LEAH STOKES on NAT RICH piece in New York Times: a Twitter thread

Leah Stokes‏ @leahstokes

If you haven’t had the two hours necessary to devote to reading “Losing Earth” the full issue article on climate change in @NYTmag, let me summarize it for you: the central thesis is plain wrong. We are not all to blame for the climate crisis. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/01/magazine/climate-change-losing-earth.html … 1/

4:46 PM - 1 Aug 2018

• 147 Retweets
• 237 Likes
• 

8 replies147 retweets237 likes

Tweet text

1. New conversation
   
   Leah Stokes‏ @leahstokes 6h6 hours ago
   
   Who, exactly, is this “we” the author speaks of as being responsible for the unfolding climate crisis? Is it me, someone who wasn’t yet born when his story begins? Is it poor people who emit next-to-nothing or illiterate people who haven’t even heard of climate change? 2/
   1 reply11 retweets60 likes
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   Leah Stokes‏ @leahstokes 6h6 hours ago
   
   The article completely neglects institutions for an actor-oriented (white male) narrative. There are institutions--fossil fuel corporations and electric utilities--who have profited off of continuing pollution since 1989, when the article's story ends. 3/
   4 replies8 retweets74 likes
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   Leah Stokes‏ @leahstokes 6h6 hours ago
   
   The author tells us that "we" are all to blame. That it cannot be fossil fuel companies and the GOP because they weren’t against acting until 1990. 4/
   2 replies2 retweets45 likes
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   Leah Stokes‏ @leahstokes 6h6 hours ago
   
   Yet, the facts in his article show Exxon was already planning to resist policy in 1979. He quotes someone inside Exxon saying then: It behooves us to start a very aggressive defensive program.” 5/
   3 replies6 retweets49 likes
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   Leah Stokes‏ @leahstokes 6h6 hours ago
   
   Of course Exxon wasn’t running a denial campaign until the 1990s. They didn’t need to yet. The threat of policy action was remote. When action became more likely, that’s when fossil fuel companies started their lying in earnest. 6/
   1 reply5 retweets50 likes
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   Leah Stokes‏ @leahstokes 6h6 hours ago
   
   This is Schattschneider’s “expanding the scope of conflict.” It’s American Politics 101. Why include the public in a campaign when the problem is barely on the Congressional agenda? You can stay quiet and still win. Keeping things off the agenda shows you've got real power. 7/
   1 reply2 retweets50 likes
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   Leah Stokes‏ @leahstokes 6h6 hours ago
   
   The fact is that electric utilities and fossil fuel companies spent the 20th century investing in assets that are on a path towards destroying civilization. They knew they were doing this. 8/
   3 replies14 retweets49 likes
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   Leah Stokes‏ @leahstokes 6h6 hours ago
   
   But alas, fossils were also the assets that fueled their profits. They weren’t about to write them off. Even today utilities are fighting to keep coal plants open, the tar sands operating. Their business model doesn't allow them to "keep it in the ground." So they stall. 9/
   1 reply6 retweets39 likes
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   Leah Stokes‏ @leahstokes 6h6 hours ago
   
   Similarly, the Republican party supported dealing with carbon in the 1980s because fossil fuel companies and electric utilities had not yet convinced them through a denial campaign and contributions that they shouldn’t. 10/
   1 reply3 retweets34 likes
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   Leah Stokes‏ @leahstokes 6h6 hours ago
   
   These interest groups weren’t yet running primary challengers in districts where politicians were on the wrong side, supporting renewables. 11/
   1 reply1 retweet25 likes
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   Leah Stokes‏ @leahstokes 6h6 hours ago
   
   Here's the truth: The companies profiting off of destabilizing our climate worked hard to polarize public opinion and political elites whenever binding policy that would cut into their profits was put on the table. That’s why “we” haven’t solved the problem. 12/
   1 reply32 retweets84 likes
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   Leah Stokes‏ @leahstokes 6h6 hours ago
   
   We also haven’t solved it because of technology and costs—facts the article ignores. There is no mention of what solutions were available in the 1980s. There is no mention of PURPA. There is no discussion of energy R&D or renewables integration or…well anything on solutions. 13/
   1 reply3 retweets37 likes
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   Leah Stokes‏ @leahstokes 6h6 hours ago
   
   Can any of us unilaterally choose to live in a low-carbon society? No. We are at the mercy of technology and institutions. Some of those institutions have worked very hard to stall for decades. 14/
   1 reply22 retweets72 likes
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   Leah Stokes‏ @leahstokes 6h6 hours ago
   
   So now "we"--by which I mean all beings on this planet--are paying the costs in heatwaves, wildfires, droughts, floods. Climate change is here now. It's sad that the people profiting off of this disaster have stalled us from acting for so long. 15/
   2 replies4 retweets37 likes
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   Leah Stokes‏ @leahstokes 6h6 hours ago
   
   So, yes: I applaud the @nytimes for trying to put climate change in people’s living rooms this Sunday. It is the biggest challenge of our lives. But next time they should get the narrative right. Maybe start by interviewing @NaomiOreskes or reading this
   6 replies21 retweets105 likes
   
   
   
   
   
   
   End of conversation
2. 1. kevin‏ @kvnpkrwrd 8m8 minutes ago
      

      Replying to @leahstokes @daveanthony @NYTmag

      Jesus this article sucked. More convoluted and repetitive with zero answers for our future. Here it is: Exxon, Murdoch and Reagan conspired to make the eighties coked up and profitable for the one percent, earth population be damned. They were the 'me' of the me generation.

      0 replies0 retweets1 like

      
      

      
      

      
      
3. 1. Susan Hatch‏ @SusaMorgan 24m24 minutes ago
      

      Replying to @leahstokes @NYTmag

      "'The editorial we...is fitted only for expressing coporate policy.' Walter Raleigh, on Writing and Writers 25 (George Gordon ed., 1926)." Garner's Modern Usage The “Corporate ‘We’” deflects accountability. The “Corporate ‘We’” diminishes authenticity.

      0 replies0 retweets1 like

      
      

      
      

      
      
4. 1. Karin Johnson‏ @Karinibj 2h2 hours ago
      

      Replying to @leahstokes @NYTmag

      Bravo - great response. I completely agree.

      0 replies0 retweets4 likes

      
      

      
      

      
      
5. 1. Mark Kraft‏ @mrkraft 3h3 hours ago
      

      Replying to @leahstokes @NYTmag

      Definitely not all to blame. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=32503 

      0 replies0 retweets1 like

      
      

      
      

      
      
6. 1. Brad Bealmear‏ @bradbealmear 2h2 hours ago
      

      Replying to @leahstokes @NYTmag

      From the moment the primate threw the bone in the air we have been a terminating parasite.

      0 replies0 retweets0 likes

      
      

      
      

      
      
7. New conversation
   
   Eska Bobble‏ @EskaBobble 4h4 hours ago
   
   Replying to @leahstokes @NYTmag
   Much of responsibility for this lies with affluent whites in the boomer & my gen. We made wealth a virtue and then worshipped the wealthy.