity as part of a thinly veiled reference to western separatism. Kenney opposes climate action and he has been unyielding in his support for the fossil fuels. Kenney killed the climate action of his predecessor and successfully challenged the federal government's authority to impose a national carbon tax. He has refused to set specific emissions reductions targets, and is not enforcing the province's cap on emissions from the tar sands.

Kenney's ire may be misplaced as the issue may have more to do with the fact that he is increasingly at odds with public sentiment across the country. A Global News poll at the end of last year revealed that 71 per cent of Canadians believe the country needs to take the lead globally on the fight against climate change and 76 believe the country needs to be doing more on the issue as a whole.

There is also the fact that the economics of the Frontier project don't add up.  In July 2019, a joint federal-provincial review panel recommended the mine be approved, saying the economic benefits outweighed what it described as significant adverse environmental impacts. However, a January report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis made the case that Teck's application showed a "reckless disregard for the facts regarding oil prices in Canada." To be profitable the price of oil has to climb to almost $100 a barrel. At the current price of $60 a barrel the economic merits of this project are highly questionable.

Keith Stewart, senior energy analyst with Greenpeace Canada, suggested the project was doomed from the start. "This project never made economic sense; it didn't make climate sense; it wasn't really going to happen," Stewart told CBC News. "This was a project that might have made sense 10 years ago. It certainly doesn't today," he said.

Canadians have been obsessed with fossil fuels for decades but the tides are turning. The tar sands are a threat to both our climate and biodiversity. The ruling Canadian government has to make a choice and if they want to be on the right side of history, the choice is clear. Both politically and morally they have to come to terms with the fact that their desire to make Canada a climate leader is fundamental incompatible with expanding fossil fuel extraction. Canadian dualism is doomed and now is the time for the federal government to show leadership and pivot away from dirty energy. This is a turning point for Canada, or at least it could be.

Related
Why We Should Stand in Solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en People

Coronavirus Reduces China's Emissions by 25 Percent

Corornavirus (COVID-19) has slowed Chinese emissions. China burns about half the coal used globally while at the same time it is the leading market for solar panels, wind turbines and electric vehicles. This duality is evident in Shanxi, which is both China's coal mining region and the location of some of the country's largest solar and wind power projects.

China is both a clean energy leader and a dirty energy behemoth. China is now the world's second largest economy and the largest carbon emitter. Their coal powered economic growth has unleashed a carbon bomb. Overall the country's carbon output tripled between 2000 and 2018, and its CO2 emissions now represents almost one third of the global total. An analysis by Global Energy Monitor reveals that the situation is going from bad to worse as the country is currently building or planing 148 gigawatts of new coal power capacity.

Despite China's reliance on coal they are also a central player in the global green economy and they are critical to the fight against climate change. The country manufactures about two-thirds of solar cells installed worldwide and they have reduced the price of solar panels by 80 percent. China has also contributed to price declines in wind turbines and lithium-ion batteries.

China is also an unparalleled world leader in electric buses. A BloombergNEF report found that of the 385,000 electric buses in the world in 2017, almost all of them were in China. The Chinese city of Shenzhen alone electrified 16,000 buses. This electrification effort is being driven by the nation's war on pollution. In the period between 2014 and 2016 China canceled many coal plants and installed scrubbers on 80 percent of existing plants to reduce sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide and other hazardous emissions. This has improved air quality but these scrubbers do not reduce climate change causing greenhouse gas emissions like carbon and methane.

China's non-fossil fuel based energy production accounts for only 15 percent of the country’s energy mix and support for renewables began declining last year. In 2019 the Chinese government reduced renewable energy subsidies and as a consequence investment in renewables declined by 39 percent in the first half of 2019 compared with the same period in 2018.

China’s economy has slowed to its lowest level in 25 years and Chinese policy makers are trying to stimulate the economy by loosening their environmental controls and providing support packages for coal and other carbon intensive industries. Although carbon emissions declined between 2014 and 2016, but they began to rise again in 2017 and a preliminary analysis by Lauri Myllyvirta, the lead analyst at Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, indicates that China's emissions rose in the first half of 2019 and into 2020.

However, China's emissions have been dramatically slowed by coronavirus. Travel restrictions and lower economic activity have decreased energy consumption by industry to a four year low. According to an analysis by Carbon Brief, this deadly pandemic slowed industrial demand and reduced CO2 emissions in that country by 100 million metric tons. During a two week period in February 2020 CO2 emissions in the country were roughly 300 million metric tons, during the same period last year China's carbon output was around 400 million metric tons.

Despite the economic slowdown and coronavirus, BloombergNEF suggests that China’s stimulus will increase the nation's emissions in 2020.

Related
Stock Losses Due to the Coronavirus Equal to the Cost of Climate Adaptation until 2030

Event - Circularity 20: Circular Economy Conference

Circularity 20: Circular Economy Conference will take place on May 18-20, 2020 at the May 18 - 20, 2020 at the InterContinental Buckhead in Atlanta, Georgia‎. This is the largest circular economy conference in the United States. Join 1,000+ thought leaders and practitioners to accelerate the circular economy. Rates Increase Feb. 28. Types: Design & Materials, Next-Gen Packaging, Business Model Innovation.

Program Tracks
  • Business Model Innovation
  • Design & Materials
  • Food & Water Systems
  • Logistics & Infrastructure
  • Next-Gen Packaging
  • Stakeholders & Storytelling

Speakers
  • Jay Bolus, President, MBDC
  • Audrey Choi, Chief Marketing Officer & Chief Sustainability Officer, Morgan Stanley
  • Mark Costa, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Eastman
  • Deborah Dull, Product Leader, GE Digital
  • Brendan Edgerton, Director of Circular Economy, World Business Council for Sustainable Development
  • Susannah Enkema, VP Research & Insights, Shelton Group, Inc.
  • James George, Network Engagement Lead, Ellen MacArthur Foundation
  • Nina Goodrich, Director, Sustainable Packaging Coalition
  • Lauren Heine, Director of Safer Materials & Data Integrity, ChemForward, Senior Science Advisor, Northwest Green Chemistry
  • John Holm, Vice President, Strategic Initiatives, PYXERA Global
  • John Anderson Lanier, Executive Director, Ray C. Anderson Foundation
  • Vivien Luk, Executive Director, Work
  • Joel Makower, Chairman & Executive Editor, GreenBiz Group
  • Lauren Phipps, Director & Senior Analyst, Circular Economy, GreenBiz Group
  • Stephanie Potter, Senior Director, Sustainability and Circular Economy, US Chamber of Commerce Foundation
  • Christina Raab, Vice President, Strategy & Development, Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute
  • Beth Rattner, Executive Director, Biomimicry Institute
  • Pam Romano Walker, Senior Business Development Manager, UL
  • Suzanne Shelton, President & CEO, Shelton Group
  • Katrina Shum, Sustainability Officer, North America, Lush
  • Meghan Stasz, VP, Packaging and Sustainability, Consumer Brands Association

PLENARIES


How can biomimicry drive innovation, and which team will win the 2020 Ray of Hope Prize?

Biomimicry, the design and production of materials, structures and systems that are modeled on biological strategies and processes, accelerates breakthroughs we need to achieve a circular economy. The Ray of Hope Prize competition was created by the Biomimicry Institute, in partnership with the Ray C. Anderson Foundation, to support nature-inspired entrepreneurs as they take their biomimicry startups to market, deploying the circular, regenerative solutions we need right now.

Nearly 200 startups from 42 countries around the world entered the 2020 competition in hopes of being selected as the top up-and-coming business that is applying lessons learned from nature to solve for climate change and sustainability challenges. Ten of these startup teams will take the stage at Circularity 20 to find out who will win the prestigious $100,000 Ray of Hope Prize, sponsored by the Ray C. Anderson Foundation. The Ray C. Anderson Foundation also will award a $25,000 Runner-Up Prize and $25,000 in additional prizes. In addition to the prizes, the 10 finalists will take part in fundraising and pitch workshops and share their innovation with investors that can help accelerate their business.

How Capital Markets Can Support a More Sustainable Plastics Economy

How can the capital markets and major financial institutions help corporates, governments and investors tackle global plastic waste?

In many ways we all benefit from the innovative products and services that plastics enable throughout our lives, from our smartphones and office computers, to the transit systems that get us to work, and vital diagnostic and medical equipment. Yet, as we discard 300 million metric tons of plastic waste every year, we struggle to find scalable, economically effective and environmentally conscious ways to reengineer and recycle plastic material, so that we can enjoy its beneficial qualities while reducing the negative effects of plastic waste.

In 2019, Morgan Stanley launched its Plastic Waste Resolution, pledging to facilitate the prevention, reduction and removal of 50 million metric tons of plastic waste in rivers, oceans, landscapes and landfills by 2030. It was a newsworthy commitment — the first of its kind from a major financial institution. But why Morgan Stanley? As a financial services firm, we don’t produce, or even consume, that much single-use plastic (although we're certainly working to eliminate it from our offices). The answer is simple: Tackling the global plastic waste problem must be done in a systemic way, across the plastics value chain, from industrial design to consumer use to recycling infrastructure. That means leveraging the capital markets and sophisticated problem-solving to innovate, incubate and scale solutions. Reflecting on the first year of Morgan Stanley’s Plastic Waste Resolution, how have we partnered with corporates, investors, government and academia on solutions to the global plastic waste problem? In what ways are financial tools such as green, blue and sustainability bonds, structured products, investment funds, research funding and corporate engagement helping to establish a more sustainable plastics economy?

A Conversation about Chemical Recycling

What will it take to scale chemical recycling technologies?

There’s been a growing buzz around chemical recycling, and the promise of transformational technologies that can close gaps in the current recycling system. This conversation will begin to break down the chemical recycling landscape, considering systemic implications, appropriate applications and an exploration of what it will take to get to scale.

WORKSHOPS & TUTORIALS

Foundations of the Circular Economy Tutorial

What are the foundational blocks of the circular economy, and how can they help drive opportunity and innovation?

This half-day tutorial will provide the basics of the circular economy, from theory to action, from guiding principles to case studies spanning products, business models and system-level innovations. Much of the work in the circular economy to date has centered on deep analysis of the broader economic opportunity. This session will help translate the theory into practical opportunities for colleagues working in various functions within an organization and value chain.

Measuring Circularity: Using CTI to Quantify & Track Progress

How can business-level metrics help accelerate and communicate the impact of a circular transition in your business?

Circular initiatives can transform business operations and models, but measuring their impact and communicating them succinctly across industry and value chain can prove challenging. Using metrics established across diverse materials, sectors and technologies, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development has published its Circularity Transition Indicators (CTI). Developed by business for business, CTI is simple, comprehensive and flexible, providing a common language for businesses to measure and communicate circularity, identify circular opportunities and strategize circular priorities.

This interactive, half-day training will provide an introduction to the CTI framework and its complimentary online tool, unlocking the resources needed to measure circular performance.

BREAKOUTS

Designing Best-of-Class Circular Partnerships

How can companies navigate internal and external roadblocks in order to unlock circular advancement?

Fueled by consumer activism and investor demand, the transition from a linear to a circular economy is disrupting how the private sector conventionally positions its sustainability agenda. Traditionally siloed in a company’s corporate social responsibility (CSR), the infusion of circular economy into sustainability has provided companies a platform to unlock financial value and demonstrate ROI, while appealing to a broad range of diverse stakeholders. For many companies, however, the rapid shift to a circular platform is causing tension in how a company prioritizes, partners and communicates sustainability and circular economy initiatives both internally and externally.

To ensure that companies are aligned on their sustainability, shared value and philanthropic initiatives, this session will help attendees to:

Understand how to identify and overcome internal barriers that prohibit progress on circular economy goals. Unlock insights into the internal silos around sustainability/corporate responsibility that exist in the corporate space that stifle innovation, grow distrust and potentially can cause financial harm to the company. Learn best practices on integrating circular economy initiatives into the corporate ecosystem to drive internal alignment, innovation and external partnerships. Uncover internal corporate value chain biases (Finance, Sustainability, CSR and Corporate Foundation) Capture key insights on successful corporate and nonprofit circular partnerships.

Unpacking Packaging: The Nuances of Material Health

How can businesses balance public perception, circular advancement and regulatory compliance when selecting materials?

The safety of the chemicals used in packaging is an increasingly pressing concern for consumers, brands and retailers. This workshop addresses the essentials on this topic, starting with public perceptions of material health in packaging, and how consumers are pushing companies toward action. Next, we’ll cover key regulatory requirements related to chemicals in packaging, and discuss how companies can go above and beyond. We’ll discuss the importance of material health throughout the lifecycle of the package, and how it’s relevant in the context of a circular economy. Finally, we’ll learn about strategies and tools companies can use to select safer alternatives and better manage chemicals in the supply chain.

Engaging Middle America in Recycling Solutions

How can brands, NGO’s and municipalities partner with consumers to put their materials in the right places?

Last year Shelton Group fielded an eye-opening study to gauge consumer awareness about the plastic waste crisis and expectations of brands and policymakers for solving the problem. Now the firm has fielded a follow-up study to dig into consumer understanding of the struggling recycling system and its impacts on behavior.

What are Americans feeling and doing now that curbside recycling programs are shutting down, the volume of recyclables being landfilled (or burned) is being published and it's becoming clear just how many items we’ve been putting in the recycling bin aren’t actually recyclable? What’s the impact on brands and consumers perceptions of a brand’s "convenience" promise? How can brands, NGO’s and municipalities partner with consumers to put their materials in the right places — and is that even possible or have consumers just given up? This session will answer all those questions and give attendees the opportunity to put themselves in the shoes of average consumers in a hands-on Life Game of materials disposal. Suzanne Shelton and Susannah Enkema of Shelton Group will lead and facilitate this revealing session.

From Product to Practice: Circular Innovation from the Ground Up

How can companies use circular product innovation to drive organizational transformation?

Companies with business models made for a traditional linear economy are facing the need to transform their models for a circular economy — all while continuing to fulfill current and evolving market and customer demands. Join this session to hear from leading companies about their journeys in optimizing a single product, and how it helped launch enterprise-wide changes in business strategy. Guided by Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute Vice President of Strategy and Business Development Christina Raab, this breakout will present practical case studies on how implementing and innovating for circular products can transform business practices — from supplier engagement, to materials innovation, process improvement, resource optimization and global business strategy.

How can biomimicry help design more circular products?

A perfectly circular system — one without waste, non-renewable inputs or inefficiencies — already exists in nature. Of course, it’s not that simple for humans. With capital flows on top of material flows, industry on top of ecosystems, our system isn’t quite as perfectly designed. But why start a design from scratch when you can borrow from 3.8 billion years of the earth’s nature-based problem-solving? Some designers and entrepreneurs are using the natural world as a guide to increase the circularity of design and the efficiency of product development.

Biomimicry, the practice of looking to nature for inspired ideas, can speed up the circular design process by borrowing from the elegance and efficiency of nature to solve complex human problems. This workshop will help designers and non-designers alike learn how to look to nature as a guide, ask the right questions and accelerate the design process for circular products.

Material Change: Selecting Better Materials for Circular Products

How can companies make better materials choices to more effectively design, source and manufacture circular products at scale?

When prioritizing the circularity of products, businesses face a daunting task: They must balance product performance, health and safety, regulatory compliance and cost, to name a few of the countless considerations — and frequent barriers. With an ever-increasing demand to deliver products to market with speed, effectively evaluating and prioritizing these attributes is a critical yet challenging hurtle.

This panel will help attendees learn how to weigh these considerations, select better materials and design more circular products. Evaluating resources from established circularity standards to emerging AI and predictive analytics tools, this session will help designers and non-designers alike assess the resources and best practices to effectively pursue circular products at scale.

The Case for Regional Circularity: Learning from the Great Lakes

What is the business case for establishing a regional circular economy, and how can companies learn from a successful case study in the Great Lakes Region to support their own initiatives?

A recent study found that circularity could unlock billions of dollars in revenue and save over 100 million tons of carbon dioxide in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence region, across three materials alone (steel, plastic and paper), according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation (USCCF) and Navigant Research. This research demonstrates the potential economic, environmental and social benefits for adopting a circular economy — and it can help others discover opportunities for growth and innovation as they translate circular opportunities into actions.

In this session, the USCCF will share the approach, specific findings and broader implications of this regional circular economy research, creating a clear business case for circular priorities and illustrating how companies and municipalities can leverage the findings in support of their own circular priorities.

Click here to register.

Event - Renewable Energy Markets 2020: Call for Abstracts

Renewable Energy Markets™ (REM) will take place on September 9–11, 2020,  at the Hyatt Regency Minneapolis in Minneapolis, Minnesota. REM™ is seeking abstracts for presentations and panels that are timely, engaging, and informative. Are you a dynamic speaker with compelling story to tell? Presentations/sessions should be as discussion-oriented as possible. Ideally sessions will feature new data or ideas, consider important issues, and most importantly, fresh and informed thinking about where renewable energy markets are headed. The deadline to apply is Tuesday, March 31, 2020.

About Renewable Energy Markets™

REM™ is the clean energy industry's most important annual event focused on the states, businesses, organizations, and households that choose clean, renewable electricity every day. Now celebrating its 25th anniversary, REM™ has been the leading forum for the clean energy marketplace, and is attended by leaders from federal and state governments, large corporate purchasers, the nation's leading utilities and electricity generators, and marketers from around the world. REM™ is organized by the nonprofit Center for Resource Solutions, with significant support from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Topic Areas

Here are the program tracks for this year, and example session themes. You will be asked to select which of the topic areas best fits your proposed presentation’s theme, and then briefly describe the presentation/session/panel idea. Presentation and panel themes are sought under these general topic areas, as well as new ideas and trends. Feel free to submit an abstract under a topic area not addressed here.

CORPORATE AND INSTITUTIONAL PROCUREMENT

How corporate and institutional renewable energy purchasers are participating in the market.
  • Corporate Renewable Energy Procurement
  • Achieving Impact and Making Claims
  • Aggregation and Syndicates
  • City and State Government Procurement
  • Options for Onsite Renewable Energy
  • Renewable Energy in the Supply Chain
  • Energy Accounting Challenges in Scope 1-3
  • Corporate Engagement in Market Development
  • Power Purchase Agreements
  • Financial Models in Energy Procurement
  • Solar Opportunities for Corporate and Institutional customers
  • Risk, Co-benefits, and Certification
  • ESG: Corporate Climate Risk and Investors
  • Pathways to 24/7 Renewable Energy Procurement

RENEWABLE ENERGY POLICY

How policy changes at state, federal and local levels will influence the direction and growth of renewable energy markets and investments; any legal issues impacting markets; changes to guidance and voluntary standards that could impact market activity.
  • State 100% carbon-free power mandates
  • Recent RPS changes and projections, including clean peak standards
  • Community solar policies and programs
  • Changes in wholesale markets (e.g. FERC PJM MOPR)
  • Interactions between carbon and renewable energy markets
  • Impact of state carbon/RE policies on wholesale power markets
  • Power Source Disclosure and supplier emissions factors
  • Clean transportation policy, electric vehicles, and green power
  • Other key state, federal, local, or regional policy trends or updates (e.g., CCA-enabling policy, power market rules, sector-specific policies, siting policies, etc.)

COMMUNITY AND RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS

Issues faced by providers of renewable energy. Sessions will address the unique challenges and opportunities faced by each of these provider categories: utility programs & products, community choice aggregation, competitive electricity and REC suppliers, and developer-led community renewables.

  • Strategies for Increasing Green Power Customer Acquisition & Retention: Call Centers, Social Media & More
  • Marketing Renewable Energy & REC programs
  • Community Solar (utility- and developer-led)
  • Community Choice Aggregation
  • Residential Programs
  • Competitive Electricity Suppliers
  • Innovative Utility Products and Programs
  • Utility Green Pricing Programs

INTERNATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY AND CORPORATE ACTION

Green power procurement outside of North America.
  • International Renewable Energy Markets and Market Development
  • International Corporate Renewable Energy Purchasing Goals and Strategies
  • Emerging Latin American Market Opportunities
  • Emerging Asian Market Opportunities
  • International Carbon and Energy Policy Market Impacts
  • Renewable Energy Supply Chain Targets
  • Asia: Corporate Purchasing Opportunities and Market Developments
  • Linking Local Communities to Corporate Procurement Goals
  • International Market Boundaries
  • Social Impact from RE Commitments
  • Policy Barriers, Claims & Co-Benefits

MARKET GROWTH AND TRENDS

Trends in regional and technology-specific renewable energy markets. Hot topics and emerging markets. New platforms and practices, exchanges, auctions, brokerages, and tracking systems.

  • Renewable Fuels (biomethan, hydrogen, etc.)
  • Blockchain in the Energy Sector
  • Renewable Resources and Grid Resiliency
  • Renewables and Transportation Electrification
  • The Intersection of Storage and Renewable Technologies and Markets
  • Spotlight on Upper Midwest Power Markets
  • The Intersection of Storage and Renewable Technologies and Markets
  • Distributed Energy Resources (DER), Microgrids & Peer-to-Peer Transactions
  • Regional Voluntary and Compliance Markets
  • Renewable Energy Tracking Systems
  • SDGs
  • Solar Market Trends
  • Trader and Broker Data and Outlooks
  • Emerging Energy Efficiency Markets

Other Hot Topics

If you would like to include a proposal that is not on this list, please select this category.
Please note that the following information is required for form completion:
  • Speaker's contact information, biography (100 words or fewer) and color photograph
  • Topic area that best fits abstract or Table Topic submission
  • Session or Table Topic title and brief summary (300 words or fewer)
  • Ideas for a moderator or other panelists

Click here to submit your abstract

Important Dates

Call for Abstracts January 27–March 31
Registration Opens, Best Rate April 7–July 26
Full Rate July 27–September 1
Hotel Rate Expires August 17
Week-of Rate September 2–8
REM™ 2020 September 9–11

Why We Should Stand in Solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en People

For anyone confused about the Wet’suwet’en situation this informative read provides important context.  The original author's name has been withheld for their safety.

Wet'suwet'en is an Indigenous nation whose territory covers around 22,000 sq km of land (would have been much larger before contact) in northwest B.C.

Before first contact, you need to visualize Canada (aka Turtle Island) as a territory that held many, many sovereign nations, each with their own unique cultures, laws, and governance systems. For all intents and purposes, it would have looked more like present-day Europe in that it was a land of many distinct nations.

Each nation has jurisdiction over their lands and peoples, so those laws and protocols would have looked different depending on whose territory you were on. Again, think of the difference when you travel from Italy to Sweden. Colonization has brainwashed people into believing you can say "Indigenous" and it's all the same (hence the term pan-Indigenous), but this is not true. Would you say all Europeans love schnitzel? No.

Upon contact, this did not change. Nations continued as they always had. When settlers established trading posts, they did so with the consent of the nation of whose territory they wanted to work on. Let me be very clear - they would have NEVER survived without the knowledge, wisdom, and generosity of the Indigenous nations they were living with.

In 1867 came the "birth" of Canada. This is when Parliament decided, with no consent of Indigenous nations, to assert jurisdiction over them and claim the land as their own. They did this most notably through the Indian Act, which is still in place today.

Part of the Indian Act, which I believe we are becoming more familiar with, were the tactics of assimilation through Residential Schools. But another thing the Indian Act did was create and forcibly implement a new governance system, the band council (aka "elected chiefs"), onto Indigenous nations. This governance system was specifically designed to mimic the Canadian system and ignore traditional First Nations governance. Essentially, the band council is an extension of the Canadian government and is designed to assimilate the nation into Canada to facilitate colonial settlement and resource extraction.

When the media/elected officials start blasting, "but the band council says this," this is what you need to keep in mind. Do you think it's a coincidence that the Canadian government didn't go to the hereditary chiefs (traditional governance) and instead went to, and continue to publicly proclaim the decisions of elected officials in a system the government themselves created? No, it's not a coincidence, it's strategy.

However, traditional forms of governance did not end in 1867 and they did not end with the Indian Act. They have never ended. Nations never surrendered their sovereignty over to the Canadian government and protocol has always been that the band council has jurisdiction over what happens on reserve, but hereditary chiefs have, and have always had, jurisdiction over traditional territory.

So, remember the 22,000 sq km I talked about before? That's what the hereditary chiefs have control over and what is in contention with Coastal Gas Link today. So, when you hear the band council say yes to pipelines but the hereditary chiefs say no (or propose alternate pipeline routes), all that matters is what the chiefs say. That 22,000 sq km is not reserve, it's traditional territory, which, again, can be confusing because we have been brainwashed into believing Indigenous peoples only live on reserves. No. The Canadian government has done what they can to forcibly remove Indigenous peoples off of their traditional territories and onto reserves. So yes, the reserves do exist absolutely, but this is different. This is sovereign, never surrendered, traditional territory. Consent lies with the hereditary chiefs.

Fast forward to 1984. The Gitxsan (a neighbouring nation) and Wet'suwet'en leaders took the provincial government to court to establish clear jurisdiction of their traditional territories as the government wanted to log it extensively. The case ended up going to the Supreme Court of Canada and after 13 YEARS the decision of Delgamuukw v. BC on December 11, 1997, was historic: The SCC found that BC had no authority to extinguish Aboriginal rights. The decision also defined Aboriginal title as Indigenous peoples' exclusive right to the land and clarified it is the government's duty to consult with Indigenous peoples. It also states that Aboriginal title rights include not only land but the right to extract resources from the land. In the case of the Wet'suwet'en, that means the hereditary chiefs have the rights and titles to their land so therefore any consultation for industry projects must go through them.

Furthermore, under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which BC provincial government adopted into law in 2019 (!!!), the free, prior, and informed consent of Indigenous peoples must be obtained before government and industry can go through with any project.

Therefore, Wet'suwet'en, Canadian, and international laws do in fact recognize the hereditary chiefs as the rightful decision-makers on their respective territories. These rights and titles have never been extinguished or surrendered. By all legal rights, they are sovereign people.

Furthermore, in Canada, the duty to consult is a statutory, contractual, and common law obligation that must be fulfilled by the Crown prior to taking actions or making decisions that may have consequences for the rights of Indigenous peoples. This has been affirmed and clarified by various SCC rules including the Haida case in 2004, Beckham v. little Salmon/Carmacks case in 2010, and Tsilhqot'in Nation v. BC in 2014.

So, when consultation happened, the hereditary chiefs of all five clans of Wet'suwet'en unanimously opposed the pipeline proposal and did not give consent for Coastal Gas Link/Trans Canada to work on their lands. The Wet’Suwet’en hereditary chiefs instead proposed an alternate route for the pipeline that wouldn’t go through sensitive cultural and ecological areas.

On December 31, 2019, the Supreme Court of BC ruled that the permits of Coastal Gas Link trumped Wet'suwet'en law.

Read that again. Industry permit somehow was chosen over law that has been in place since time immemorial. What is our justice system?

This ruling in a court in BC against Indigenous rights and reconciliation truly proves that industry, not people, can control the government and its "laws." After this ruling, the Wet'suwet'en respectfully evicted CGL from their territories – as a reminder, only the Wet'suwet'en have the say as to who can be on their lands as shown by traditional, national, and international, laws. The Wet'suwet'en then put the blockade back in place and the BC government decided to utilize the RCMP as hired guns to uphold the court ruling for an industry injunction.

I'll say it again: the BC government hired the federal police force to uphold an illegitimate injunction on a sovereign nation."

Trump's 2021 Budget Seeks to Slash Funding for Climate Action While Increasing Support for Fossil Fuels

US President Donald Trump's proposed budget for fiscal 2021 seeks to kill climate action and science. This budget is a continuation of what we have seen in his previous three budgets. It includes opposition to pollution abatement, energy efficiency and renewable energy, while increasing support for fossil fuels. Here is a breakdown of how this budget impacts the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, and Climate Adaptation Science Centers.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)


Trump wants to eliminate 50 EPA programs including Energy Star and projects that make the US safer for Americans.  This includes programs that fight pollution, radon, lead, and those that give out clean water grants. He would like to reduce the number of employees at the EPA to their lowest levels in almost three and a half decades. and slash the agency's funding by more than a quarter (26%). He wants to cut research and development at the EPA from $500 million to $281 million. Despite the long backlog of hazardous sites that need to be cleaned, Trump wants to cut funding to the Superfund which allocates money for cleaning up hazardous waste. He also wants to slash funding for land conservation and regulatory processes for developments on waterways and wetlands.

Department of Energy (DoE)


Trump wants to reduce funding at the DoE by 8 percent and he want to end or reduce funding to a number of climate related programs at scientific agencies. This includes eliminating the Advanced Research Projects Agency which would kill funding for renewables. While he wants to cut funding for energy research and development programs by half (from $5.3 billion to $2.8 billion), his budget seeks to continue to support dirty energy which further undermines the health of Americans and exacerbates climate change.

Department of the Interior (DOI)


Trump's budget wants to slash funding at the DOI by 16 percent. If Trump had his way the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) would see a $144 million cut,  the Fish and Wildlife Service would see a $265 million cut and the National Park Service would see it's budget slashed by $581 million. While cutting regulations for clean energy at the DOI,  Trump wants to fund the development of fossil fuels on federal lands with $195.5 million for the BLM oil and gas activities, and $18.9 million for its coal management program. His budget also throws public money at efforts to find new markets for coal, the dirtiest of dirty energy. He also wants to half the funding for the team that reviews the environmental impacts of major projects. Trump wants to stop federal land acquisitions by the Interior and Agriculture departments by cutting their budgets by more than 90 percent. (from $227 million to $18 million). This administration would also like to eradicate the budget of the the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Climate Adaptation Science Centers (CASCS)


Trump’s 2021 budget would slash funding for the national and regional Climate Adaptation Science Centers (CASCS) eliminating all of $38 million allocated for research. CASCs provides actionable science and research that directly addresses many of the climate-related challenges unique to different regions of the country. Trump wants to kill the budget for all but one of the 8 regional centers.  Eliminating the regional centers would jeopardize important research on how the earth is changing, as well as how wildlife is being impacted by climate change.  As quoted by The Hill, Aaron Weiss, deputy director at the Center for Western Priorities, an environmental watchdog group said this is par for the course.  "They have a track record of doing this," Weiss is quoted as saying. "In a normal administration, you wouldn't blow up eight other regional climate centers without going through Congress. I don't know exactly what they’re going to do, but, this being their wishlist, I won't be surprised if they try to put some of it into action without approval from Congress." 

Sending a signal


"The presidential budget is all about sending signals," Joel Clement, a whistleblower who left the Interior Department told The Hill. "The signal they’re trying to send is: We do not value climate science." The good news is that Congress determines budgetary spending and Trump's previous budgets have been largely ignored by lawmakers.  However, this budget  reaffirms that this president does not care about the health and safety of average Americans, nor does he care about climate change, sea level rise, pollution or extreme weather. "Congress should toss this Trump budget into the dustbin of history like they've done with the other ones," former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said in a statement. "This president is putting our families and communities at risk by taking direct aim at the environment, public health and energy innovation. It is unconscionable to take such drastic cuts to EPA, the Energy Department and other agencies that keep us safe, protect our kids and grow our clean energy economy," she added. "At a time when we're only seeing greater risks from climate change, these agencies deserve to be fully funded by Congress." McCarthy is now with the NRDC. 

Related
Trump's 2020 Budget Cuts Target Climate Science and Environmental Programs
Trump's 2019 Budget Seeks to Erode Environmental Protections and Kill Climate Action
Trump's 2018 Budget Cuts are a Declaration of War Against Environmental Protections, Climate Action and Scientific Research

Climate Related Excerpts from the Ninth Democratic Primary Debate

Here are the climate related excerpts from the ninth Democratic primary debate, that took place in Las Vegas, Nevada on Wednesday, February 19, 2020. The debate included Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Mike Bloomberg, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg.

SANDERS: What our movement is about is bringing working-class people together, black and white and Latino, Native American, Asian American, around an agenda that works for all of us and not just the billionaire class. And that agenda says that maybe, just maybe, we should join the rest of the industrialized world, guarantee health care to all people as a human right, raise that minimum wage to a living wage of $15 bucks an hour, and have the guts to take on the fossil fuel industry, because their short-term profits are not more important than the future of this planet and the need to combat climate change.

BIDEN: It [climate change] is the existential threat humanity faces, global warming. I went out to tech -- you have a facility where you have one of the largest, largest solar panel arrays in the world. And it's -- when the fourth stage is completed, it will be able to take care of 60,000 homes for every single bit of their needs. And what I would do is, number one, work on providing the $47 billion we have for tech and for -- to making sure we find answers is to find a way to transmit that wind and solar energy across the network in the United States. Invest in battery technology. I would immediately reinstate all of the elimination of -- of what Trump has eliminated in terms of the EPA. I would secondly make sure that we had 500,000 new charging stations in every new highway we built in the United States of America or repaired. I would make sure that we once again made sure that we got the mileage standards back up which would have saved over 12 billion barrels of oil, had he not walked away from it. And I would invest in rail, in rail. Rail can take hundreds of thousands, millions of cars off the road if we have high-speed rail.

BLOOMBERG: Well, already we've closed 304 out of the 530 coal-fired power plants in the United States, and we've closed 80 out of the 200 or 300 that are in Europe, Bloomberg Philanthropies, working with the Sierra Club, that's one of the things you do....But let's just start at the beginning. If you're president, the first thing you do the first day is you rejoin the Paris Agreement. This is just ridiculous for us to drop out. Two, America's responsibility is to be the leader in the world. And if we don't, we're the ones that are going to get hurt just as much as anybody else. And that's why I don't want to have us cut off all relationships with China, because you will never solve this problem without China and India, Western Europe, and America. That's where most of the greenhouse... Let me just finish one other thing. I believe -- and you can tell my whether this is right -- but the solar array that the vice president is talking about is being closed because it's not economic, that you can put solar panels in into modern technology even more modern than that.

WARREN: So, look, I think we should stop all new drilling and mining on public lands and all offshore drilling. If we need to make exceptions because there are specific minerals that we've got to have access to, then we locate those and we do it not in a way that just is about the profits of giant industries, but in a way that is sustainable for the environment. We cannot continue to let our public lands be used for profits by those who don't care about our environment and are not making it better. Look, I'm going to say something that is really controversial in Washington, but I think I'm safe to say this here in Nevada. I believe in science. And I believe that the way that we're going to deal with this problem is that we are going to increase by tenfold our investment in science. There's an upcoming $27 trillion market worldwide for green. And much of what is needed has not yet been invented. My proposal is, let's invent it here in the United States and then say, we invent it in the U.S., you've got to build it in the U.S. That's a million new manufacturing jobs.

SANDERS: What I tell these workers is that the scientists are telling us that if we don't act incredibly boldly within the next six, seven years, there will be irreparable damage done not just in Nevada, not just to Vermont or Massachusetts, but to the entire world. Joe said it right: This is an existential threat. You know what that means, Chuck? That means we're fighting for the future of this planet. And the Green New Deal that I support, by the way, will create up to 20 million good-paying jobs as we move our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. This is a moral issue, my friends. We have to take the responsibility of making sure that the planet we leave our children and grandchildren is a planet that is healthy and habitable. That is more important than the profits of the fossil fuel industry.

KLOBUCHAR: I have made it very clear that we have to review all of the [fracking] permits that are out there right now for natural gas and then make decisions on each one of them and then not grant new ones until we make sure that it's safe. But it is a transitional fuel. And I want to add something that really hasn't been brought up by my colleagues. This is a crisis, and a lot of our plans are very similar to get to carbon neutral by 2045, 2050, something like that. But we're not going to be able to pass this unless we bring people with us. I'm looking at these incredible senators from Nevada -- Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen -- and I'm thinking that they know how important this is. And you can do this in a smart way. One, get back into that international climate change agreement. Two, clean power rules, bring those back. And the president can do this herself without Congress, as well as the gas mileage standard. But when it comes to putting a price on carbon -- this is very important, Chuck -- we have to make sure that that money goes back directly as dividends to the people that are going to need help for paying their bills. Otherwise, we're not going to pass it....So there has to be a heart to the policy to get this done.

WARREN: Yes. We can have a Green New Deal and create jobs. We need people in infrastructure who will help build. We have manufacturing...those jobs are for tomorrow. Those are the ones we need to be working on to harden our infrastructure right now. But listen to Senator Klobuchar's point. She says we have to think smaller in order to get it passed. I don't think that's the right approach here. Why can't we get anything passed in Washington on climate? Everyone understands the urgency, but we've got two problems. The first is corruption, an industry that makes its money felt all through Washington. The first thing I want to do in Washington is pass my anti-corruption bill so that we can start making the changes we need to make on climate. And the second is the filibuster. If you're not willing to roll back the filibuster, then you're giving the fossil fuel industry a veto overall of the work that we need to do.

BIDEN: I'm willing to go as far as we have to [to hold oil and gas executives accountable]. First of all, I would eliminate all the subsidies we have for oil and gas, eliminate it, period. That would save millions and millions -- billions of dollars. Number two, I think that any executive who is engaged -- and by the way, minority communities are the communities that are being most badly hurt by the way in which we deal with climate change. They are the ones that become the victims. That's where the asthma is, that's where the groundwater supply has been polluted. That's where, in fact, people, in fact, do not have the opportunity to be able to get away from everything from asbestos in the walls of our schools. I have a trillion-dollar program for infrastructure. That will provide for thousands and thousands of new jobs, not $15 an hour, but $50 an hour, plus benefits, unions, unions being able to do that. And what it does is, it will change the nature -- look, here's the last point I want -- and my time is going to run out. Here's the last point I want to make to you. On day one, when I'm elected president, I'm going to invite all of the members of the Paris Accord to Washington, D.C. They make up 85 percent of the problem. They know me. I'm used to dealing with international relations. I will get them to up the ante in a big way. What would I do [to these companies that are responsible for the destruction of our planet?] I would make sure they, number one, stop. Number two, if you demonstrate that they, in fact, have done things already that are bad and they've been lying, they should be able to be sued, they should be able to be held personally accountable, and they should -- and not only the company, not the stockholders, but the CEOs of those companies. They should be engaged. And it's a little bit like -- look, this is the industries we should be able to sue. We should go after -- just like we did the drug companies, just like we did with the tobacco companies. The only company we can't go after are gun manufacturers, because of my buddy here. But that's a different story...

BLOOMBERG: Well, you're not going to go to war [to force China to reduce emissions]. You have to negotiate with them and try to -- and we've seen how well that works with tariffs that are hurting us. What you have to do is convince the Chinese that it is in their interest, as well. Their people are going to die just as our people are going to die. And we'll work together. In all fairness, the China has slowed down. It's India that is an even bigger problem. But it is an enormous problem. Nobody's doing anything about it. We could right here in America make a big difference. We're closing the coal-fired power plants. If we could enforce some of the rules on fracking so that they don't release methane into the air and into the water, you'll make a big difference. But we're not going to get rid of fracking for a while. And we, incidentally not just natural gas. You frack oil, as well. It is a technique, and when it's done poorly, like they're doing in too many places where the methane gets out into the air, it is very damaging. But it's a transition fuel, I think the senator said it right. We want to go to all renewables. But that's still many years from now. And we -- before I think the senator mentioned 2050 for some data. No scientist thinks the numbers for 2050 are 2050 anymore. They're 2040, 2035. The world is coming apart faster than any scientific study had predicted. We've just got to do something now.

BUTTIGIEG: Let's be real about the deadline. It's not 2050, it's not 2040, it's not 2030. It's 2020. Because if we don't elect a president who actually believes in climate science now, we will never meet any of the other scientific or policy deadlines that we need to. So first of all, let's make sure we're actually positioned to win, which, once again, if we put forward two of the most polarizing figures on this stage as the only option, it's going to be a real struggle. Now, I've got a plan to get us carbon neutral by 2050. And I think everybody up here has a plan that more or less does the same. So the real question is, how are we going to actually get it done? We need leadership to make this a national project that breaks down the partisan and political tug of war that prevents anything from getting done. How do you do it? Well, first of all, making sure that those jobs are available quickly. Secondly, ensuring that we are pulling in those very sectors who have been made to feel like they're part of the problem, from farming to industry, and fund as well as urge them to do the right thing. And then global climate diplomacy. I'm a little skeptical of the idea that convincing is going to do the trick when it comes to working with China. America has repeatedly overestimated our ability to shape Chinese ambitions. But what we can do is ensure that we use the hard tools...to enforce what has to happen...

WARREN: Yes, I want to make sure that the question of environmental justice gets more than a glancing blow in this debate...because for generations now in this country, toxic waste dumps, polluting factories have been located in or near communities of color, over and over and over. And the consequences are felt in the health of young African-American babies, it's felt in the health of seniors, people with compromised immune systems. It's also felt economically. Who wants to move into an area where the air smells bad or you can't drink the water? I have a commitment of a trillion dollars to repair the damage that this nation has permitted to inflict on communities of color for generations now. We have to own up to our responsibility. We cannot simply talk about climate change in big, global terms. We need to talk about it in terms of rescuing the communities that have been damaged.

BUTTIGIEG: Nevada, I'm asking for your vote because America is running out of time and this is our only chance to defeat Donald Trump. If you look at the choice between a revolution or the status quo and you don't see where you fit in that picture, then join us. And, yes, go to peteforamerica.com and help out, because we need to draw everybody that we can who believes that we need to empower workers, who believes in climate science, who believes in doing something about gun violence and recognizes that the only way we can do this is to create a sense of belonging in this country that moves us out of the toxic and polarized moment that we are living in today. I already see an American majority ready to do these things. Now we have a responsibility to galvanize, not polarize, that majority. We cannot afford to lean on the same Washington playbook. We cannot afford to alienate half the country. We must step forward into the future in order to win and in order to govern a country that will be facing issues the likes of which we barely thought of just a few years ago. I'm asking you to join me so that we can deliver that future together.

SANDERS: But the bottom line is, all of us are united in defeating the most dangerous president in the modern history of this country. That we agree on. But where we don't agree, I think, is why we are today the only major country on Earth not to guarantee health care to all people, why three people own more wealth than the bottom half of America, when 500,000 people sleep out on the street, why hundreds of thousands of bright young kids can't afford to go to college, and 45 million remain in student debt.

Related
Climate Related Excerpts from the New Hampshire Democratic Debate (ABC News)
Climate Excerpts from the January 14th Democratic Presidential Debate
Climate Excerpts from ABC News' 3rd Democratic Presidential Debate
Climate Related Excerpts from the July 31st CNN Democratic Presidential Debate
Climate Related Excerpts from the July 30th CNN Democratic Presidential Debate
Climate in the Second Democratic Presidential Debate
References to Climate in the First Democratic Presidential Debate

More Record Breaking Heat

Month after month, year after year, decade after decade we keep setting new temperature records. The world’s five warmest years have all occurred in the last five years and the period from 2010-2019 was the hottest decade ever recorded. We have seen 421 consecutive months of above average temperatures. The five warmest decades on record have all occurred in the last 50 years and each successive decade was warmer than any preceding decade.

Last July was is the hottest month ever recorded and 2019 was the second hottest year on record. This was the 43rd consecutive year with above average global land and ocean temperatures. The warming trend continues into 2020. The first month of this year was the warmest January on record.

On February 6, Argentina’s Esperanza Base clocked an all time Antarctic heat record with a reading of 65 F (18.3 C). The beat the station’s previous high record of 63.5 F (17.5 C) in March 2015. Then, on February 9, a Brazilian-run research station on nearby Seymour Island logged  recorded a temperature of: 69.4 F (20.75 C).

Between the 1950s and the early 2000s, the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed 5 degrees F, that is much faster than the rest of the world.  As reported in Mother Jones, the evolutionary ecologist Byron Adams of Brigham Young University says the extreme heat  puts the microscopic animals at the top of Antarctica's food chain at risk. Adams is currently surveying life on the continent including what he calls "the charismatic megafauna of continental Antarctica". Adams says there will be winners and loser in Antarctica but eventually he predicts that all will lose.  In a National Geographic article, Peter Neff, an Antarctic glaciologist at the University of Washington is quoted as saying  that he expects more of these warm events.

The adverse consequences will not be restricted to this remote continent. Melting Antarctic ice will significantly increase sea levels and cause flooding of major cities all around the world.. From 1992 to 2017, the rate of ice loss from the Antarctic Peninsula nearly quintupled, from 7 to 33 billion tons a year.  Ice core data from the Antarctic reveal that recent levels of summer melting are unprecedented in the last thousand years.

"Once stitched together, these pictures of global weather conditions and atmospheric composition provide a comprehensive historical record of the Earth's climate that can be used to monitor how fast it is changing," according to C3S.  Meteorologists predict the warming trend will continue and we can expect to see more heat records broken in the comings months and years.

Climate scientists agree that human greenhouse gas emissions are the cause of this warming and the longer we wait to radically slash these emissions the worse it will get perhaps even triggering tipping points from which we will not be able to recover.

Related
Heat Records Tell Us What We Need to Know
Increasing Ocean Heatwaves Killing Marine Life Including the Climate Canary in the Marine Coalmine
The World is Warming and We are Running Out of Time
More Hot Data Contributes to Existential Concerns
Slowing Emissions to Beat the Heat
Warming Temperatures are an Urgent Warning
Decades of Hot Data: The Harbingers of an Impending Climate Catastrophe

Gaming the System: Social Media Undermines Climate Action and Threatens Democracy

The climate crisis represents an unprecedented threat to human civilization. We have known about the looming danger for decades but we have not done anywhere near enough to address it. Although we have seen progress in countries like Sweden and Denmark, countries like the United States and Brazil are moving in the opposite direction. This paper explores how the public has been influenced to make this possible. It specifically explains how governments and private interests have hijacked public narratives to serve political and corporate agendas. This approach is employed by the fossil fuel and other industries. as well as political parties and political leaders like Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.


"Today around the world, demagogues appeal to our worst instincts. Conspiracy theories once confined to the fringe are going mainstream. It’s as if the Age of Reason—the era of evidential argument—is ending, and now knowledge is delegitimized, and scientific consensus is dismissed. Democracy, which depends on shared truths, is in retreat, and autocracy, which depends on shared lies, is on the march. Hate crimes are surging, as are murderous attacks on religious and ethnic minorities. What do all these dangerous trends have in common?All this hate and violence is being facilitated by a handful of internet companies that amount to the greatest propaganda machine in history.”

- Sacha Baron Cohen, excerpt of a Keynote Address at ADL's 2019 Never Is Now Summit on Anti-Semitism and Hate. (November 21, 2019)

CONTENTS

1. PUBLIC SPHERES
a) Introduction
b) Cornerstone of democracy
c) Exclusive public spheres
d) Media controls public spheres
e) Social media has changed public spheres

2. MULTIPLE FRAGMENTED PUBLICS
a) Multiple publics
b) Reticulated spheres
c) Sphericles and micropublics
d) Consensus
e) Cyberbulkanization

3. STATE CONTROL
a) Conflation/annexation
b) Private and public use of the technology of persuasion
c) Democracy as a marketplace
d) Propaganda and despotism

4. MEDIA ANALYSIS
a) Transnational public spheres
b) Social media misinformation and deception
c) Conspiracy theories muddy the discourse
d) Fossil fuels and climate confusion
e) Fossil fuel industry at war with truth

5. WHAT CAN BE DONE
a) Rework the public sphere
b) Value diversity
c) Protect democratic institutions
d) Reign-in social media

6. REVIEW AND CONCLUSION

7. REFERENCES

__________________________________________________


1. PUBLIC SPHERE

1.1 Introduction

I will explore how media has changed the public sphere fundamentally altering public discourse. I will look at how the emergence of multiple fragmented publics makes it difficult to reach consensus and I will assess the implications this has for climate action and democracy. I will also review how social media has made it easier for the state to assume control of public spheres and I will illustrate my points by citing examples using contemporary media.

1.2 Cornerstone of democracy

Jurgen Habermas’ public sphere is a space in which people come together to engage each other on societal problems. While public discourse includes people’s opinions about social, economic and cultural issues, it is the public sphere that brings these ideas to light (Habermas, 1989, p 4). The agreements we reach in public spheres inform political leaderships. Public spheres are essential to democracy because they articulate the needs of society to the state (Habermas, 1989, p 176). As such they contribute to democratic outcomes and define the powers given to elected officials. The conclusions reached in the public sphere can be best understood as a guide to the affairs of state.

The public sphere is an intermediary between private individuals and government authorities. Debates in the public sphere shape public opinion which according to Habermas are a “critical judge” that adjudicates on questions of meaning (Habermas, 1989, p 2). Key to this construct is the idea that the public sphere is an inclusive space.

1.3 The exclusive public sphere

In theory, consensus on key cultural, political and economic issues emerges through inclusive discussions in the public sphere. In practice public spheres have never been inclusive domains. Habermas premised his public sphere upon historical data related to the 18th century European bourgeoisie. In this context the public sphere is the realm of a small slice of society, namely propertied white men. Gender is but one level of exclusion. Participation in Habermas’ public sphere is also restricted by economic factors since it is controlled by capitalists (merchants, bankers, entrepreneurs, and manufacturers).

Fraser points out that there are other significant exclusions in the public sphere including people of color (Fraser, 1993, p 10). She also says the idea that these exclusions have been corrected in recent years is a fallacy. Although it may appear that many of these formal exclusions have been eliminated, informal impediments continue in the form of “protocols of style and decorum” (Fraser, 1993, p 10). As explained by Fraser, informal pressures like social inequalities infect deliberation and this denies equal access and equal participation to subordinated social groups (Fraser, 1993, p 11). The public sphere has been an exclusive space from its inception in the Greek city state (polis) where slaves were excluded, and only free citizens were permitted to participate. I will explore how recent incarnations of the public sphere have become even more exclusive in recent years.

1.4 Media controls the public sphere

Ivanova characterizes mass media as the ‘master forum’ of the public sphere” (Ivanova, 2014, p 211). Rutherford described the media as playing the role of a gatekeeper that serves what Habermas called “authorized opinions” which limit access to the public sphere. (Rutherford, 2000, p 263). Media plays a powerful role in public discourse; it can create and recreate public spheres. As explained by Habermas, media both constitutes and maintains the public sphere and media professionals are key actors in the public sphere (Habermas, 2006, p 416). Media and politics are intimately intertwined. Media’s influence over the public sphere is rooted in its critical role in the transmission of information (Habermas, 1989, p 136). As Habermas said, “publicity continues to be an organizational principle of our political order” (Habermas, 1989, p 4).

The public sphere is a space that is framed and structured by the operations of the mass media. It is a place for mediated political communication by the elite (Habermas 2006, p 416). It is composed of journalists as well as of those public actors whom journalistic gatekeepers deem worthy of the opportunity to be heard.

1.5 Social media has changed public spheres

Social media has radically changed the landscape. People no longer share common sources of information as was the case during the reign of traditional media. Social media has contributed to media fragmentation and this is growing at an exponential rate. Social media algorithms give people news and information that feeds their biases. This fractured media environment means that there are fewer overarching narratives that tie people together.

Social media has revolutionized the highly hierarchical, top-down mass-media model that defined the 1950s and 1960s. Social media increasingly dominates the media space which Bruns describes it as a “diverse, complex and even confusing media ecology” (Bruns et al, 2016, p 57).

2. MULTIPLE FRAGMENTED PUBLICS

2.1 Multiple publics

Bruns says social media has caused “fragmentation of the unified public sphere into a range of diverging yet potentially over-lapping publics.” (Bruns et al, 2016, p 59). According to Fraser there have always been multiple competing publics and she adds that the relations between these public were always conflictual (Fraser, 1993, p 8). As explained by Bruns, “multiple coexisting and competing public spheres at the same time, are not new, even if they appear to have grown more insistent as a result of the increasing importance of global and digital media spaces.” (Bruns, 2016 p 58). While this is not a new phenomenon it has increased exponentially due to social media. Subordinated social groups (women, workers, peoples of color, and gays and lesbians) benefit from their participation in alternative publics. (Fraser, 1993, p 14). Fraser explains that, “insofar as these counterpublics emerge in response to exclusions within dominant publics, they help expand discursive space” (Fraser, 1993, p 14). While inclusiveness benefits the public discourse, as I will explain later in this paper, the proliferation of publics and the fragmentation of public spheres may not serve the interests of democracy.

2.2 The reticulate public sphere

Gerard Hauser’s rhetorical model of a reticulate public sphere adds more complexity. Hauser envisions a living exchange among a plurality of publics. While he references the importance of forging of common judgements where possible, this becomes increasingly difficult given the multiplex of interactions. In theory multiple publics feed and alter the larger conversations of a reticulate public sphere. Each public is woven into the latticed network of other publics that forms the reticulate public sphere. Multiple publics are not necessarily agonistic in Hauser’s model, instead they are construed as “associational relations across permeable boundaries” (Hauser, 1999, p 71). However, in practice the interactions envisioned by the reticulate public sphere devolve into an anarchic array of endless permutations. Simply put, they become unwieldly and this can generate confusion that is antithetical to the formation of shared judgements.

2.3 Sphericules and micro-publics

As we descend deeper into this theoretical rabbit hole, we encounter more divisions and subdivisions of the public sphere. This includes intersecting and overlapping constructs in the form of a countless number of sphericles and micro-publics. These subdivisions dynamically replicate and they coexist in multiple forms like an infinitely bifurcating fractal. Sphericules are small thematic debates, and while they do not possess critical mass, they do share many of the characteristics of the Habermasian public sphere. (Bruns, 2016, p 61). Although sphericules further fragment the public sphere they offer some powerful benefits. The shared interest and knowledge of participants who take part in sphericules may improve the quality of deliberations and the lower barriers of entry for social media sphericules may increase the inclusivity of participation in the public debate. Social media affords further divisions in the form of micro-publics. These personal publics are composed of egocentric networks which Bruns described as a, “global patchwork of interconnected micro-publics, tying together social media” (Bruns, 2016, p 62). In the next section we will see that rather than being interconnected these subdivisions are often isolated.

2.4 Cyberbalkanisation

The highly fractured social media landscape makes it difficult to find commonalities between all or most members of society. As Bruns explains, “rather than as a unified, mass-mediated space through which public debate is conducted, the public sphere is thus revealed as a complex combination of multiple interlocking elements that sometimes counteract, sometimes amplify each other, and that each possess their own specific dynamics” (Bruns, 2016, p 63).

These divisions can lend support to dystopian characterizations. Bruns refers to this as a, “multitude of 'filter bubbles' that are each caught in their own feedback loops of self-reinforcing 'groupthink' and actively defend against the intrusion of alternative, oppositional points of view.” (Bruns, 2016, p 63). The siloed insulation of these filter bubbles precludes a meaningful exchange of ideas. This is what Bruns refers to as 'cyberbalkanisation'. This is the situation where we see divisions into ever smaller mutually hostile groups. As described by Bruns the danger is that ideological viewpoints cluster together and “never become exposed to, or communicate with, opposing views”. (Bruns et al, 2016, p 70).

2.5 Consensus

The divisions created by multiple publics make it difficult to achieve consensus in the public sphere. Fraser mentions societies with diverse values that contain multiple publics and she expresses concern that such societies would not share enough commonalities to reach agreement (Fraser, 1993, p 17). It is the participants themselves that decide what is of common concern and Fraser concludes that there is no guarantee that they will agree (Fraser, 1993, p 19). Social media places people in siloes with less permeable boundaries and according to Hauser this decreases the possibility of achieving consensus. (Hauser, 1999, p 77). Sphericles further fragment and narrow the debate. These debates become increasingly obscure and they often take place in specialist niche media that rarely make their way into public consciousness. Social media has fundamentally altered the mechanism by which we arrive at shared visions of common interest, and this undermines efforts to forge consensus. We no longer rely on the same basic facts and this makes consensus building difficult. (Cohen, 2019).

3. STATE CONTROL

3.1 The annexation of the public sphere by the state

The failure to achieve consensus also diminishes the guidance that the public sphere has historically provided to the state. This in turn makes societies vulnerable to powerful forces, including state actors and their cohorts. In this vacuum self-interested parties can exert their influence and effectively hijack the public sphere. Public spheres have traditionally been defined by their opposition to a state or a given policy perspective. However, this changes when the state exerts undue control over public opinion. Fraser expressed concerns about democracy due to “the conflation of the state apparatus with the public sphere of discourse” (Fraser, 1993, p 2). Rutherford also expressed concern over what he calls “the expanding scope of governance” which he describes as the collapse of what was once private into the public sphere (Rutherford, 2000, p 19). As we will explore, there is evidence to suggest that the state and their supporters are leveraging social media to control the public sphere.

3.2 Private and public use of the technology of persuasion

Rutherford points out that governments have adopted corporate practices employing the technology of persuasion and they are leveraging this technology for political purposes (Rutherford, 2000, p 262). Public and private interests are also working together crafting advertising campaigns to achieve common aims. This often includes self-serving narratives which actively disinform the public and further undermine consensus.

There are numerous examples of advertising campaigns that illustrate how public and private interests coalesce behind specific projects (Rutherford, 2000, p 262). One of these projects involves the collusion of government and the fossil fuel industry to diminish support for climate action. In Canada we have seen this under the leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and in the U.S. under the leadership of President Donald Trump.

3.3 Democracy as a marketplace

The media are the gatekeepers of information and they are driven by profit motives. They pander to audiences because they are beholden to ever diminishing profits. Public service ethics and societal responsibilities are luxuries that most media cannot afford. This is especially true of social media which Zittrain describes as a “bankrupt system of click-based advertising.” (Zittrain, 2017)

The commodification of news has profound implications because stories that appeal to our baser instincts have more market value than real news. As explained by Cohen, “It’s why fake news outperforms real news, because studies show that lies spread faster than truth”. (Cohen, 2019). Rutherford asks the question: “Is there any public discourse left, or has advertising, with its aggressive sales techniques, usurped the role of democratic, civil debate?” (Rutherford, 2000, p 18). Rutherford makes the point that the public sphere has been transformed into a marketplace where the authority of marketing controls politics, social behavior and public morals (Rutherford, 2000, p 18).

Habermas counted on the “mass public to resist or refashion the messages of authority” (Rutherford, 2000, p 19). However, the introduction of the marketplace of state propaganda corrupts the process. Such propaganda has far reaching implications. As explained by Rutherford it sets the agenda and determines the issues that are deemed important. It also primes the discussion, excites controversy and generates support. (Rutherford, 2000, p 268).

Rutherford, said we are becoming “marketplaces of democracy [where] Advertising as propaganda has colonized the public sphere with styles of rhetoric and imagery, a way of perceiving problems and solutions, derived from the operations of the marketplace…everything is commodified including politics, learning and even dissent (Rutherford, 2000, p 268).

3.4 Propaganda authoritarianism and despotism

Governments deploy “tailored propaganda” that makes full use of the media’s persuasive power (Rutherford, 2000, p 262). The state’s use of such propaganda is highly correlated with authoritarianism and despotism. Rutherford quotes Walter Benjamin who states: "The logical result of Fascism is the introduction of aesthetics into political life,” and Rutherford adds, “the thrust of the aesthetic into the public sphere fosters a brand of despotism” (Rutherford, 2000, p 272).

Rutherford says the use of propaganda has corrupted the practices of democracy by shaping and suppressing debate (Rutherford, 2000, p 275). Rutherford quotes Habermas as saying authoritarianism constructs “what amounts to a moral hegemony in the public sphere, to ensure that their conceptions of good and evil, right and wrong become the official norms, if not common sense.” (Rutherford, 2000, p 272).

The use of propaganda in the absence of consensus is a form of post-modernist gaming of the system. Rutherford writes propaganda is about illusion more than substance (Rutherford, 2000, p 275). Nowhere is the artifice of illusion more prevalent than on social media which Cohen has referred to as the “greatest propaganda machine in history”.

4. MEDIA ANALYSIS

4.1 Transnational public sphere

An analysis of climate change coverage by Ivanova and her colleagues revealed that there is evidence for a transnational public sphere in the Western world particularly Europe and North America (Ivanova, 2014, p 219). However, Ivanova concludes that there is no evidence to support a globalized transnational public sphere on the topic of climate change (Ivanova, 2014, 220). I will explore the reasons why we are not seeing the emergence of a transnational public sphere on climate change. I will show how this may be linked to media misinformation and outright deception. Although some media sources do present the facts, there are a wide range of diverging media representations, especially in online media, that make it difficult for members of the public to understand the scientific consensus on climate change.

4.2 Social media misinformation and deception

There was a time when media was serious about communicating the facts as they understood them. An attempt to ascertain the truth was sewn into their master narratives. Today we see numerous examples of contemporary online media that deliberately push agendas that flatly contradict the facts. The implications are concerning, as Cohen said, “Just think what Goebbels could have done with Facebook.” (Cohen, 2019).

Social media is fraught with issues that complicate the public’s access to information. These issues include the fact that there are a relatively small number of aggregators and there is a lack of transparency. Zittrain adds Facebook and Twitter use “crude levers of user interaction that have created a parched, flattening, even infantilizing discourse” (Zittrain, 2017). Hauser found that non-permeable boundaries make lying easier (Hauser, 1999). The low level of discourse on social media makes it easier to disseminate disinformation. This point is illustrated by Donald Trump who is arguably the world’s most prolific liar. He has relied extensively on social media to lie a total of 13,435 times (Washington Post, 2019). Trump’s digital deceit is the key to his gaming of the American electoral system (Diggit Magazine).

Unlike traditional media and other publications there are no standards that apply to social media and as such it is a platform that is conducive to mendacity. People have trouble discriminating between facts and falsehoods online because as Cohen said, “on the internet, everything can appear equally legitimate. Breitbart resembles the BBC” (Cohen, 2019).

4.3 Conspiracy theories muddy the discourse

A recent Breitbart article by John Nolte helps to explain how certain media platforms have muddied the discourse on climate change. Nolte’s article is titled, “Scientists Prove Man-Made Global Warming Is a Hoax”. The author supports this patently inaccurate claim by citing irrelevant facts that could resonate with those unfamiliar with science.

Articles like the one cited above not only flout science, they profess contempt for science and scientists. Many invoke the absurd conspiracy theory that scientists support the facts about climate change because they get paid to do so (BaerbelW, 2017). Flat earthers illustrate the scope of absurd conspiracy theories. As many as 1 in 6 Americans think that the Earth is flat (Picheta, 2019). These people are deeply entrenched in their convictions and they are not easily convinced otherwise. While the outlandishness of many of these conspiracy theories may seem laughable, this is no laughing matter. As Voltaire said, “those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities” (Voltaire, 1765, p 691).

Given their common reliance on deception it should come as no surprise that those who believe in conspiracy theories also tend to support populist leaders like Trump (Picheta, 2019). "They kind of feed each other ... it's a slippery slope when you think that the government has been hiding these things. All of a sudden, you become one of those people that's like, 'can you trust anything on mainstream media?'"(Picheta, 2019). According to a recent poll Canadians are no better with 44 percent saying scientists are ‘elitists' and many of these people say they discount scientific evidence when it doesn't align with their personal beliefs (Weber, 2019).

Conspiracy theories are now commonplace on Fox “news” and sites with political agendas. Media that disseminate conspiracies are trying to muddy the waters of fact blurring the distinction between what is true and what is false. This lays a foundation that makes it possible for self-interested parties to step in and control the narrative with disinformation.

4.4 Fossil fuels and climate confusion

Inaccurate climate narratives may be pervasive in far-right media, but these narratives have found their way into the wider societal discourse. They can even be found in the discourses of communications “experts” that are taught to undergraduate students in universities. Rupindar Mangat’s fossil fuel divestment discourse is a case in point. Mangat starts off by appearing to suggest that casting the fossil fuel industry as the enemy is part of the reason why we have not seen significant political action. While he pays lip service to competing views Mangat comes to several flawed conclusions. Mangat seems to advocate strategies that “avoid conflict…[by]…focusing on 'breakthrough technologies' that might address climate change but avoid dramatic social and economic change.” (Mangat, 2018). His conclusion ignores his own acknowledgement of the urgent need for dramatic social and economic change.

In this and other statements Mangat ignores the fossil fuel industry’s decades long track record of malfeasance (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2015). Mangat pushes back against the “intense othering” of the fossil fuel industry and he appears to be concerned about references to their moral inferiority. He conspicuously ignores the fossil fuel industry’s history of obfuscation and deceit while supporting a civil discourse that buys time for the industry. If Mangat is deliberately trying to help the fossil fuel industry he would not be the first academic to do so. The fossil fuel industry uses their financial might to control academia (Matthews, March 1, 2019). They also buy politicians and political outcomes. (Matthews, February 27, 2019). A science-based assessment reveals that the near-term elimination of fossil fuels is a critical part of serious climate action (Matthews, February 25, 2019).

Mangat resists what he considers to be simplifying climate change by seeing it as an existential struggle (Mangat, 2018). However, this is exactly what climate change represents (Ramanathan 2017). Mangat then goes on to accuse supporters of divestment of being hypocrites and he muddies the waters with an unnecessarily complex summary of decarbonization. He also challenges the idea that there is a consensus on how to deal with climate change, despite the fact that the IPCC and others have made it clear that reigning in emissions to combat climate change necessitates that we stop burning hydrocarbons (Taylor, 2019).

The UK medical research charity the Wellcome Trust has cited Mangat's work in its decision to increase its portfolio of fossil fuel shares and ignore calls to stop investing in fossil fuels. (Kmietowicz, 2015). While purporting to study the issues, wittingly or unwittingly, Mangat is actively contributing to false narratives. 4.5 Fossil fuel industry at war with truth The fossil fuel industry needs to dispute the facts to retain their moral license to operate and social media is the perfect platform from whence they can wage this war against truth. This idea is explored in an article by Andy Rowell titled “Facebook Hires Koch-Funded Climate Deniers for 'Fact-Checking”.

Many of the fossil fuel industry’s lies get posted on social media sites like Facebook, which do a very poor job of checking their veracity. In fact, it may be a case of the fox guarding the henhouse. Facebook is teaming up with CheckYourFact.com, which is an offshoot of the anti-science media site, The Daily Caller. As explained by Rowell, the Daily Caller regularly publishes dishonest statements and misinformation about climate science. It was co-founded by science-denying Fox News host Tucker Carlson and is backed by major conservative donors, including Charles and David Koch, the billionaire oil barons who are the single biggest funders of climate science misinformation (Rowell, 2019).

Facebook has also joined forces with other climate denial websites including the Weekly Standard, a highly partisan right-wing “fact-checker”. Environmental sociologist, professor Robert Brulle, described this as part of the “right wing echo chamber" (Rowell, 2019).

5. WHAT CAN BE DONE

5.1 Redefine the public sphere

Addressing some of the problems we have reviewed in this paper starts with reworking Habermas’ conception of the public sphere. As stated by Rutherford, in the public sphere, “popular participation is restricted”. (Rutherford, 2000, p 275). This is arguably the starting point of a cascade of adverse consequences. Fraser demonstrates that Habermas’ bourgeois conception of the public sphere, “is not adequate for the critique of the limits of actually existing democracy in late capitalist societies”. (Fraser, 1993, p. 26). Bruns asks how the public sphere can be adjusted and whether it is relevant at all. He also quotes those who suggest Habermas’ public sphere is “a convenient fantasy" that should be abandoned. (Bruns et al, 2016 p 58).

Haberman himself foresaw the decay and collapse of the bourgeois public sphere: “[F]or about a century the social foundations of this sphere have been caught up in a process of decomposition. Tendencies pointing to the collapse of the public sphere are unmistakable, for while its scope is expanding impressively, its function has become progressively insignificant.” (Habermas, 1989 p 4). Bruns concludes that the orthodox formulations of Habermas’ public sphere need to be augmented or replaced (Bruns et al, 2016 p 58). According to Bruns the singular public sphere should be extended to include inter-connected and overlapping publics (Bruns 2016, p 70). As we will explore in the next section inclusiveness allows a diverse array of individuals to participate in the public sphere and this can have the paradoxical effect of countering fragmentation. It may even help to protect democracy from those who would destroy it.

5.2 Value diversity

A truly accessible and diverse public sphere may resist the kind of fragmentation that impedes consensus building. Habermas suggests that as "a larger number of people tend to take an interest in a larger number of issues, the overlap of issue publics may even serve to counter trends of fragmentation" (Habermas, 2006, p 422). Columbia Business School Professor Katherine Phillips explains the value of diversity with a study on of the impact of diversity on organizations. Researchers found “the mere presence of diversity increased engagement and another study suggests diverse groups of people are better able to detect differences in information while homogenous group gloss over those differences. (Philips, 2019). Philips also found that diverse groups did a better job of assessing their own performance compared to homogeneous groups which tended to be confident about their performance even if they were wrong. Philips interprets these results as suggesting homogeneous groups are a little “delusional”. (Philips, 2019). These results suggest that diversity not only offers opportunities for creative problem solving, it also has the potential to curb the worst excesses of homogeneity.

Fraser argues that the concept of a counterpublic, “militates in the long run against separatism” (Fraser, 1993, p. 15). However, to avoid the rabbit hole of fragmentation and division we need to bring people together. In the next section we will consider the unifying potential of democratic institutions.

5.3 Protect democratic institutions

To ensure that diversity contributes to consensus building and not merely an endless succession of publics we need to have a unifying frame. That frame can come from bolstering democratic institutions both within government and in civil society. As explained by Rutherford, free access to open debate is dependent upon the "institutional core of a civil society" (Rutherford, 2000, p 19).

Fraser recognized the need for institutional arrangements that ensure the accountability of democratic decision-making bodies (Fraser, 1993, p 25). Fraser succinctly lays out the challenge in the following quote: “The problem for liberals, thus, is how to strengthen the barriers separating political institutions that are supposed to instantiate relations of equality from economic, cultural, and sociosexual institutions that are premised on systemic relations of inequality” (Fraser, 1993, p 12).

5.4 Reign-in social media

Finally, we need to hold social media companies accountable. Rather than giving hate a platform under the guise of free speech we need to apply standards and practices to social media like we do with other published materials. We need to prevent the dissemination of blatantly inaccurate statements especially political ads that subvert free and fair elections. We need to see legislation and regulation that will reign-in social media companies. In the absence of such actions we will not see significant change. “[T]h ese companies won’t fundamentally change because their entire business model relies on generating more engagement, and nothing generates more engagement than lies, fear and outrage.” (Cohen, 2019).

6. REVIEW AND CONCLUSION

The public sphere’s ability to facilitate consensus is dying and along with it the means by which our democracies work towards the common good. We are faced with four major problems, the first is that the public sphere is not accessible to everybody. The second is the confusing array of publics and the third is state control over the public sphere. These issues are compounded by social media which is the fourth and final issue. Together these four problems make it almost impossible to achieve consensus. In the absence of consensus misinformation thrives and governments become untethered to public opinion. Democracy suffers and as a result of the vacuum that is created governments are granted the latitude to ignore urgent issues like climate change. These dynamics are what give traction to Trump’s firestorm of fake news and the disinformation from Brexiteers. What we are dealing with is nothing less than the subversion of reality. As Trump has blatantly stated: “What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening” (BBC, 2018).

I have suggested four approaches to counter these four threats. Reworking the public sphere in a way that makes it truly accessible, supporting diversity, protecting the institutions of democracy as a bulwark against fragmentation and holding social media companies accountable.

Powerful forces have gamed the system, undermined the operation of the public sphere and made it possible to ignore the public good. We have reason to be concerned about the implications for democracy and our planet. As Cohen says, “Our pluralistic democracies are on a precipice...and the role of social media, could be determinant...A sewer of bigotry and vile conspiracy theories threatens democracy and our planet (Cohen, 2019).

All is not lost, “if we prioritize truth over lies, tolerance over prejudice, empathy over indifference and experts over ignoramuses—then maybe, just maybe, we can stop the greatest propaganda machine in history, we can save democracy.” (Cohen, 2019). The pressure is building, and we are seeing some action from social media companies. Google and YouTube recently removed 300 Trump campaign ads for making “misleading claims” (Rosenberg, 2019).

It may be unrealistic to hope that social media companies can shake their propensity to prioritize profit. The best hope may come from teaching the general public to discern between online fact and cyber fiction. We are seeing a rise in organizations that specialize in fact-checking and open-source intelligence. However, the lies are both pervasive and pernicious. Combating them will require coordinated action on multiple fronts. The urgency of these issues cannot be overstated, failure to act jeopardizes our hard-won democracies and planetary well-being.

Related
Honest Ads Act Explained


REFERENCES

1. BBC. (July 25, 2018). Donald Trump: 'What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-44959340/donald-trump-what-you-re-seeing-and-what-you-re-reading-is-not-what-s-happening. Accessed November 25, 2019.
2. BaerbelW. (February 14, 2017). Why claiming that climate scientists are in it for the money is absurd. Skeptical Science. https://skepticalscience.com/absurd-claim-climate-scientists-in-it-for-the-money.html. Accessed on December 1, 2019.
3. Bruns, Axel. Enli, Gunn, Skogerbø, Eli, Larsson, Anders Olof, & Christensen, Christian (Eds.). (2016). “Is Habermas on Twitter? Social media and the public sphere”. The Routledge Companion to Social Media and Politics. New York, Routledge. pp. 56-73.
4. Cohen, Sacha Baron. (November 21, 2019). Keynote Address at ADL's 2019 Never Is Now Summit on Anti-Semitism and Hate. Remarks by Sacha Baron Cohen, Recipient of ADL's International Leadership Award. https://www.adl.org/news/article/sacha-baron-cohens-keynote-address-at-adls-2019-never-is-now-summit-on-anti-semitism Retrieved November 23, 2019.
5. Collinson, Stephen. (November 25, 2019). Republicans buy into Trump conspiracies to blunt impact of impeachment hearings. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/25/politics/republicans-trump-impeachment-conspiracies/index.html Accessed on November 25, 2019.
6. Diggit Magazine, Trump, social media and the first Twitter-based Presidency https://www.diggitmagazine.com/articles/Trump-Twitter-Based-Presidency. Accessed on November 27, 2019.
7. Fraser, Nancy. (1993). “Rethinking the Public Sphere” The Phantom Public Sphere. (Ed. by Bruce Robbins), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. pp. 1-32.
8. Habermas, Jürgen. (1989) “The Initial Question” & “Remarks on the Type of Representative Publicness” in The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere – An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society (translated by Thomas Burger & Frederick Lawrence) MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. pp 1-13.
9. Habermas, Jürgen. (2006) "Political Communication in Media Society: Does Democracy Still Enjoy an Epistemic Dimension? The Impact of Normative Theory on Empirical Research." Communication Theory 16(4): 411-26.
10. Harding, Gareth. MEDIA LIES AND BREXIT A Double Hammer-Blow to Europe and Ethical Journalism. Ethical Journalism. https://ethicaljournalismnetwork.org/resources/publications/ethics-in-the-news/media-lies-and-brexit Accessed on November 26, 2019.
11. Hauser, Gerard. (1999) Vernacular Voices: The Rhetoric of Publics and Public Spheres. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
12. Ivanova, Ana. Andreas Schmidt and Mike S. Schäfer. (2014). “Global Climate Change, Global Public Sphere? Media Attention for Climate Change in 27 Countries”. in Comparing Political Communication across Time and Space. (Eds. Canel M.J., Voltmer K.) London, Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 210-227.
13. Kessler, Glenn. Salvador Rizzo, Meg Kelly. (October 14, 2019). President Trump has made 13,435 false or misleading claims over 993 days. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/14/president-trump-has-made-false-or-misleading-claims-over-days/ Accessed November 26, 2019.
14. Kmietowicz, Zosia. (2015). BMJ, Wellcome Trust increases investment in fossil fuels despite calls to divest, BMJ 2015;351:h7019. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h7019
15. Leetaru, kalev. (August 1, 2017). “Is Social Media Really A Public Space?” Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2017/08/01/is-social-media-really-a-public-space/#a7ae9c02b805. 16. Mangat, Rupindar, Simon Dalby & Matthew Paterson. (2018). “Divestment Discourse: War, Justice, Morality and Money”, Environmental Politics, Vol. 27:2, pp.187-208.
17. Matthews, Richard. (February 25, 2019). Ending Fossil Fuels Really is the Answer. The Green Market Oracle. http://www.thegreenmarketoracle.com/2019/02/ending-fossil-fuels-really-is-answer.html Accessed December 1, 2019.
18. Matthews, Richard. (February 27, 2019). The Fossil Fuel Industry Buys Politicians and Political Outcomes. The Green Market Oracle. http://www.thegreenmarketoracle.com/2019/02/fossil-fuel-industry-buys-politicians.html Accessed December 1, 2019.
19. Matthews, Richard. (March 1, 2019). Ivy League Science Awash with Oil: How the Fossil Fuel Industry Controls Academia. The Green Market Oracle. http://www.thegreenmarketoracle.com/2019/03/ivy-league-science-awash-with-oil-how.html. Accessed on December 1, 2019.
20. Nolte, John. (Apr 9, 2019). “Scientists Prove Man-Made Global Warming Is a Hoax”. Breitbart https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/04/09/nolte-scientists-prove-man-made-global-warming-is-a-hoax/ Accessed on November 12, 2019.
21. Phillips, Katherine, Financial Times, https://www.ft.com/paidpost/columbia-business-school/have-we-been-thinking-about-diversity-all-wrong.html. Accessed November 23, 2019.
22. Picheta, Rob. (November 18, 2019). The flat-Earth conspiracy is spreading around the globe. Does it hide a darker core? CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/16/us/flat-earth-conference-conspiracy-theories-scli-intl/index.html. Accessed November 28, 2019.
23. Ramanathan, Veerabhadran. (Mar 23, 2017). Climate Change, Morphing into an Existential Threat. University of Cambridge. https://www.cser.ac.uk/events/veerabhadran-ramanathan/. Accessed December 1, 2019.
24. Rosenberg, Scott. (December 2, 2019). Google and YouTube removed 300 Trump campaign ads. Axios. https://www.axios.com/google-and-youtube-removed-300-trump-campaign-ads-fbcd1826-009e-4d40-9a9e-031f46d1dc2d.html. Accessed December 2, 2019.
25. Rowell, Andy. (April 30, 2019). Facebook Hires Koch-Funded Climate Deniers for 'Fact-Checking', EcoWatch. https://www.ecowatch.com/facebook-factchecking-science-climate-denial-2635927165.html Accessed on November 25, 2019.
26. Rutherford, Paul. (2000) “Habermas’s Lament” in Endless Propaganda, The Advertising of Public Goods. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. pp. 18-22.
27. Taylor, Matthew. Matthew Weaver and Helen Davidson. (October 8, 2018). IPCC climate change report calls for urgent action to phase out fossil fuels. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/live/2018/oct/08/ipcc-climate-change-report-urgent-action-fossil-fuels-live. Accessed on December 1, 2019.
28. Union of Concerned Scientists. (June 29, 2015) The Climate Deception Dossiers: Internal Fossil Fuel Industry Memos Reveal Decades of Corporate Disinformation. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/climate-deception-dossiers. Accessed November 24, 2019.
29. Voltaire (1765) "Questions sur les miracles." Google books, https://books.google.ca/books?id=m22eOZllsIC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false. Accessed November 27, 2019.
30. Weber, Bob. (September 23, 2019). Canadians' trust in science falling, poll suggests. CBC. https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/science-survey-1.5291291. Accessed November 28, 2019.
31. Zittrain, Jonathan. (May 03, 2017). ‘How on-line platforms shape American Discourse: The Age of Misinformation”. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/05/american-discourse-version-12/523875/n Accessed on November 12, 2019.