The sign in my No Frills grocery store is a true statement. How could it be otherwise? It gives me confidence that by shopping at No Frills, I’m not paying more than I need to. It convinces me that shopping somewhere else would be no advantage. I am confirmed in my desire to get the most for my money, not be wasting money unnecessarily. I can count on No Frills to be rock bottom. It’s the brand’s DNA. I believe in my heart its promise to look after me. My friend. Companion-in-arms. Yes, by Golly! I’m elated and high-five in my mind the sign as I pass by it. Adding to my assurance, the pleasurable association of eating ice cream is right there up on the sign, egging me on. And after my eye is caught by the booming yellow and the deep-felt proclamation and the ice cream sensation, my attention then turns to see also that not only are prices the lowest, but I’m enjoying a sale, too, woo-hoo!!, a further reduction in price, and not just any sale, but a HUGE one.
I took this photo and am writing this piece because it strikes me there just might be something wrong about the sign’s message.
This couple, in their early thirties I’d guess, happened to be standing in the area of the sign. I had moved in closer to photograph the sign, close enough for a socially distanced conversation. I asked if they felt there was anything peculiar about the message.
They didn’t have an answer. The idea of the sign seemed like a no-brainer. I offered the perspective that for business to provide the lowest possible cost may involve exploiting people in the developing world or compromising on health and environmental standards. They instantly got the point. They understood that the sign wasn’t true for them if with paying less they compromised their values, but as their initial response to my question indicated, they hadn’t really made the connection between their values and what the sign stood for. The emblematic message hadn’t been questioned at all, despite the incongruity with their own social values; no doubt, the same happens as we travel through the course of our day viewing over 1500 messages.
‘But then advertising doesn’t affect me’, one says. ‘I’m impervious to influence.’ Ha! They’ve got you there. All the better to influence you if you feel you aren’t being influenced. Why do they spend billions on advertising? Why are marketing, public relations, and strategic planning businesses not charities but highly profitable businesses? Why do they attract some of the the brightest, most creative people and afford to pay them very well? Why? Because it all works. And you don’t even know it’s working…on you.
We think little about any of it, but taking time to reflect for just a moment would change everything. As in the case of this couple, the message doesn’t reflect their values as they discovered in our passing conversation. And I hope for this couple, as my hope was for my students who I engaged in this way, that they would be better prepared to question the world they were living in. And for that be independent thinkers, happier people and better citizens.
Of course, in the virtual world we now live in, any critique we had of advertising standards is multiplied exponentially as the ability to predict and target the consumer is, well actually more than we even know. And we’re too overwhelmed with messages to question them.
Unfortunately, the fact we don’t critique our digital diet is a huge stumbling block in getting anything done about important issues, and especially the most critical: the climate crisis. Last year the world expended more hydrocarbons into the atmosphere than any time ever before despite overwhelming evidence it is sending us down a path of irreparable consequence. For 40 years little has been done about climate change by the world community. No wonder informed young people who aren’t old enough to vote are screaming their heads off at the adult world to wake up to their future being destroyed. I’d like to offer that our tendency to not question the messaging we receive is a primary factor in our inability to make good choices for ourselves and the planet. Because someone else, and not with our interest at heart, is making choices for us.
With having read various experts, I am of the mind that before any effort at combatting the problem of climate change can show results, we have to combat the problems with social media. I believe the two are inseparable. While still recognizing the value of all the conferences, published research, documentaries, community activity, and political proclamations about issues of climate change, yet it seems paramount to deal first with an underlying matter and fix our use of social media. How is that? Well social media is shaping our opinion. It’s not a channel of communication; it manages and directs our communication. It’s not a tool. It is actively using our psychology and our data to influence us, and as we have got to realize for our own sakes, far more than we imagine possible. Social media companies, claimed themselves, can predict with high accuracy if someone is getting divorced or getting pregnant, before that someone knows her or himself. And as they don’t tell us, but the whistle-blowers do, social media companies are using that knowledge to shape our behaviour to their ends. And often, as with the No Frills ad, their presentation to us, while seeming to serve our interests, is in deep conflict with our values.
I’m using the research and publications of Dr. John Cook, Centre for Climate Change Communication, George Mason University, along with others, including his colleague Edward Maibach, Sander van der Linden, Department of Psychology, Cambridge University and Stephan Lewandowsky, School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol and CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Australia.
As these researchers present in their paper, the central reason why no real movement on climate change has occurred, despite its devastating consequences and its irreversible effect, is that the public believes there is no apparent consensus among scientists. Well, there is really a clear consensus, but it’s skewered in social media as the authors have investigated. And that skewering serves the interest, the vested interest, of those not wanting any action on climate change. Who could that be?
The fossil fuel industry, intent on protecting its industry at any cost, adopted the same techniques as the tobacco industry, a similarly poisonous product, cigarettes, which the tobacco industry wanted people to continue consuming anyway despite its toxicity. The tobacco industry in the past found that all they had to do to stem any effective opposition to the sale of their product was to provide some doubt about the claims of the view opposing their own.
The remarkable discovery for them was that the countering view they would promote did not have to be true nor stand up to scientific rigour. They could just say whatever they wanted, make any claim they wanted, and so long as this alternative view was out in the public and repeated endlessly, the public would accept its legitimacy and feel uncertain about what was right. In a climate of uncertainty, people were confused, did not call for change or demand any action against the industry for years. A disinformation campaign was enough fo rate tobacco industry, and now the petroleum industry, to maintain the status quo which was exactly what the industries wanted.
Here’s an explanation and example Dr. Cook gives of a memo of Frank Luntz who promoted the interests of the petroleum industry to waylay any action against climate change. Learned from the tobacco strategists, Mr.Luntz used all his ability and insight into human nature to create talking points for Republican politicians to skewer the climate crisis debate and prohibit any concerted climate action by the American government. And his advice was excellent for the Republican elected officials have stymied any action on the climate crisis for decades.Recently, the government has done nothing, except pull out of the Paris Accord and appoint a petroleum industry lobbyist as the head of the Environmental Protection Association (EPA).
[legible copy of above memo] WINNING THE GLOBAL WARMING DEBATE – AN OVERVIEW
Please [he’s writing to Republican elected officials in the US government] keep in mind the following communication recommendations as you address global warming in general, particularly as Democrats and opinion leaders attack President Bush over Kyoto.
[Tallking Point:] 1. The scientific debate remains open. Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming with the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.
Like the marketers for No Frills, the tobacco and then petroleum industry are very good at what they do. And I must remind you: they are good at deceiving you. That’s the bottom line here.
There’s a deep psychological barrier in us all to accepting what I just wrote. I illustrate it later on in the blog. It’s endemic to us to trust our institutions, believe they have our interests at heart. We just don’t want to think the institutions we trust are capable of deceit. For us to question those in charge is to question our own judgement in trusting them, and it is to undermine the foundation of trust we invest in which we rely on for our security. We just don’t question or suspect or doubt the intentions of these institutions that easily. I’m asking a lot of you to follow me through this blog. I’m asking you to question the motivation of industries and institutions that provide you comfort and convenience and pride in who you are, and facility for the life you live, that is for your dreams. If the motives of these institutions is suspect, they actually don’t have your best interests at heart at all, then your dreams might come crashing down, the hope you’ve built your trust around. Yes, I know, I’m asking a lot of you. I had to go through that as well.
I feel the key to grasp about marketers, those really good at it, is they understand human behaviour and how to shape it. I remember psychologist James Hillman telling us how all the top ad executives would come to the academic Mythology conferences looking for insight into the depths of human consciousness. The best of them, a few at the top of the digital heap who are designing social media experiences, know more about us and how we act than we know about ourselves. Welcome to Big Data! And statistical analysis. And the sad part we have to accept is no matter how psychologically distressing it is for us to admit to, these virtual world geniuses exploit that knowledge to benefit themselves, and often to our harm. Innocent us. Gullible us. Pathetic us, really, unless we stand up to it. If we don’t challenge and question their messages, then we are going to be manipulated patsies for bright people intent on making money out of us or getting us to support their agenda, commercial or ideological.
To be fair, the petroleum industry and marketing profession, etc, I’m sure, have many concerned, responsible, decent people working for them, but in the detachment of the work, the little fragment everyone works on, the whole is a bit amorphous. At times employees wake up and protest their corporate employer’s policies such as when Google staff, who had been promised transparency by Google admin, protested when they found Google to be secretly making significant investment in weapons production and sales. Can you blame Google for going behind the promise made to the staff? Munitions is the best money; better margins than even illegal drugs! In the end though, while Google staff made a bit of a point, and some resigned, the same carried on. And while there have been many consumer campaigns to boycott Facebook, it all just disappears into the ether and things go on the same. Generally, people in tech work away on their isolated engineering tasks in their tech company silos as oblivious to to the effect of the messaging we see because of them, as they are to the effect of their work on us all, on our civil society.
So the bottom line is, intentional or otherwise, that social media companies have no interest in the ordinary citizen except to make money from our attention, and they quite readily allow us to be deceived if it suits that interest.
To make matters worse for us, the trick above all tricks is that they can make us feel (even believe) they care about us, brand themselves as our benefactor. Warm up to us as if our friend. True. A lot of young people in particular speak of ‘their’ social media as if their companion, friend to them, maybe even feel the digital device more of a friend than their hundreds of “friend” contacts. As James Williams former employee of Google and now academic at Oxford University outlines in his book Stand Out of Our Light, that behind closed doors in social media companies the conversation is not about our interests but only about whatever it takes to beat out the competition and make a killing off us.
Of course that’s why there are rules and regulations, you point out. Business is fine with a level playing field; if everyone plays by the same restrictive rules, all is taken care of. But then, if some crafty entrepreneur can lower those rules to eke out a bit more profit, they’ll do it and everyone else has to follow. Hence populism in politics. Hence big business support for Thatcher and Reagan economics. Hence a global unregulated marketplace. Hence ‘astro turf’ organizations, fake organizations set up for example, by the Koch brothers, to appear as if they are grassroots organizations representing ordinary people, conscripting believing ordinary people to fight the (fake) cause, when in fact the astro turf organizations are carrying out a behind-the-scenes agenda for the ghost corporation. Hence the infallible belief that the internet should be unregulated by authorities so the people can speak freely. Funny that argument when it’s nine companies running social media that are promoting it. They just don’t want anyone else including the public to monitor their activity, and they get us to accept that argument in the way the No Frills sign is convincing. It sounds like it makes sense (when it doesn’t).
Business certainly will do whatever it takes, honest or otherwise, if the competition is doing it. It’s how they stay in the game. No other way, really. Can’t let the competition get the drop on one. Could sink the business. MacDonald’s went to Haiti, poorest country in the world, and made a deal to assume control of pasture land for their beef cattle removing the local Haitians from the land, common land needed for the local people’s subsistence. With that deal, MacDonald’s was able to knock a nickel off of the cost of its North American burgers and do one better than Burger King who was cutting into MacDonald’s market and profit.
I live in a province that elected a government that has removed dozens of environmental controls and citizen rights to reduce the cost of doing business, allowing for more profit at the expense of increased chemical poisoning of our waterways. These changes are buried in omnibus bills rushed through without third reading where no citizen would expect the changes, all done behind the citizens’ backs. Oh, the government sold the electorate on the idea it was a party representing the interests of the ordinary citizen, not the unscrupulous business interests its legislation actually favours; good enough to get them elected to a majority with no policy platform presented for the election, and one on the promises of no increase to homeowner electricity costs and a popular promise of “a buck a beer.” And then they have gone ahead and set back Ontario’s climate change initiatives by 20 years.
How do they get away with it? Like the No Frills ad, they seem to give us what we want, even if there are gaps and flaws in the logic of the pitch. Cheapest possible food. And they don’t tell us they exploit other people to do that. Exploiting other people including children or destroying the environment we live in is not what most people would support. Children working in dark mining tunnels, every day sucking dust and toxin into their lungs, with no protection, at low cost to us, digging out the metals needed to build our cell phones. But of course it’s good marketing not to tell us the cost of low prices. Just promise the low prices. Just give us the dream. Give us what we want. And we don’t dare question. So it all happens. Cheap prices. Disgusting moral compromise buried in ignorance. ‘Won’t want to think about it if I don’t have to’ buried in the recesses of our unconscious mind. Don’t ask questions, in other words. Don’t ask and you won’t know. To know would bother you. So our capitulation is captured in the marketing, reassuring us: I want to pay more. Said by no one ever. And we feel we belong. Don’t take that away. So we find it impossibly hard to do the right thing.
Ninety-seven percent of the expert scientific community says we are now in a critical moment when we have to pull back from the mad poisoning of the earth’s atmosphere, land and oceans or those 3-year old children today who will be 30 by 2050 won’t have a predictable environment to live in, will be subject to all kinds of extreme weather conditions so that food production and settlement will be very precarious. It will be chaos. Yes, 97% of the experts say, the human race is on the brink; sober, careful scientists have been telling us this now with more and more urgency. Ninety-seven percent. All credible scientists.
We don’t want to think about that, and fortunately for us, there is a dissenting point of view on the internet, so we don’t have to deal with it. That 3% of the scientific community that deny climate change – well it’s not really the scientific community: it’s scientists who are willing to go over to the dark side of the Koch brothers industry and say whatever the paymasters ask them to say. But that 3% is enough to change the debate from “what do we do about climate change?” to “is there climate change?”, and that’s enough to freeze any action. That’s enough for the petroleum industry to win. How is that?
Here’s the bigger problem: uur social communication ecosystem. The misinformation generated by the public relations department of the petroleum industry gets retweeted and reposted. Like the No Frills message, that kind of seemingly true message caught with a few pithy words that appeal to our fantasy is a lot more seductive, like ice cream is seductive, than detailed research, careful examination, thoughtful reasoning, which don’t fit on the tiny phone screen. Don’t fire up our emotional cravings. Weighed and considered research is hard to manage when we’re busy, but the bright lights of the clickbait, the heightened emotional rants that entertain us and shock us out of our boredom are so easy, so seductive, that we fall for them, and so we repost the bright shiny seductive message, not the message of substance that then goes ignored.
A study reported in Psychological Science in June 2020 found people quite readily shared a FB post that was misinformation. However, for the second part of the experiment, they were asked to evaluate the accuracy of the article first, and the result of that time-out in order to question the article, the experiment results showed that the subjects were 3x more likely to spot the article as misinformation and choose not to repost. Typically, social media users don’t take that extra moment to ponder and question when scrolling on social media. And there’s a reason.
What’s going on? Well, when we decide to repost, our thought is not actually on the message we are reposting. Our thought, the research shows, is on whether we think our recipients will be attracted to the post, find it attractive… and so find us “attractive.” In the conceit of social media our “liking” is actually concerned with our deep-felt need that “I want to be liked.” You see, our interest in social media reposting, the activity of “liking,” is not saying ‘I like something,’ but is really saying, “I want you to like me.” And we know the flashy repost, misinformation or not, we don’t care, will get us far more attention that we seek because everyone else is grabbing at the eye candy as well, emotionally stimulated by the outrage, the bizarre, the fuzzy, the virally reassuring we share with them.
Will our repost get us attention? Wow. And the social media designers and the fossil fuel industry strategists know how much we want that -want to be liked- and boy do they use it. And all that misinformation online that is so seductive, just like every view of Trump is seductive, eye candy which we repost to get attention for ourselves, ends up with reposting on mass all kinds of misinformation, and it gets out there virally and it kills the truth of things. Fact is, the fictitious candy is more alluring than the truth of things.
As Dr. Cook says, if 97% of doctors agreed your daughter was sick, you wouldn’t hesitate to get her medical attention. The 3% would be ignored. But on social media, that 3% can look with reposting like 50%. For some people’s streams, the 3% looks like 100%. And that’s why other people seem to have such a different view of things to us. How could they get it so wrong we think. It’s because what they see as truth and what we see as truth are two different screen views, two different feeds, each specially targeted to the recipient in a way to keep that recipient on line longer. Whatever it takes. What we see and what they see is specifically curated to the biases and perceptions of the recipient, irregardless of the truth of it, so you see whatever it is that will keep you online longer. That’s it. How things are. The business model that has build incredible wealth for a very few people. And undermines are civil society, leaving it in tatters. Millions of people addicted to their social media yelling at each other.
What do we see on the screen? It’s only what social media algorithms has decided is best for us to see, in their interest, to keep us online for as long as possible. So when people see other people with such contrasting views they get so angry at those other people for being such fools. That’s what’s happening with people only seeing the 3%. They think 100% that climate change is a hoax and don’t understand why someone else can’t see what they see. And they believe with 100% certainty, for example, that Covid is a hoax, because that’s all they see on the screen, and they’ll even fight for that belief. And their anger gets our notice, and we get upset with them and it all gets reposted. And all the while, the 3% grows bigger and bigger. And the yelling gets louder and meaner. And nothing gets done about climate change, for example.
The world, including the United States, is full of mostly good people who want to do the right thing. Unfortunately as a group, humans are easily duped. We can’t be experts in everything, so it’s natural for us to turn to our leaders, go with what they say. If in our social order, the leaders we look to were honest and said 97% of the expert scientific community says we have to do something about our carbon emissions right now, and social media and Conservative Talk Media reflected that, then everyone on the planet would pitch in, and it would get done. But if they don’t, they dupe us. And we are easily duped unfortunately, fall for it because we are so trusting, don’t question. Believe what we see. And again the point: what we see from social media is not any kind of social truth. We see what the algorithms recommend, and that is all about keeping us online longer with whatever it takes, and true to our human nature, strong emotion, especially rage is best at keeping us online, gawking at Trump, for example. And a lot of money for a very few people is made from us staying online longer, with whatever it takes. And if that’s misinformation that people believe true, so be it. If society is polarized, so be it. If it sparks genocide in Myanmar, apparently, so be it.
A woman from the American mid-west interviewed on the October 29 CBC As It Happens radio show defended her support for Trump’s second term. Her defence against all the criticism levelled at Trump is that conventional media is critical of Trump because it is biased and a vested interest. Now, she of course knows that to be true because the media she listens to, not legacy media, tells her so! Conservative talk media convinces her not to trust what she hears in legacy media and conservative talk media convinces her by lying to her, by fabricating facts. She believes what she hears, for example, that traditional media has a bias so don’t believe them (believe us; we’re your friend). She accepts the misinformation without question because it’s what she wants to hear. She and her children work in the oil industry; her whole community and way of life, jobs for her grandchildren are dependent on increased oil production and carbon emissions. Talk media producers know what she wants to hear and they craft, brilliantly stimulating shows delivered to her by charismatic conservative talk media hosts, beautifully packaged entertainment masking as the fifth estate, even though it is mostly fabrication, distortion and lies. And as a society, we no longer seem to be able to see the difference.
CBC As It Happens Oct 29, 2020 https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-2-as-it-happens
In his excellent history of Talk Radio, author Brian Rosenwald points out that when the Talk Radio hosts are questioned about the veracity of their aired content, they blatantly say, ‘look, we’re not journalists, we’re entertainers.’ And they excuse themselves. Yes, they present as political journalists, guardians of the public interest, but that’s the game for them. And it’s better for them if no one knows the difference, just buys into the conceit. Like the No Frills ad: I want to pay more – No one ever said that, their messages sound good, what the listeners want to hear, what affirms the listeners’ assumptions, even if the whole story is concocted in the production studio. That’s how you keep an audience, Talk Radio proved and the floundering and bankrupt AM stations around America jumped board and suddenly found a way back to get rich.
Petroleum industry strategists are very good at what they do, those producers of misinformation; and they sustain their industry with it. Very crafty. Conservative talk media is very good at what it does; it makes a lot of money; Trump has adopted their successful strategy of communication. He is very good at what he does. Very good.
And the Republican party and fossil fuel industry strategy devised by Luntz et al did work and continues to be effective because today the public believes that only 67% of the expert scientific community agree on the climate problem when in fact it’s 97%. (Cook, et al)
When the public believes that support in the scientific community is only 67% for climate change, there is doubt about what is true; not accepting climate change has some credibility.
The same is happening on social media with Covid-19 information: seeds of misinformation, that are serving an ulterior vested interest, attain the same exposure and credibility as the comments of top scientists. And the misinformation is very effective as well. All kinds of decent people believe the pandemic is a hoax. Good people who believe what they read. And the result for civil society is inaction. The status quo is justified because the truth of the matter is deemed uncertain -even when it isn’t.
Unfortunately the strategists, so good at what they do, don’t care what self-serving road they take us down providing it’s profitable. We have to know that. Mr.Luntz did a great job for the petroleum industry, apparently willingly, even knowing it will result in his grandchildren’s considerable suffering. Didn’t seem to care. And we need to know that- know that they don’t care about our well-being at all- need to know that they don’t care so as to remind ourselves to ask the questions, question the motives behind the messages we are exposed to, not just fall for all the warm sentiments for how much they are doing for us as they draw us unsuspecting, innocently into the great seduction.
To stop and question is the alternative. Like the couple I met in No Frills. By taking a reflective moment to question why the strawberry ice cream cone was up there, they realized, in fact, the corporate message did not reflect their values. In that moment, they became their own selves, were no longer sold on the conceit.
We have to question. We have to fight off the seduction. See things as they are. It begins with holding to account the social media companies. The social media companies know exactly what they are doing. Social media companies know how seductively-crafted misinformation, with no better a seduction than rage, is much more likely to capitalize on reposting and retweeting, and they allow misinformation and even hate messaging to go unfiltered because it’s good for business. Social media companies know they control our attention by controlling our feeds with the ads and articles they target each of us, based on each of our unique profiles. Social media companies know they are shaping our behaviour in ways we wouldn’t choose, but they do it anyway because it’s really good money for them. Social media companies tell us they act in our interest when they know they act only in their own interest. Social media companies know their deception and greed is undermining civil society….. We have to know this about them, take careful note of it so as not to be seduced and duped by these purveyors of desire. Not to let them seduce us. Question and hold accountable. Get them to stop playing with us, with civil society, just to make money. All the glossy good Google is doing: sure, doing good for profits.
This is not an indictment against technology or social media even, but against how it’s being used. On a personal basis, social media is wonderful; on a collective basis, it’s unravelling the whole fabric of our civil society. Yes, social media brings us together for good, fosters social action but in the end what’s happening? The Arab Spring, the great social media online phenomenon, in the end benefited whom the most? Who? ISIS. ISIS was able to mine all that data out there to its own end. That’s who benefited most the experts tell us. Yes, we have convenience and benefit with social media, but the cost of our engagement is very high, high enough to have given Britain the Brexit vote, which the same people behind Brexit used as practice for electing Trump. Not an opinion I came up with; what the experts, whistle-blowing experts, tell us about the real cost of our unregulated social convenience. See the references at the end.
As with the example of the No Frills message, message-makers make themselves very comfortable to us, make their view to be our view. Become us. That’s the point of marketing: that you see yourself in their messaging and so are looking in the mirror at yourself, looking favourably on what you see: Yourself. To question that image in the mirror is to question and doubt your own self, but in reality it is not you in the mirror, not you actually in the No Frills sign. No matter if you do like ice cream, a lot. It’s only a shimmering, concocted deceit of your self. Coke will not make you happy.
If we step back to question the message, then we make our own choices for our own lives. If we don’t question, then the seduction will get us. We can’t resist. Look at the glowing surface of the image to your left, feel yourself there and listen to those words whispered in your ear, Intimately Yours. Without stepping back and questioning the message, accepting it at face value, if only passively and unconsciously, we allow ourselves to imagine that a cologne will give us glamour, wealth, power, influence over women… When we fall for that, the marketers are the ones who dictate to us the choices we make and the life we live.
We’re up against it. They are so smart those engineers of persuasion. So subtle. They get under our skin, inside our head, turn things inside out and up side down so we become them, their agenda. The line between what is true and what is fiction got blurred when we didn’t notice: docudramas; reality TV; a Hollywood star for president; a reality TV star for president; infomercials; product launches that become news items….so advertising, which at least we could see as advertising, is now also slight-of-hand journalism, pseudo-journalism that for many people is their only journalism now. What has it come to: writing up journalism stories as click bait, not in order to report news but to attract attention; news feeds that are not about the news but keeping us online longer with self-gratifying stories…
If we question social media tactics and influence, then social media can’t be used to manipulate us by people such as Luntz who was quite happy to undermine the whole of our civil society for his narrow benefit.
If we question and hold to account what is published, then misinformation will not be credible. And if, for example, people are correctly informed that 97%, not 67%, of the expert scientific community are very afraid for the future, and those who manufacture misinformation are rebuffed, then I have every confidence the people of the world will all get together and do what is needed to halt global warming.
I think the shift to meaningful climate action can be as simple (and hard) as that. The climate deniers using misinformation have been very good at creating a belief that the climate crisis is debatable.
The climate crisis is not debatable; only the deniers in their own self-interest want us to think it’s up for debate. Should the scientific community and the politicians and opinion leaders all speak with one honest voice about the climate crisis as it undeniably is, then the world population will support that; people will do what’s needed to turn this environmental disaster around. We will do it. We are survivors. Just tell the whole truth -everyone- and nothing less than the truth.
It’s not true, in fact, that no one ever questions paying more. I expect the majority of people will pay more for products and services if it means a sustainable planet for our children; will pay more if it means a child somewhere isn’t working 15-hour days and instead can go to school; will pay another nickel for a burger so Haitian people can use their own pasture land for their own livelihood instead of going hungry; will pay more so Canada’s Barrick’s Gold mining in India is not poisoning and contaminating the bloodstreams of the local people…..Let us step back for a moment, take a moment, and ask ourselves.
Deconstructing Climate Change to Deconstruct Argument https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa49f
National Geographic article : A Guide to Overcoming Covid-19 Misinformation https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/10/guide-to-overcoming-coronavirus-misinformation-infodemic/?cmpid=org=ngp::mc=crm-email::src=ngp::cmp=editorial::add=SpecialEdition_20201023&rid=05BB236B5F0429AC4821D85026A7BE3A
A few of the documentaries I can remember. Many more as well.
The Social Dilemma https://www.netflix.com/ca/title/81254224
Vanity Fair article on The Social Dilemma https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/08/the-social-dilemma-deactivate-twitter-facebook-instagram
Propaganda: The Art of Selling Lies Documentary https://www.tvo.org/video/documentaries/propaganda-the-art-of-selling-lies
Active Measures Documentary https://www.activemeasures.com