48 March/April 2022
How the media stoke the climate crisis
Y
ES, WE should rake over the coals. And
the oil, and the gas. Democratic
accountability means remembering who
helped to stoke the climate crisis. We
should hold the fossil fuel companies to
account.
In 1979, an internal study by Exxon concluded
thatburning carbon fuels“will cause dramatic envi-
ronmental eects before the year 2050”.In 1982, as
the Guardian’s Climate Crimes series recalls, an
Exxon memo concluded that the science of climate
By George Monbiot
change was “unanimous”. Then it pouredmillions of
dollarsinto lobby groups casting doubt on it.
They didn’t call themselves lobby groups, but
“thinktanks” or “research institutes”. Across the
world, the media took them at their word.
So scientists and environmental campaigners
found themselves fighting the oil companies at one
step removed, and with one hand tied behind their
backs. When some of us were pitched against a
“thinktank” in the media, if we tried to explain that
it was not what it claimed to be, or asked it to reveal
Death by media
OPINION
March/April 2022 49
its funders, we were accused of being “conspiracy
theorists”, or of “playing the man not the ball”. But
if we didn’t, its false claims about climate science
were given equal or greater weight. After all, who
were we, a threadbare bunch, beside those respect-
able-sounding institutes with oces in Washington
or Westminster?
When wecriticised the mediafor its determined
naivety, we were frozen out. Before long, the think
-
tanks and trade associations had a clear run. They
were the serious, sensible people, to whom the
media turnedto explain the world. And still turns.
If the oil companies are to be held to account, so
should the media that amplified their voices. It
scarcely needs to be said that the billionaire press
took the lead in attacking climate science. After all,
the owners have long perceived an attack on one
corporation or plutocrat as anattack on all. But far
more dangerous were the public sector broadcast
-
ers – which tend to be taken more seriously, as they
are widely seen as independent and unbiased.
For Channel 4, winding up environmentalists
became a blood sport. In films such as Against
NatureandThe Great Global Warming Swindle, the
mistakes and distortions came so thick and fast that
it was hard to see them as anything but deliberate
provocations. When I complained, the channel
sought to justify them with further unfounded
claims. All that counted was noise: Channel 4, at the
time, clearly couldn’t give a damn about the impacts.
The BBC’s role was more insidious. Its collabora-
tion arose from a disastrous combination of
gullibility, appeasement and scientific ignorance. It
let the fossil fuel industrywalk all over it.
When some of us pointed out that failing to ask its
contributors to reveal their sources of funding was
a direct breach of its owneditorial guidelines, the
BBC produced a series of bizarre,catch-22 excuses,
and carried on breaking its rules for several years.
It gave the oil and tobacco companies just what they
wanted: in the words of theAmerican Petroleum
Institute, “victory will be achieved” when “recogni-
tion of uncertainties becomes part of the
‘conventional wisdom’”.
Only in 2018, a mere 36 years after Exxon came to
the same conclusion, did the BBC decide thatcli-
mate science is solid, and there is no justification for
both-sidesing it. But the nonsense continues.
Until last year the GCSE module on BBC Bitesize
listed the “positive” impacts of our global catastro
-
phe.Among themwere “more resources, such as oil,
becoming available in places such as Alaska and
Siberia when the ice melts”; “new tourist destina-
tions becoming available” (welcome to
Derby-on-Sea); and “warmer temperatures could
lead to healthier outdoor lifestyles”.
In a sterling example of the corporation’s endless
confusion between balance and impartiality, the list
of positives was roughly equal to the list of nega-
tives. The greatest crisis humanity has ever faced
looked like six of one and half a dozen of the other.
Only when it caused a social media storm did the
BBC remove this content. I asked it how, when and
why this list was included, whether external
organisations were involved, and why the corpora-
tion ignored previous requests to improve the
module. It told me it would not be commenting. So
much for public service.
The frontier of denial has now shifted to the big
-
gest of all environmental issues: farming. Here, the
BBC still gives lobby groups and trade associa-
tions sowing doubt about environmental
damage(especially by livestock farming) more air-
time than the scientists and campaigners seeking
to explain the problems.
Not just airtime, but kudos. The head of the
National Farmers’ Union, Minette Batters, has
sought to undermine theban on neonicotinoid pes-
ticides, pressed for continuation of the cruel and
uselessbadger cull, and lobbied againstreductions
in meat consumption, among other harmful posi-
tions. But last year, BBC’s Woman’s Hour included
her on itspower listof “30 inspiring women whose
work is making a significant positive contribution to
the environment”. She was placed above true envi-
ronmental heroes such as Gail Bradbrook, Judy
Ling-Wong, Franny Armstrong and Safia Minney. The
BBC continues to confuse mainstream with respect-
able, and respectable with right.
The lesson, to my mind, is obvious: if we fail to
hold organisations to account for their mistakes and
obfuscations, they’ll keep repeating them. Climate
crimes have perpetrators. They also have facilita-
tors.
This article first appeared in the Guardian. www.
monbiot.com
The thinktanks and
trade associations
are the serious,
sensible people, to
whom the media
turn, to explain the
world
If the oil companies are to be held to account, so should
the media that amplified their voices. The billionaire
press took the lead in attacking climate science

Loading

© 2015 Village Magazine

Back to Top