The Cost of Cheap Lies

Money can't buy honesty (no surprise there), but apparently, it can't afford very good lies either.

Having already designated more than $20 million of its money to oppose Initiative 1631, the fossil fuel industry began sending out misleading mailers last month. That the industry would attempt to use its wealth to fund a misinformation campaign against an initiative seeking to regulate carbon emissions shouldn't shock anyone. It's totally consistent with the past actions of these corporations. What does catch my attention is the cheap quality of the lies against the initiative.

In the past, the fossil fuel industry concocted elaborate stories to stoke uncertainty about global warming. These stories were lies, and the coal, oil, and gas companies' own scientists told them so at the time, but at least, the industry put in some work to fabricate them. As a result, the deceptions worked for a long time and continue to impact us today. We're still paying for their cost with pollution that threatens our health, the environment, and the future of all species on this planet.

The truth is that promoting alternative energy through I-1631
is better than anything the fossil fuel industry has to sell.

By comparison, the industry's lies against I-1631 have such little substance, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) hardly had to break a sweat in refuting them here. To illustrate the flimsy nature of these lies, let me spotlight a few examples from the piece by the UCS. First, the fossil fuel industry argues that the initiative exempts a coal plant near Centralia, Washington. Pointing to this exemption, they suggest the initiative won't work. Yet they neglect to mention that the plant will close in 2025 and that the agreement to shutter it requires any climate legislation in the state to exempt it until its closure. The industry also says that the initiative calls for a "carbon fee" instead of a "carbon tax" to mislead voters. The truth is that it must be called a fee to ensure the money raised from it goes to the correct projects. If it were called a tax, the money would go to the state's general fund and could be used for anything, not just for projects like promoting renewable energy and helping low-income people deal with the effects of global warming. 

Though weak, those half-truths and false assertions aren't even the lamest of the bunch. The opponents of the initiative say it has no oversight. In truth, I-1631 would institute a 15-person public board to oversee its implementation. The oversight and accountability are right there in the language of the initiative! Make sure to read the whole article from the UCS to see each lie from the fossil fuel industry refuted.

By the fossil fuel industry's own standards, and despite the millions of dollars behind them, the lies these corporations spread against I-1631 are extremely cheap; but if they work, they'll be very costly for our planet and our health. Don't buy them.

The Shredding of Our Moral Core

According to Immanuel Kant, "We can judge the heart of a (person) by his(/her) treatment of animals." In a more general sense, that behavior, along with how people treat the environment, probably also says something about the heart of a society.

It is with a heavy heart then that I have watched recent environmental policy coups play out around the United States. For example, as this article from BuzzFeed describes, the Republican-controlled US House of Representatives recently passed legislation to reinstitute the barbaric killing of wolves and bears on wildlife refuges in Alaska. The approved tactics include aerial shooting and killing pups and cubs in their dens. To say nothing of the fact that these activities would take place on wildlife refuges, the inhumane legislation reveals those supporting it as sadistic, sociopathic, and bereft of conscience.

Morally corrupt as it is, the wolf-bear policy displays a cunning level of strategy. Targeting wolves and bears proves a clever tactic for unraveling the threads of human concern and environmental policy. As apex predators, those species indicate the health of the ecosystems in which they live. When they're wiped out, proponents of environmental exploitation can more easily make the case that extracting resources will not damage an ecosystem anymore than it already is. Additionally, as charismatic megafauna, wolves and bears generate public concern, and people rally to save them. In short, these species are critical to environmental preservation, and it is no accident legislators are targeting them.

We see the reasons for using bears and wolves as strategic targets in environmental policy proposals and decisions across the country. Stripping the species of their federal protections takes the first step in breaking down the systemic mechanisms that foster, institute, and enact our environmental ethics. Eliminating key reasons to protect the land opens the door to proposals that allow for expanded environmental exploitation. For example, we've already seen a proposal to permit oil and gas drilling in national parks and renewed efforts by Democrats and Republicans in the state of Alaska to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Ultimately, taking federal government out of the picture puts our environment in the hands of private interests, which is exactly the point of these policies. One of the best (though most egregious) examples of this process comes from Oregon, where a state board led by Democratic State Treasurer Tobias Read voted to sell off the Elliott State Forest to private interests. Covering the story, Men's Journal calls the sale "the natural conclusion of a land losing federal protection" and "a bad sign for America's public lands." Throwing away our heritage of conservation and our responsibility to future generations, the board sold the forest for short-term profits.

In the place where our moral and environmental ethics once found their footing, a corporate callus now resides, an indifference to anything other than consuming resources and making money. That's how, according to Greenpeace, the public relations firm for Energy Transfer Partners, the company building the Dakota Access Pipeline, ended up writing the letter in which the Republican governors of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Iowa asked the Army Corps of Engineers to approve the pipeline.

At their heart, these actions by our elected officials represent a bipartisan, corporate attack on the core of our society and the shredding of our moral and environmental fabric.

Frack-tured Morality

Sometimes, we see the physical consequences of our environmental decisions; sometimes, we don't. However, the hardest thing to see might be the moral consequences.

When it comes to fracking, which is a method of extracting energy sources from the ground, we only see a portion of the physical consequences: flammable water, sick people, and dead ecosystems. We don't see the tons of toxins fracking puts into the ground. Also hidden are the moral ramifications, but as Stephen Colbert points out in the following videos, our desire for cheap fuel makes us complicit in some very unethical actions:





Fracking eliminates entire ecosystems. It causes us to lose our health, and now, it robs us of our political voices. Putting all of this together makes for some heavy considerations each time we use energy.

It's a Gas

We have reached a point where water on fire isn't surprising.

In 2010, Gasland, a documentary about the environmental and health impacts of fracking, showed us how new methods of natural-gas extraction are poisoning water supplies. Despite those revelations, fracking has increased since then.

Now, Gasland Part II, which premiers on HBO July 8 at 9 p.m., tries to explain why the concerns about fracking have made little impact on lawmakers. Watch below to check out a clip of the filmmaker being interviewed on The Daily Show last night:



The main focus of the film is the influence the natural-gas lobby has on elected officials and how that influence trumps the environment and the voice of people whose health is put at risk by fracking.

In the first Gasland film, seeing people's water catch on fire was shocking, but the current political situation makes it more likely that flammable water will become the norm.

Traveling Show of Resistance

What's legal is not always right, and what's illegal is not necessarily wrong.

The case of Tim DeChristopher, who was arrested and jailed after protecting thousands of acres of public land, is one of those stories where the good guy must become an outlaw. DeChristopher effectively sabotaged an auction for oil and gas leases by bidding $1.7 million to protect 22,000 acres of land. Bidder 70, a recent documentary that has been traveling the country, tells the story.

Watch the trailer below:

Bidder 70 - Trailer from Gage & Gage Productions on Vimeo.

For more information about DeChristopher, Bidder 70, and where to see the film, click here.