Peter Jacques

The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism

Environmental scepticism denies the seriousness of environmental problems, and self-professed ‘sceptics’ claim to be unbiased analysts combating ‘junk science’. This study quantitatively analyses 141 English-language environmentally sceptical books published between 1972 and 2005. We find that over 92 per cent of these books, most published in the US since 1992, are linked to conservative think tanks (CTTs). Further, we analyse CTTs involved with environmental issues and find that 90 per cent of them espouse environmental scepticism. We conclude that scepticism is a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection.

Climate Change Denial Books and Conservative Think Tanks Exploring the Connection

The conservative movement and especially its think tanks play a critical role in denying the reality and significance of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), especially by manufacturing uncertainty over climate science. Books denying AGW are a crucial means of attacking climate science and scientists, and we examine the links between conservative think tanks (CTTs) and 108 climate change denial books published through 2010. We find a strong link, albeit noticeably weaker for the growing number of self-published denial books. We also examine the national origins of the books and the academic backgrounds of their authors or editors, finding that with the help of American CTTs climate change denial has spread to several other nations and that an increasing portion of denial books are produced by individuals with no scientific training. It appears that at least 90% of denial books do not undergo peer review, allowing authors or editors to recycle scientifically unfounded claims that are then amplified by the conservative movement, media, and political elites.

The Rearguard of Modernity: Environmental Skepticism as a Struggle of Citizenship

Environmental skepticism denies the reality and importance of mainstream global environmental problems. However, its most important challenges are in its civic claims which receive much less attention. These civic claims defend the basis of ethical authority of the dominant social paradigm. The article explains how political values determine what skeptics count as a problem. One such value described is deep anthropocentrism, or the attempt to split human society from non-human nature and reject ecology as a legitimate field of ethical concern. This bias frames what skeptics consider legitimate knowledge. The paper then argues that the contemporary conservative countermovement has marshaled environmental skepticism to function as a rearguard for a maladaptive set of core values that resist public efforts to address global environmental sustainability. As such, the paper normatively argues that environmental skepticism is a significant threat to efforts to achieve sustainability faced by human societies in a globalizing world.

A General Theory of Climate Denial

The question at hand is, “Why is there a social counter-movement that rejects climate change?” This article begins by first naming this counter-movement “climate denial” and working through the various apparent options by specifically looking at the scholarship on Holocaust denial for insight. Through this insight, we can understand the counter-movement as a reactionary force working to sow confusion for ideological reasons that promote a specific privilege. At the same time, privilege is also protected by the presentation of climate change science as a binary position of “acknowledgement or rejection” that itself promotes privilege and dysfunction across the intersection of science and society. In the end, at least one answer to the question “why denial?” appears to be “because it is serious and threatening” and this, at least partially, explains the existence of this counter-movement.

Downscaling climate models and environmental policy: From global to regional politics

Abstract High resolution climate models of regions, or downscaling, promises to be at the forefront of future climate policy research. However, most research in this area is in the natural sciences, and the policy community has not taken full notice of this trend at their doorstep. Downscaling provides more concrete information about local impacts of climate change. This raises several important political issues surrounding extreme events, adaptation, risk and equity and legacy concerns, all of which are briefly addressed. The paper concludes with a call for more social science research on downscaling to accompany the rich geophysical science literature in the topic.

A Political Economy of Russian Nature Conservation Policy: Why Scientists have Taken a Back Seat

During the Soviet era, Soviet scientists were well respected and often included in the policy-making process. Under the new set of post-Soviet circumstances, scientists remain influential but their favored position has decreased insofar as they now operate in an expanded pluralist context in which they must join or compete with emergent local, national and international NGOs and other actors for influence. In this article, we explain this change in terms of a shift from a centralized political economy to a liberal one. A liberal political economy has allowed various groups and institutions, and the public in general, to participate in environmental policy-making. This has diminished the influence of Russian scientists. Highlighting this diminishment, we demonstrate that policy-making under a liberal framework does not always result in greater environmental protection. The article explores the implications of this for Russia and, by extension, other parts of the newly liberalizing world.

Hurricanes and hegemony: A qualitative analysis of micro-level climate change denial discourses

ABSTRACT The climate change countermovement and its program of climate change denial have been well documented and studied. However, individual rationales for rejecting climate science remain under-studied. Twitter data related to Hurricane Sandy in 2012 are used to understand why individuals reject the orthodox climate consensus, using a summative content analysis of climate change denial discourses. Three major discourses are discovered: rejecting climate science because climate science is a conspiracy favoring growth of government; opposing renewable energy and energy taxation; and expressing fear of governmental abuse of power. Importantly, each discourse expressed certainty that climate science itself was a wholesale fraud; the denial discourses themselves focused far more on climate politics than on science.

Civil society, corporate power, and food security: counter-revolutionary efforts that limit social change

Food is produced, processed, packaged, transported, and sold in a stable, organized system or food regime. The current food regime is focused on calories empty of substantial nutrition designed primarily for the growth of capital and corporate power, fostered through the lax, often corporate-designed, regulatory environment of neoliberalism. The neoliberal food regime is responsible for systemic malnutrition and erosion of the ecological preconditions for food production, as a regularity of the system itself. Consequently, a main line of food vulnerability is the political system that insulates the current food regime from social forces demanding change. This insecurity is contrary to the public or larger human interest, but this unsustainable system remains in place through a stable arrangement of government prescriptions that follow corporate-elite interests. To understand this structural problem, this essay examines the power of the food industry which requires the manufactured consent of civil society. The paper finds that counter-revolutionary efforts, which are anticipatory and reactive efforts that defend and protect capitalist elite from social change, stabilize the neoliberal food regime through covert tactics meant to undermine public interest critics and activists. As a result of these elite-led interventions, true civil society has become less powerful to articulate a public interest that might otherwise intercede in the operation and structure of the food regime. Thus, one leverage point in this political problem is the capacity of civil society, once it is independent of corporate interests, to remove consent to an abusive system and to debate and demand a food system that neither systematically starves whole groups of people nor destroys the ecological systems that make food possible. Building food security, then, requires recapturing a semi-autonomous civil society and eliminating domination of the corporate elite and replacing it with politics aligned with a public and ecological affinity. Scholars, educators, and the public can reduce the food vulnerability by becoming aware of corporate interests and creating strategic alliances to form a new system with more humane and ecological priorities.

Ecology as Resistance

Ecologist Paul Sears believed that the study of ecology was inherently subversive because if it was “taken seriously as an instrument for the longrun welfare of mankind, [then it would] endanger the assumptions and practices accepted by modern societies, whatever their doctrinal commitments.” But some doctrinal commitments have more to lose than others, and contemporary conservatism perhaps has the most to lose because its foremost goal is to protect market capitalism, stem fast or progressive social changes, and institute religious doctrine into political organization.

The Shifting Context of Sustainability: Growth and the World Ocean Regime

To better understand how regimes select norms and how sustainability concepts are used and change, we conduct a quantitative content analysis of important documents specifically related to a critical Earth system, the “World Ocean.” Using the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization’s State of the World’s Fisheries and Aquaculture reports from 1995 to 2016, we find that economic norms have always been dominant, and the use of sustainability concepts has become increasingly growth oriented. Discourses of restraint, relevant to principles of sustainability, are virtually absent. Growth is the central driving concern for the World Ocean Regime, a noncodified, economistic regime that governs the oceans. We conclude that the norms of sustainability have been selected for fitness with the neoliberal political–economic order and a totalizing ideology of growth, and that sustainability concepts are used as a mask to legitimize extractivist goals that are actually not sustainable.