澳门六合彩历史记录

澳门六合彩历史记录鈥檚 Max Boykoff documents how the industry-funded Heartland Institute has morphed in the past decade

In 2011, Max Boykoff attended the 2011 Heartland Institute鈥檚 Sixth International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, D.C., to better understand how the prominent conservative think tank was influencing the climate debate.

The institute was founded in 1984 to 鈥渄iscover, develop and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems,鈥� rejecting the consensus of relevant experts on issues such as climate change, healthcare and tobacco regulation.

In his (co-authored with Shawn Olson-Hazboun), 鈥溾�欌�榃ise contrarians鈥�: a keystone species in contemporary climate science, politics and policy,鈥� Boykoff examined the motivations, drive and exhilaration among attendees 鈥渢hat prop up these contrarian stances, such as ideological or evidentiary disagreement to the orthodox views of science.鈥�

Ten years later, Boykoff ventured back into contrarian country to interview attendees of the Heartland Institute鈥檚 14^th climate-change conference and examine how it compares with the earlier conference.

In his in the journal Climatic Change, Boykoff identified 鈥渢en key themes鈥攆ive comparisons and five contrasts鈥攖hat point to adaptive strategies deployed in ongoing and wider CCM (climate-change countermovement) efforts that effectively shape sustainability technology and climate policy.鈥�

While in some ways the organization has declined in visibility, Boykoff says it maintains a $6 million budget, largely funded by conservative contrarian entities such as the American Petroleum Institute, the Charles G. Koch Foundation, ExxonMobil, Philip Morris International and the Walton Family Foundation.

鈥淭here is a tendency to dismiss them as a bunch of goofballs, aging, largely white men who chip away at people doing good work through (the organization鈥檚) efforts online and elsewhere,鈥� says Boykoff, professor of environmental studies and fellow at , the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, at the 澳门六合彩历史记录. 鈥淏ut it is a mistake to dismiss them because of their ongoing activities that they are continuing to pursue often behind the public scenes.鈥�

Understanding climate contrarianism

Through interviews with 21 speakers in the 2021 conference, Boykoff identified five continuities with the 2011 gathering:

• Ongoing rhetoric of freedom, appeals to liberty and support for free-market capitalism
• Attacks on science, scientists and purported climate 鈥渁larmism鈥�
• Self-perception as 鈥渆mbattled underdogs鈥�
• Righteousness and confidence that their views trump those of relevant experts
• A proud 鈥渦s vs. them鈥� stance and nostalgia for past fights that garnered public attention

鈥�(W)hile they may have viewed themselves as benevolently motivated and careful, critical thinkers, in their prepared remarks, self-assurance, appearances of bold conviction, poor listening skills, sensitivity to criticism, and a lack of empathy were evident 鈥� throughout the (2021) conference,鈥� Boykoff writes.

He also identified five key contrasts that have developed over the past decade:

• Instances of paranoia鈥攕uch as doubting Boykoff鈥檚 credentials鈥攊n the face of shrinking prestige
• Waning public-facing influence
• 鈥淎 penchant to feed climate contrarianism into 鈥榗ulture wars,鈥� including anti-vaccination and anti-mask movements鈥�
• Reflection on their individual legacies
• A shift in focus from federal- to state-level sites of resistance and increased undermining of environmental, social and governmental (ESG) actions to influence climate change

Of those, Boykoff finds the shift to state-level action and influence, the attack on ESG principles and the conflation of climate change with seemingly unrelated 鈥渃ulture war鈥� issues the most concerning.

鈥淗itching their wagon to culture wars 鈥� helps give them a purpose, some semblance of notoriety that some of them seemingly crave,鈥� says Boykoff, adding he was careful to 鈥渟tick with observation鈥� rather than speculation in writing the paper.

A potent disrupter

Boykoff personally experienced the intensity of Covid-related contrarianism, with one man demanding that he remove his mask.

鈥淎nti-masking rhetoric pervaded my conversations,鈥� he says. 鈥淚t helps them feel as if they are fighting some heroic, just cause.鈥�

Attacking ESG principles gave participants a 鈥渉ook to talk about the 鈥榳oke left,鈥� the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) and the Fed (Federal Reserve). 鈥� Through the freedom and liberty tropes, alarmism and attacks on science, many feel like they are embattled underdogs who think they know better than those who dedicate their lives to this issue,鈥� he says.

Despite the vigorous contrarianism he encountered, the 2021 conference struck Boykoff as further evidence of the conference sponsor鈥檚 fading public-facing influence.

鈥淲hile this research finds persistent animosity and division fed by Heartland Institute speakers and participants,鈥� he writes, 鈥渢here are emergent signals that these rhetorical strategies are increasingly being viewed as ossified and fossilized in a decarbonizing world.鈥�

Even so, Boykoff warns that the institute remains a potent disrupter, supporting such efforts as mailing climate-contrarian school materials to teachers who may not have time to fully vet the information.

鈥淭hese are dated perspectives, and the world is moving on,鈥� he says. 鈥淏ut they are persistent, and they are still getting a lot of funding.鈥�

Did you enjoy this article?听听Passionate about environmental studies?听Show your support.

听