Trump Worship Syndrome- Hartmann caller defines derangement from new perspective- Read and hear the quote at DIYH on a Heating Planet blog

"I've got a suggestion: that the Democrats and liberals start talking about Trump Worship Syndrome. Republicans have a syndrome name for people who are against Trump [Trump derangement syndrome]. We need to start talking to these people; they have a pathological mindset. They have Blind Faith; they support a convicted criminal. They've become sycophants. So Trump Worship Syndrome would be a good name for them. And some day there will be books written about the mass hypnosis that's affected so many people in this nation. Let's put a name on it, talk about it and study it so we can avoid it in the future." Keno in Lakeland Florida- Watch here The Thom Hartmann Program Video Podcast (2/27/2026) around 41.40 in, sorry my hands won't let me grab a clip...

China TV responds to new US climate policy "Trump admin don't care about American public health or safety"-w transcript CGTN The Heat 27-min Feb 23 report at DIYH on a Heating Planet blog

"US is just ceding leadership, causing mayhem worldwide- taxpayers subsidize negative externalities from fossil fuels; globally solar and wind is the foreseeable future while we in the US double down on oil coal and gas at public health and expense." China Global Television Network, the US arm of the English language CGTN America in Washington, D.C., report: Donald Trump has frequently referred to climate change as a “hoax” and recently announced that the EPA is revoking a long-time climate policy. READ & WATCH The Heat: Climate Change Feb 23, 2026 transcript below:

Andy Mok is a Senior Research Fellow at the Center for China and Globalization. Bob Ward is Policy and Communications Director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. Lisa Sachs is Director of the Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment and Associate Professor of at Columbia Climate School. Michael Shank is an Adjunct Professor of Sustainable Development at New York University. TOPICS 00:00 Trump Calls Climate Change a Hoax 01:03 EPA Endangerment Finding Repealed 01:33 Legal Challenges and Regulatory Chaos 02:15 Public Health and Safety Concerns 03:44 Clean Air Act and Fossil Fuel Debate 04:00 US as Major Emitter Global Spillover Effects 05:33 Economic Costs Floods Fires Insurance Crisis 06:24 Fossil Fuel Subsidies and Public Spending 07:14 China Europe Shift to Renewable Energy 08:02 EV Market Battle US vs China 09:37 Lawsuits States vs Federal Government 16:47 COP 31 Turkey and Paris Agreement Tensions

24:54 Detroit EV Future and Global Competition

***

"A New World Disorder"

TRANSCRIPT 

President Donald Trump has frequently referred to climate change as a hoax, and his administration continues to pull back on efforts to deal with it both at home and abroad. Trump recently announced that the US Environmental Protection Agency, also known as the EPA, is revoking a longtime climate policy. It is reversing a scientific finding that has long underpinned key environmental legislation in the United States. President Trump pointed a finger at former President Obama when he made the announcement. In 2009, Barack Hussein Obama, his EPA designated fossil fuels such as oil, gas, and other things that actually make factories rock and roll and other things drive very nicely as a threat to health and human welfare. Known as the endangerment finding, this determination had no basis. in fact had none whatsoever and it had no basis in law. 

Trump's decision to repeal the landmark climate finding is very controversial and is set to face a legal challenge from health and environmental groups to discuss the fallout from all of this. Joining me now is Lisa Saxs. She is director at the of the Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment and an associate professor at Columbia Climate School. And also with us is Michael Shank. He's an adjunct professor of sustainable development at New York University. 

Welcome, both of you to the show. Lisa, let's start with that.  simple question, what is the fallout from all of this? 

-The fallout from this is not actually even deregulation. It's massive destabilization and uncertainty, which is the worst possible  context for American industries, businesses, and households. even from the perspective of trying to support US businesses. This is now causing mayhem and just going to cause massive regulatory uncertainty, regulatory fragmentation because every state and city and around the world there are going to be different regulatory standards. It's expanded  legal risk for industries because actually the EPA's  authorities to preempt private action against the industries. So, it's really created a very complicated landscape for US industries that's going to have high costs for American industry and for American households. 

-Michael, let me ask you about this. I mean, his action reverses a 200-page document, if you will. It's got evidence, research backing up what it's saying, but he's dismissing climate change as a hoax. He's calling the climate scientists stupid people, and despite the action itself, it's also messaging. And there are people who listen to the president and kind of go on on what he says. Talk to me about the damage in both categories. 

-Well, what the executive branch is saying with this move is that they don't care about Americans public health or public safety. And increasingly the Make America Healthy Again movement is witnessing this because the Trump administration is doubling down on dangerous greenhouse gases. It's doubling down on pesticides. It's doubling doubling down on forever chemicals. And even the maja movement is seeing this and is troubled by it. We know that these greenhouse gases, which now the executive branch is saying it doesn't want to regulate. We know that these greenhouse gases kill Americans. 200,000 Americans die prematurely every year because of these greenhouse gases. And that's why 20 years ago, we launched into this nearly 20 years ago, we launched into this endangerment finding because there's danger in these greenhouse gases. And so it was an attempt to protect American health, protect American safety. 

It's why we have things like seat belts and speed limits and hard hats in industrial zones. It's why we have FEMA to protect Americans. It's why we have a defense department to protect Americans. And here the executive branch is saying, "We don't care about American public health. We don't care about American public safety. Have at it fossil fuel companies. Pollute all you want. We're not going to interpret the Clean Air Act in ways that for decades the US government did." 

-Lisa, talk to us about the domino effect of this because when it comes to fighting climate change, there needs to be concrete commitments and actions, especially from the big emitters. And I mean, when you look at the big emitters, the United States is the second largest emitter of CO2. So, what does this do in terms of like other countries who are just sort of like, oh, we kind of maybe need to make commitments, but oh well, the US isn't doing this. I mean, talk to us about the spillover impact. 

-Yeah, I think there are many different spillover impacts, but actually the rest of the world is not going to follow the US down this path. We've just the US is ceding leadership and the ability to set the rules and to be competitive in a future. But maybe I'll get to that. Let me answer your question about the spillover effects. First of all, just to completely agree with Michael. The one massive spillover effect of any deregulation of these toxic emissions is going to be extraordinary costs for the US people, not only in terms of health. Michael's exactly right, but those costs are borne by society. The health care system is going to have the cost, but also the physical impacts of climate change. We're already seeing in our country, of course, around the world as well. 

Floods, wildfires, droughts, these are happening with increasing intensity, increasing frequency, and with massive high costs. And insurance is is becoming more expensive.  houses are becoming less insurable. So the fallout effects of not regulating and not trying to control emissions are massively inflated costs, greater trade-offs, greater fiscal strain for states and greater costs for American households. 

The rest of the world is moving on with a climate agenda for two very practical reasons. One is that the rest of the world recognizes the cost of not preparing or not trying to mitigate climate change because they see the effects and the costs and so they're trying to mitigate it. But more importantly actually many major global countries also see the opportunities of investing in the future of supporting green industrial policies of producing the technologies of the future of creating more flexible integrated energy systems. 

So the US is just ceding leadership in this area and I don't think it's going to bring the rest of the world's industries down. 

-And Michael Lisa made a really good point last year devastating  when it comes to extreme weather all across the globe, so how critical is 2026? How dire does the climate change issue become with this new setback? 

-Well, Lisa covered the spillover effects that we'll see going forward. But for anyone who doesn't believe the climate science, and clearly the Trump administration is saying it doesn't care about the science, that's what it's saying with this finding and the rolling back of the endangerment finding. But even if you're part of the Republican following and movement and voting base, this is poor use of public resource and public tax dollars. As Lisa already noted, we're paying for fossil fuels. We directly subsidize fossil fuels at 35 billion a year and indirectly at well over 750 billion a year in the cleanup of spills, leaks, etc. the negative externalities associated with fossil fuels. So already we're paying for these choices. 

Fossil fuels were the fuel of the 20th century, but they won't be the fuel and the energy of the 21st century. And other countries are clearly re realizing that. 

-You already mentioned that, Mike. China. 

-Well over half of new vehicles purchased in China are electric. Almost 100% of new vehicles purchased in some European countries like Norway are electric. Other countries are transitioning, have transitioned to the fuels of the future, the energies of the future, which are infinite, not finite like fossil fuels. So with solar now as the cheapest electricity in history, it makes a ton of sense in terms of managing responsibly managing public resources, these natural resources and public dollars in terms of either direct or indirect subsidies to transition to the fuels and energies of the 21st century which are clearly the infinite ones like solar and wind, not the 20th century fuels, fossil, oil, coal, and gas like Trump mentioned. 

-Okay. To your point,  Lisa, I was in China last year. I was at some of these EV plants and they're just turning out these cars like crazy. They're going in one direction, the United States going in another. Trump saying, this is going to be cheaper cars, more jobs. Talk to us about that argument. 

-Yeah, first of all, most of the industries that are energy intensive require long-term predictability and stability to be able to make effective investments in the future. Automobile companies right now are designing cars for a decade from now. They need to have predictability and certainty about what that landscape is going to look like. Now, of course, in the US, we absolutely don't have that. So, investments are going to be on hold. The cost of capital becomes higher and everyone bears the cost. 

But, of course, as Michael just said, EVs are absolutely the vehicles of the future. And China has dominated that market. And now, not only in China and in Europe, as Michael said, but we're seeing an explosion of EVs in Africa and other parts of the world because they are the most efficient in general. Electrified  not only cars, but also electrified  heat pumps and others are more efficient than their fossil fuel alternatives. So the real tragedy for US industry and for automobiles is that in this very shortsighted absolutely corrupt by the way ruling the American industries have lost the ability to plan for the future and to make coherent investments in what are going to be the future industries.  

And so I actually don't see how we recover from that unless we can get back on course very quickly. Getting back on course, Michael, of course, that would require legal challenges. 

-We're obviously going to see those from environmental groups and health groups as well, but we've also seen how cumbersome that is in the United States. I mean, just recent ruling on the tariffs, but it seems like that case started forever ago. A lot of damage can happen during that period of time. Give us the sense of what it looks like as far as the legal landscape out there. 

-Yeah, Mike, you've already mentioned some of the lawsuits that are already out the door by environmental groups and health groups, public health groups for the public health and public safety reasons we've already discussed on this call. We will continue to see lawsuits by states against the federal government as the executive branch is ceding control over these dangerous gases  and saying that Congress should pick up the slack here in that if we want to legislate then Congress has to legislate. 

So, we'll see it gummed up in the courts for years to come. And in the meantime, this administration is doubling down on 20th century fuels at taxpayer expense, poorly managing both a public resource and public tax dollars, all at the expense of public health and public safety. 

Meanwhile, other countries like China, Lisa already mentioned, China's outpacing the world in wind and solar technology, EV and battery technology, and heat pump technology. So we're losing these markets while Trump is doubling down on fossil fuels. So you can imagine a future 2030, 2040, 2050. The rest of the world has transitioned to green energy, renewable energy because it is infinite. We will have solar and wind for the foreseeable future while we in the United States double down on oil, coal, and gas all at public health, public safety, public resource, and public tax dollar expense. So that's the decision that's being made here. 

Hopefully, Congress will see the light and hopefully the Maha movement, the make America healthy again movement will push the administration in the right direction to make indeed America healthier again in all the ways because that is the role of government to keep us safe and secure which the executive branch has decided not to do in this case. 

-Lisa, kind of to piggyback off what Michael just said,  former US Secretary of State John Kerry had this to say. I'm just going to read his quote. China is now producing more wind, more solar than all of the rest of the world put together. That's what they're doing. They're deploying it. Do you think they've taken a stupid pill or something yesterday and decided to change their entire economy to meet this new standard? No. Their population wants clean air. I think the American population does too, right? The American population is being very misled and confused by a confused administration and a confused media landscape. by the way, that can't help us sort out fact from fiction and to understand really what the rest of the world is doing and the reasons behind the movement in China and in the rest of the world to produce the technologies and energies of the future. Of course, climate change is so real, so dangerous for all of us and we're going to bear the costs. But for China, this is about energy security, energy reliability, affordability. It is about having a globally competitive industry, which they are absolutely doing. They've been exporting their solar panels to the rest of the world already for many many years. So this is an economic move. 

******

The American population is being very misled and confused by a confused administration and a confused media landscape

****************

It's a security move. It's a resilience move. Affordability from China. So and Americans I think don't really understand that we're not being explained that that is what's important for industry. One thing I just want to quickly say about  the perspective of supporting industry, the worst thing for industry is inconsistent and incoherent regulatory frameworks. The Trump administration is purporting to have helped industry by deregulating, by creating chaos. But what China has done and to some extent what Europe has tried to do too is to actually smooth the regulatory landscape to align industrial policy with market demand with support for technologies that is supporting industry in a more coherent and more aligned  investment environment for industries so that they can plan for the next 10 years. 

So if the administration wants to support the industry, that is the way to do it. Understand where the world is headed in 10 years and make a coherent landscape that aligns support for the companies, the financing ecosystem, the market demand and the tools that the US government has to shape market demand  and to align with the global  direction of travel so that the US can continue to be competitive in the global environment. Lisa Michael, thank you so much for your insights. It's been a great discussion. 

********

And for some more international perspective on these developments, I'm joined now by Andy Mock. He is senior research fellow at the Center for China and Globalization. And with us too from England is Bob Ward. He is a policy and communications director with the Granthm Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. Thank you both for joining us. Andy, why don't I start with you and I'll start with the obvious. It seems like the US is retreating in the fight against climate change, but go wide for us. Give us the global view. What does this do to global efforts to combat climate change? 

Well, thanks for having me on, Mike. And I think that's exactly right. I mean, when we look at climate, it's often framed as a morality play or diplomacy. But I think it really is becoming a test of credibility, institutional capacity, and long-term power. So how countries handle climate commitments now I think really signal  how reliable they are as partners and how capable they are of executing national strategy over decades. 

And I think the problem facing the United States  with this is that a major power that  changes course unpredictably loses allies before it loses battles. And here we can be talking about figurative battles like the battle against  climate change.  and I think this really is a challenge for the US. And I think what is happening here as well is that for many decades  the US had the luxury of being very very  inefficient. And the way I would put it is that the US succeeded not because of its political system but despite its political system. 

And there's an old joke about Hollywood. Uh, but how do you make a million dollars in Hollywood? Well, you start with $10 million. And here, obviously how this applies is that the US could get away for a very long time with a fragmented political system that thrived on internal conflict and now it is being forced to deal with complex global challenges and I think we're seeing the real limitations of this system.  

*********

COP 31 in Turkey will take place in extraordinary times. We find ourselves in a new world disorder.

****************

-Andy, really good point there and we'll talk a little bit more about the reliability aspect of this just a little bit later on in the broadcast. But Bob, let me start with Turkey. I mean, they're going to be hosting COP 31 later this year. The UN climate chief is already saying, "Look, we're we're in trouble when it comes to international cooperation." Let's listen to what he has to say, and I want to get your reaction on the other side. 

-COP 31 in Antalia will take place in extraordinary times. We find ourselves in a new world disorder. This is a period of instability and insecurity of strong arms and trade wars. The very concept of international cooperation is under attack. So let's look at this disorder by looking back and looking forward. I mean when you look back the Paris agreement really that was the United States and China coming together and kind of pushing that through and now you just see this kind of backtracking. I was talking to a climate expert in the Arctic earlier this week and he was extraordinarily disappointed in COP 30. It had this great backdrop the Amazon telling the story but he was he just said it was a pathetic result and that was even before what we're seeing now. So give me an idea of what we can expect coming out of Turkey. A well we have the Paris agreement. Every country signed up to it apart from the Americans who have not only withdrawn from the Paris agreement but have now withdrawn from the original 92 treaty on climate change. 

So we'll be absent completely from Turkey. They just won't be there.  but the Paris agreement is the guide for how countries are tackling climate change. Remember that the UN process operates by consensus amongst all the countries. So actually it's amazing that any progress is made. If you think about any global issue at the moment and you try to get consensus about all the world's from all the world's countries on it, it's hard to imagine you would make any progress at all. So it is often slow but is why it has been successful and we should  make note of the fact that although we're not moving quickly enough there is lots going on around the world. It is wrong completely wrong to claim that nothing is going on on climate change. 

Lots of countries are now moving in the right direction. They're not moving quickly enough. We should be clear that the US approach is unhelpful. It is not only to the fact that it's not participating in international processes, but it's actively bullying other countries not to act against climate change. We saw that happened last year at the  International Maritime Organization where the Americans actively sabotaged the agreement that countries had reached to tackle emissions from shipping. they are now trying to bully the members of the international a energy agency to  drop it focus on climate change. 

So we should not underestimate just how much of a destructive approach the Americans are adopting here and let's be very clear about what their motivation is because they are transparent about it. They believe in American energy dominance. That means making the world dependent on American fossil fuels. It is the world's largest producer of oil. It is massively increasing its supplies of natural gas and it wants the world to be dependent on its fossil fuels because it will command greater power and make more money and it sees climate policy in the United States and worldwide as a barrier to that objective. And I don't think the rest of the world is going to go along with this. 

-Andy, uh, let's talk about the rest of the world or more specifically China. You were talking about reliability in the political system in the United States. You see Obama going in one direction, you see Trump going in another direction. You see Biden go back towards Obama back the other way with the US under Trump in a second go-round. 

And while the US keeps tacking one way or the other, China's been pretty deliberate going forward.  the embracing of of green energy, EVs.  talk to us about the stark contrast  in these two major powers. 

-Well, Mike, I think you're absolutely right. There really is such a stark contrast when we look at stability, predictability, reliability  between China and the United States. I mean, it really is almost like night and day. But I think there's a deeper point here when we look at how does China approach these complex challenges like climate change. And I think what it does here is not so widely appreciated but it's actually doing well by doing good. And what I mean by that is China is being a good global citizen by actively participating, making  significant advances  in these areas. But it's not only doing this because it's the right thing to do, but it is also doing well. So, of course, there are  industries that China has nurtured, invested in that now have become  important contributors to climate change. Look at electric vehicles,  look at batteries,  more generally, solar.  and I think this is again maybe a hallmark of the Chinese philosophy that underlies the governance that leads to this long-term predictable  stable kind of  environment that makes China a good interlocator a good partner for other countries around the world. But I think it's also worth pointing out that China does this  by making this the ability to do well by doing good. And I think this is an incredibly  important point  for our audience to be aware of. And Bob, I know you don't want to do a lot of doom and gloom. We'll do a little bit more of it. But I want to go back to your earlier point that there are good things happening. 

********

Americans can see for themselves that climate change is having an impact

****************

And when Trump was in office the first go round, we did hear a lot of governors. We heard businesses saying, "Look, if the US government isn't going to do it, we're going to do it." Are there areas where you see maybe perhaps  some governors stepping up or other efforts in the United States that might mitigate some of this? 

-Well,  as we saw during the first Trump presidency,  the economics of clean energy trump the ideology of the  federal government. And it remains the case that clean energy, solar and wind, is cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives. Even though the administration is trying to the development of clean energy, it is still cheaper. 

And states like California are already all in on this. But even red states like Texas have significant renewable  renewables investments and it and it's the basis of their power sector. 

So I don't think we're going to see a revival of the fossil fuel industry. we may see a slowing down of the deployment of renewables but I don't think Trump can reverse this process because the economics work that way. We'll also see I think this Trump administration policy on so many issues of don't believe your eyes I think is just not going to be successful and Americans can see for themselves that climate change is having an impact across the country and that is means that the majority I think increasing numbers of Americans are going to recognize that they need to make this transition and can see all the benefits themselves. electric vehicles are cleaner and easier and require lower maintenance costs. And I think that experience that people have is just going to win through in the end despite what the Trump administration attempts. And Andy, that's a such an interesting point because the Trump administration thinks that this is actually going to be good for the auto industry  by just, redoing things.  but are are they in effect is Detroit kind of in effect perhaps losing out on that EV market which as Bob points out  the rest of the world seems to be embracing? Yeah, I think so, Mike. I mean, so first of all, , to look at it from more of a glass half full perspective, there's all this talk of fragmentation, delobalization.  I think that what's really happening here is the US is more and more becoming an outlier and isolating itself and the rest of the world is cohering around the Chinese approach right which is again making significant investments in technology   implementing policies that really address these issues as well as provide jobs  increasing safety etc as we look at  EVs merging with autonomous vehicles  that this really is  not as bad perhaps as some people are portraying it. Now when we look at  the US auto industry, I think it's absolutely correct that  all around the world  many  countries, many markets are turning towards Chinese EVs, not just because they're inexpensive, but because they're high tech, they're well designed,  they're safe,  they're well serviced. And you look at even  people like Bob Farley who's the CEO of Ford talk about how much he loves his Xiaomi  SU7 and and how humbling  it is for American automakers to see just how far  Chinese companies have come and the US auto industry really does need to be global. I mean this is an industry that thrives on economies of scale. So, if it's only going to look at the  the US market, I think that's really going to hurt the long-term prospects of American companies. 

The other thing I would briefly add to this too is that as we see more and more people all around the world, especially Americans on social media, come to China, see what it's like here,  it's going to be really hard  to justify  to the average American who's facing an affordability crisis that we all know about.  Why can't they buy a $10,000 $20,000 Chinese EV again that is well designed, high tech, fun to drive, etc. So, I think it's hard to see how this will work out well in the long run for the United States across these these different  perspectives. Gentlemen, thanks so much for your insights. Really appreciate it. We're going to have to leave it there, though. Thanks so much for [music] watching another edition of The Heat. ***https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tv_NzBtJs8M&t=235s 

***

[KE: Everything scientists predicted about global warming/ climate change since the 1970s is coming true, only faster. There were even warnings of autocratic governments rising up amidst the turmoil. But no one predicted the audacity and weirdness of President Donald Trump.]

I never un-took my oath at NASA and the Navy to serve the United States as a journalist, and that's one of the reasons I do this blog.

Don’t Look Up: Why we ignore climate scientists- Univ of Amsterdam Feb 26 Net Echt 32-min podcast w TRANSCRIPT at DIYH on a Heating Planet blog

"In the satirical disaster film Don’t Look Up, the world sees a looming catastrophe approaching, yet people collectively look away. How familiar is this for climate scientists who have been sounding the alarm for decades? We are seeing today that disinformation mostly starts in the US and then via the UK it comes into Europe and it also goes to other parts of the world through social media. So denial of science has become extremely large, Scientists don't have skills to fight back. As a researcher I am also a citizen; as a citizen, I want to change things in society and I'm using my science to do that." READ & WATCH: Don’t Look Up: why we ignore climate scientists, Transcript below:In this episode of Net Echt, host Aron de Jong talks with climate scientist Joyeeta Gupta about why we don’t want to listen to ominous warnings, even when the evidence keeps piling up. What happens psychologically and politically when science brings bad news? What role do the media, conspiracy theories and disinformation play? And what can Don’t Look Up teach us about how we can take action on the climate crisis?

TRANSCRIPT

Knowing that something disastrous is about to happen, but no one is listening to you despite the mounting evidence: It's incredibly frustrating and sadly a reality for many climate scientists who have been warning us for decades. So, a quick question for you as a climate scientist. Why don't people like to listen to a scientist who warn us? 

F: Well, actually in the past they used to. So in 1990 when you go back within 2 years we got a climate convention. So in the past scientists were listened to but now you have the rise of misinformation and disinformation. You have denial delay and you have slap litigation and that creates an impact on public.  

All right. Well very clear. I'm very interested to dive into this topic. Can't wait to hear more about it. We'll be discussing this topic today in response to the 2021 film Don't Look Up.  welcome to Net, the University of Amsterdam's podcast in which we examine films and series from a scientific perspective. Today we have a guest who can tell us all about this, Professor Geoja Gupta, a globally respected climate expert and researcher. Welcome.  great to have you here.  and of course also present my co-host,  philosopher Petal Febec. Petal, we watched this film. What struck you and in the conversation with our guest today, what is something you would like to focus on and what question would you like to see answered? 

-It's a fascinating film. I think because you can hardly believe that people do not listen to the scientists who really know that there will be a disaster. 

So I think for me the conversation here would be helpful if we find out what the best ways would be for scientists to get engaged in forms of politics. How far should we go? Should we become activist or not? Or should we address a different audience than we do now? What is the best way to be society engaged if we know that bad things are going to happen and people don't listen? 

Yeah. All right. Well, hopefully we'll know a little bit more after the end of this podcast recording. before we discuss the film and its underlying message.

*******

When we finish a project, we send a policy brief but we can't wine and dine the policy makers whereas lobbyists have a different agenda, different budget, different skills in networking and they're all the time over there lobbying. 

********************

Here is a brief summary for the people who haven't seen the movie. Don't look up. It's about two astronomers who discover that a giant comet is on a collision course with Earth. They try to warn the world, but they are met with disbelief, political games, and media frenzy. And although the film is about a comet, it's really about climate change. 

2.00

And that's today's theme as well. How do you as a climate scientist get your message across to the public? Shita, as I mentioned earlier, the movie is actually about how we deal with scientific news about climate change. The similarities between this fictional comet in the movie and the climate crisis are striking. What similarities do you see? 

Well, one of the biggest things I see is that the press doesn't like to repeat the same story. So when you come with more and more evidence, most of the press will not try to come up with that story. They don't go actually very much deeper in the story. The second thing you see is that there are various types of organizations in the press which either promote the narrative or they don't promote the narrative. 

So if you take Fox News for example, it won't talk about climate change. So you do have two types of press in this story line. Also among scientists, you have scientists who talk about the scientific problem but you also have others who then question the problem, the skeptics and beyond the skeptics you also have certain economists who will come back and say it's just not affordable for all of us. 

So in this cacophony amongst the scientific community itself it's quite difficult for the press to deal with us. The other thing is and to come back to the previous question, are we as scientists just sitting in our ivory towers and writing publications? Are we not going out onto the streets and telling people? And I would say that's not an activist role. That's just simply telling science to the public because the moment the other party convinces you that you are an activist, they're basically trying to say that you're not scientific. And so we have to be very careful with the words we use for ourselves. 

The other thing is that in this world what you're seeing is in this film what you're seeing is that that there is a disregard for multilateralism. It's the United States is going to either rescue the world or let the world fall. But it's a pretty similar story at the international level where the US is now pretty much attacking multilateralism. Then of course you see the enormous faith in technology and in the private sector. 

So it's called the brolyarchy where the politicians make deals with the major billionaires and then they try to solve the world's problems and that is a real problem over here because the techno optimism that you see here is based on an untried technology. It's not based on peer-reviewed technology and it's untried and it's very worrying and that is very close to what's happening in real life because we're going to do carbon capture and storage. We are going to do geoengineering. 

We're going to do all kinds of things which we have never tried at the global scale and we are also going to go into overshoot. So we are going to go beyond 1.5° and come back at the end of the century as if the global climate is like a thermostat and you can change it. So there are many many stories over here that come in line with the real life situation but there is a difference. 

The comet is no one's fault but climate change is the fault of our countries. 

And the other problem over here is if they are able to deflect the comet it's quite cheap, whereas if we want to solve the climate problem, it won't be cheap in the next two two generations maybe next two decades but beyond that it will save a massive amount of money. 

Yeah, it's interesting to make a parallel maybe also between the role of scientists in the film and the scientists at this moment regarding the whole topic of climate change. Because what you often see now in our society is that as soon as we try to bring in scientific knowledge into politics, we're being accused of doing politics rather than bringing science to it as as if scientists would then have their own kind of political interest and they're all seen as left-wing activists, etc. 

So I really like what you said about not calling ourselves activists because then you put yourself in the wrong box in the box of the politicians rather than of the scientists. But is it avoidable that we are seen as activists as politicians? Yes, because we are doing political science, we are doing social science, anthropology, we're not just doing natural science and each of our sciences contributes something to the knowledge formation. 

So I think it's very important for us to bring this point out that we are analyzing the politics of decision-making; it's not that we are actually participating in the politics. 

So that's very important for us to do. And also what's very problematic is today is the the way in which denial has become extremely large through the process of social media. It becomes- a story becomes viral. 

That's also what you see in the film that people would rather see some good news stuff than bad news and then the good news gets viral or the silly news gets viral or the face of the scientist gets distorted so that everybody can have a good laugh. 

And that narrative about denial getting viral through social media is something we do not know how to fight because we as scientists should be actually saying the whole time this is not a fact. This is misuse. We need to come back and fight back. But we don't have the skills to fight back against misinformation and disinformation. And what you're also seeing is that NOS's and scientists are now suffering from SLAP. 

SLAP is strategic litigation against public participation. You see right now that the United in the United States a judge has given more than $600 million judgment against Green Peace, effectively silencing Green Peace. And when I go to conferences on climate change, I am warned by people that we should actually get legal protection for what we are doing. 

Right now, we have a paper submitted to my special issue from Cambridge University which has a one-page denial or disclaimer that they are not going to be legally held liable for what they're writing in that paper. And this is this new world we are moving into and that we don't know how to deal with that. 

The other thing is that when we finish a project, we send a policy brief but we can't wine and dine the policy makers whereas lobbyists have a different agenda, different budget, different skills in networking and they're all the time over there lobbing whereas we just send off an email and we think then it's done. We don't have the resources and the time and this is also very very problematic for us. 

So in many ways we have a challenge but I think if I may say one last point over here which comes back to your earlier point about science and politics. 

politics is in science also we pick a particular discursive starting point. 

So in my view, if you're talking to a neoliberal capitalist, they basically believe in individual freedom. They believe in free markets, deregulation, small states. But a problem like climate change requires collective action. It may require some collective sacrifice now for collective gains in the future. 

It requires markets that are controlled. It requires a state that can regulate but also is capable of checks and balances. and it requires so and it requires more regulation. So almost all the stories that we're talking about within the climate change narrative are not compatible with a neoliberal capitalist approach. Yeah. So all the examples that you now give seem to be examples of the impossibility almost for scientists to be heard in society and you say we don't know how to do that better etc. So does that maybe also show that we need to put our energy also there that we should learn how to bring our story in a new way to politicians to society in the media because the old story that we know how things are because we are scientists and we know things better than the public doesn't work anymore. 

No because within the scientific community we are arguing with each other. So if you have scientists in the scientific community that are in a neoliberal capitalist frame then they are techno optimists. They want new technologies to solve the problem or they're thinking about scenarios which will give some space for countries. So even their solutions are different from the solutions of other scientists who are arguing collective action is different or that justice requires a different perspective. 

So first of all we as scientists are arguing with each other. 

Secondly, a number of our scientific community is being financed by the fossil fuel sector. I'm not saying within our university, but across universities. We have universities worldwide that are still training people to work in the fossil fuel sector. So, in fact, in some ways, our universities do not have a mainstreamed approach about how climate change should be solved. So, we are amongst ourselves fighting with each other when we are communicating to the to the journalists. And then the journalists pick those of us who are in the mode or those of us who they feel is more in line with the view of that newspaper. 

So that's one part. 

The second part is how do we make our story actionable? How can we help equip newspapers and the public to do certain activities and that requires us to go not from a purely critical mode but to also have solutions for the public. So this requires a different way of thinking. Yes, it does. and what you described the the the incompatibility of what we want to achieve and the well the situation we are faced with it it paints a very bleak picture and I can imagine it it can make you feel powerless or frustrated how do you deal with that it's maybe a more personal question but that's something that I wonder about I don't think we have a choice because if you give up it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy so you have to keep pushing and what I do know is that technology cannot solve the problem overnight but consumer behavior can and co shows us co shows that if you have a leader and leaders worldwide who have a clear idea what happens you can change the behavior of people all over the world and that you can do overnight over one day two days three days and that is something that gives me hope and this whole narrative that we have to focus on future technologies to solve the problemI've been hearing that since 1989. But the situation maybe also shows that same problem with the relation between science and politics. 

And so during co all the measures that the governments took also resulted in a lot of critique on scientists that they would actually have hidden interest actually and and actually and that they would somehow be trying to impose their own leftist agenda impose on our society. That that reaction came not immediately that came a little bit later. So the whole the fear of vaccinations that came a little later. Conspiracy theory did not arise immediately to the extent that conspiracy theory arose. 

It arose in the United States and then it moved from there to other parts of the world. We are seeing that also today that disinformation mostly starts in the US and then via the UK it comes into Europe and it also goes to other parts of the world. So we have to be very careful about that. 

But there are lessons learned from COVID that we could also apply now. So that's also important in this process that we try to do that. All right. Very clear. I want to go back to the movie a bit. what you see is that in this movie you see how political and economical interest overshadow science. you have a lot of experience with yeah climate negotiations in the UN or IPCC. have yeah have you seen this happen in real life climate negotiations that it is overshadowed by these two factors so I think what's important to say for example in IPCC is that the structure of the report is predetermined by a group of people and then you cannot diverge from that so I was once in a chapter on on international cooperation and we were just asked to work on market mechanisms and there was no possibility to squeeze in other kinds of stories. The other thing is that you have to site peer-reviewed papers. But legal papers are often not in peer-reviewed journals. So it's difficult to site that kind of science and that makes it complicated. in the in the UN right now I have an independent position. So I can write whatever I want. So there you do have some freedom. Maybe nobody reads it. 

*************

We are seeing today that disinformation mostly starts in the US and then via the UK it comes into Europe and it also goes to other parts of the world. So we have to be very careful about that. 

*********************

That's a different story. But to go back to science, what is science? For me science is across all disciplines whether it's history, philosophy, social science or natural science. And then within that science there are economists who will argue that it's too expensive, it's not viable. 

And when you look at the politics of 1.5 and one degree, you will find that a lot of it comes from the scientific community itself. But those are a particular group of economists who then argue it's not feasible. And then you have other groups of economists who will argue it is feasible. The question is which group gets more attention from policy makers and that's ditto for the politics. 

But to go a little bit further, if you look at the last conference of the parties, there were 1,600 fossil fuel lobbyists present and at the end the word fossil fuel doesn't show up in the final document. I don't know if there's a direct relationship that the lobbyists made sure that the word didn't come in or the lobbyists worked via the government or the lobbyists offered money or the lobbyists threatened. I have no idea. But you see that 1,600 people were there and the word fossil fuel is not there. So there is a politics taking place there. Yeah, definitely. Definitely. Yeah. So, I know that in your work you focus a lot on justice from the idea that actually well the the cost and the benefits of what's happening with the planet at the moment are unequally distributed. So maybe can you say a bit more about that so that then we can maybe also link you to the movie? All right. So basically we have four blocks in our justice story and the first block is that politically feasible ideas are generally incremental and that's not going to address the driving causes of climate change or inequality. 

*********

At the last conference of the parties, there were 1,600 fossil fuel lobbyists present and at the end the word fossil fuel doesn't show up in the final document. 

*******************

So you have to look at something that is structural and that is not always feasible or economically viable in the short term and that's the first one. The second one is your in the first block sorry you also have recognition justice. So it's not just about us. It's about the people in the Pacific who are being whose houses are being threatened because of storms. Epistemic justice it's not about some ways of knowing but it's also about different knowledge systems and how do you look at it and data justice is about how most of us have data which is relevant for the north but not for the global south. So that's the first block. The second block is that when we are talking about what level what temperature level is just then we need to do a balance between interspecies justice intergenerational and intragenerational and this was never just discussed in the climate change negotiations. The third part is procedural justice access to information not disinformation access to decision making civic space so that your students don't get arrested when they go and protest based on science and access to courts. and the last one is substantive justice which is based on all this how do we ensure that people have access to basic needs and how do we allocate the remaining carbon budget which is very which is zero in two years amongst countries and people how do we allocate responsibilities and liability for harm caused so that's the story of earth system justice and climate system justice yes I see and it entails actually also that we need to to act maybe in a different way than we are doing Now I mean in the movie you see big attempts of involving a company that might have the power to destroy the comet that's coming to earth and then everything would be solved and so such an easy solution of course brings a lot of inequalities as well and in in the end you also see the inequality because the people who have the power manage to save their own lives and to get in a freezer and to come back to life later which will end in a nasty way anyway. spoiler but can we learn something from from that and so there is no easy solution for the problems that we are facing now but what would be ways to enact more justice in the current situation well in the in the film for example you see three scenarios there's a scenario in which the US is going to solve the problem alone and rescue the world and and in theory they could have solved the problem. the second scenario is that another group of actors in the world Russia, China etc that they take over and they solve the problem. And then the third scenario which is the final which is the one that they chose is that they try trust a technocrat a technology expert to use untried technologies to solve the problem and then of course everybody dies except that they have an escape plan for the rich people and I think that's quite similar to real life in some ways 

because I think a lot of the top billionaires in the world think that they can escape that they won't have to face the major serious impacts of climate change that they can somehow sit in a trouble and escape. And so that's why they're less worried than the rest of us.  but I think the most important problem with the film is that there is no multilateral discussion about how to solve the problem. It's just within a closed room within a few people, even without telling the press what's happening. So there is no real procedural justice. There's no access to information for the public in a proper way. There's no access to civic space. there's no access to going to a court to sue the government because you don't know what you're going to sue the government. So procedural justice is completely absent in that film. If you talk about the the story line of ideal versus transmitter, they're all focusing on how do we make money and the frame is the marketbased approach. So initially the asteroid is the enemy and then the asteroid becomes the friend because the a sorry the comet becomes the friend because the comet will make you rich and it will make one man rich or a few people rich. And you see that whole story is based on political feasibility plus that the cuddling up between the president and the the technocrat and that in itself is not recognition justice because it's not taking into account what will happen if it goes wrong to other people of the world. 

It doesn't take into account other ways of knowing because basically it's just taking a neoliberal capitalist approach and it doesn't take into account other stories. So it breaches the first story line and the second story line it doesn't hard it hardly talks about other species on the earth and that humans are then going to sacrifice a whole bunch of species and ecosystems. 

So there's no interspecies justice. 

There's no intergenerational justice. 

There's no intragenerational justice. 

So on the justice front the film fails completely. But I think that is the point of the film because the point of the film is we all die. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. There's I mean one of the other lines that for me has a parallel to the current discussion about climate change is the technological fix in the solutions and we already touched a little bit about this earlier. But there are people who say governments fail to do anything. so the temperature is raising and we have been trying for such a long time. Why shouldn't the engineers solve the problem? Why shouldn't we dim the sun somehow in order to combat the whole fl of climate change? I think you already said that you don't believe in that solution. in the movie actually it becomes quite likely that that might be the only real solution. But can you explain once more why you do not believe in the technical solution and you still believe in a political solution? I'll tell you why. because in the start of the whole negotiation process in 1990 there was also this idea that maybe we can do some kind of offsetting and so we can and we have now 35 years of offset plans which did not really work effectively. so there is a history of the last 35 years which shows there's a problem. The second reason is that we are talking about let's say as the most successful story line we're talking about electric cars but the problem is if you do electric cars for everybody you still come into a huge problem in terms of resources and pollution and of course all these batteries that will be dumped afterwards will cause a next generation problem. So in fact we should be talking about better public transport shared transport and most cars are anyway parked for 95% of the time. So the even when you talk about a technological solution, you need a political frame for that technological solution. The other reason why there's a problem is let's take the fossil fuel sector. They're arguing that we will take the carbon out of the se out of the air and we will do somehow carbon capture and storage. Okay. Now the problem is it the technology exists. So why are they not doing it? And if they can do it, this means the price at the petrol pump will go up. So basically they don't want they don't want you to pay more because then you won't buy their technology. So they're keeping the price low for the public and then they're postponing the action in the hope that some future generation is going to pay for it. I don't believe that they're going to pay for it in the future. So a lot of these technologies that they're pushing it's just a way to continue business as usual. And anyway any technology you deploy takes a lot of time. It is the political action of people around the world and to take action. The carbon budget is zero in two to three years. I I I I think I completely understand what you say and I'm also not in favor of a technical solution. But I also still find it hard to believe in a political solution especially given all the things that you say now. And so there are people who say we simply cannot afford not to invest now in technologies to to to dim the sun or to do something else to they say it's cheaper also they say it will be much cheaper if they do solar geoengineering and that they can even flood the oceans with algae and then the algae will eat the CO2. There are all these different proposals that have come up. The question is whether that is going to work in time. The question is whether it's going to work the way we think it. In fact, I think some of those geoengineering solutions are very similar to the solution proposed by the technocrat in the film in the movie. That's why I'm asking. Yeah, they're untried story lines and it's very much a delay tactic. But I there's also the idea that people think if we give hope we might come to it. But you know going back to co at that moment we got all the governments together saying the same thing. If he had not done that, maybe the COVID problem today would have been much much more serious than it currently is. So it did try to solve some problems even though after that we get a whole narrative. Yeah. And what I'm wondering then because co was a very acute situation there was a large danger and it forced governments to take action. does in your opinion does it also mean it has to get worse before it gets better? The question is are we have we lost all idea of what is worse and what is better. In the Netherlands alone we know that 60% of the houses in the free sector are exposed to foundations that will have damage. It's going to be very expensive for those people. So okay maybe they can come together and ask the government to fund it. I don't know. But in the rest of the world we are seeing massive damage. So it's going to cause a huge problem to the entire value chain of business. Either the storm will mean that there is no product that can go into your value chain or it is too hot and people fall sick and labor can't function. The value chain of business will survive. A country like the Netherlands depends on trade. So if that value chain collapses, we will suffer in the Netherlands. So I think there's a a different reason. I heard it as a a statement made by somebody who did not want to be cited that the Netherlands does not and many European countries does do not want to tell their own public about the damage that they can face and how much it's going to cost because we don't want to lose our AAA rating in for investors and that was a reason why to to keep everybody calm over here. But I think this is a really big problem. It's also how we tell the narrative to the public and that's not happening and that's that's a reason. that if you watch the film Uni which I watched last night which in the HEG that's a film about these students in the Pacific who then go to class and hear about climate change they see their houses going getting damaged and then they combine themselves they go to the co the conference of parties they go to the UN general assembly they get 90 votes to go to the international court of the justice in the H and then they finally they build up this whole mood to demand justice over there I'm telling my students why don't you write letters to the parliament. Yeah. 

But somehow they feel that it's a little bit too far for them. And those students over there from their with their professors, they were able to come all the way to the Hey, we could have done it too but somehow yeah this takes a discussion indeed back to the question what can we as scientists as academics do right? So writing letters to parliament could help having a convincing story in the media could help. It appears to be very hard. 

Is there a lesson that you have learned about this over the past years? Yeah, I think that the green deal was possible because of the Fridays for Fridays for future Fridays for future and the Fridays for future movement sort of slowly disappeared and we need that movement. In fact, if the university students would say every Friday morning, you know, we are going to hit make some noise or do something for 10 minutes across Netherlands, of course, people will hear us. 

But the problem is that somehow that energy has dissipated. 

But I think the only way to fight big power is through social movements and through scientists and all of us getting together. But we do have to do something. At at the beginning you you said that you're hesitant to call scientists activistic because then you're being pushed into a political role rather than a scientific role. But what you say now actually does make scientists activist. It makes the students activists. 

So my argument is that what we want to do is to make our students not consumers but clients. They're not just consuming know sorry citizens. They're not just consuming knowledge. They're citizens in the street. For myself also, I feel myself as a researcher, but I'm also a citizen. So, as a citizen, I want to change things in society and I'm using my science to do that. So, I'm not going to do something that is violent, but I am going to try and spend my time to convince people that there's a problem. And I think this is also true for all the CEOs I meet or the business people or government officials. All of them tell me this is my mandate. I can't do what you're telling me to do because I can't go beyond my mandate. But that's your mandate as a professional. But what about your role as a citizen? So I think that's very important and we need to mobilize our students. Yes. Very clear. All right. We've spoken a lot about your research on climate change what you can do as scientist about it. 

I still have one final question and you briefly touched upon it as well because after well we were talking about the movie. how do you look at this movie? Do you think it has a realistic depiction of the role of scientist in an upcoming crisis where nobody wants to listen to them? 

[KE: Oh my God we have arrived and the USA has turned into the nation of Idiocracy]

Well the film makes fun of everybody. So the scientist the major scientist is a bit tongue tied and not very articulate. The young PhD is hysterical. So they make fun of everybody even the journalist is a bit awkward. So they make fun of all of the people in the film. 

But what I think is really interesting is the message I get from it is the US cannot go it alone. You cannot depend on the US. It has to be multilateral. I think that's very important and I think the story line that you have to behave wait on technology and that technology will solve it. I don't think that's going to work. I think for us we really have to take action in the next few years and that requires a different kind of approach and I think the fact that at the end of the film they use the narrative that the comet hits the earth and everybody dies except for the few people who've been able to create a Noah's arc situation for themselves and escape and of course they went without the species there were no two by twos but the most important point over there is that the difference between the comet And climate is that the comet hits the world and it's over. With the climate, we are like the frog that's getting slowly cooked. And the asteroid metaphor tries to wake us up through shortening the time span of destruction. And I think that's the strength of the film. All right, Paul. at the beginning of this recording, you had a few questions regarding the subject. Have they been answered? I think they they have. 

I mean my main question was what would be a good way for us scientists to engage in politics and asked should we become activistic or should we do something else. I think the clear answer is no we should not become activistic in order to keep our role as academics pure and somehow reliable but we should go onto this go everywhere and speak. Exactly. Exactly. So what we should do is to tell the story at all places where we can do that also in parliament as academics not as activists and leave the activism to our students if we can and then to keep telling the story it means that we also should develop maybe new narratives new forms to do that keep engaging as academic citizens in the whole problem of climate change. Yes. Well that's a great summary.  everybody listening, this was Net E.  thanks to Yoshida Duta and of course my co-host Peter Palake.  subscribe in your podcast app for new episodes and see you next time. Thanks for listening. ***https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sGt8f6qohg

^^^

Podcast Net Echt

Universiteit van Amsterdam

https://www.uva.nl › onderzoek

·Translate this page

Net Echt is dé podcast van de Universiteit van Amsterdam waarin films, series en popcultuur door een wetenschappelijke bril bekeken worden.

***

[KE: Everything scientists predicted about global warming/ climate change since the 1970s is coming true, only faster]