Global warming myth or fact?

Environment crusaders last week gathered senior journalists to discuss effects of the changing climate in Zimbabwe.

There were varied contributions from different journo-colleagues, some of whom I guess have no idea what the subject is all about.

A good number believe climate change is a myth while others say its real. I was not part of the large contingent of practitioners who gathered in the capital specifically for this important subject having to attend to other pressing matters, but briefs from colleagues showed the pitfalls of environment specialty reporting in Zimbabwe.

A journo-colleague who attended the gathering (himself a farmer) says he has no doubt that climate change is real and that there is need for Zimbabwe to mitigate its effects.

Perhaps my journo-colleagues are not alone in thinking that those pushing to mitigate climate change effects are bushwhacking donor funding.

As the journalists gathered in Harare, a plenary session at the United Nations (UN) climate talks was underway in Bonn. Divisions emerged on the first few days of the latest round of international climate change talks with the European Union (EU) and groups of developing countries clashing over the future of the controversial Kyoto Protocol.

Under the terms of the Durban Platform agreed at last years UN climate summit, the EU said it would sign on to an extension of the Kyoto Protocol before it lapses at the end of this year in return for an agreement from all nations that a new binding treaty would be finalised by 2015 and enacted by 2020.

The fortnight-long Bonn talks are intended to develop a timetable for agreeing the new treaty and finalise details of how the so-called Kyoto 2 extension will work for the countries that have agreed to sign up to the treaty.

However, negotiators are divided over how long the extended Kyoto Protocol should operate, with developing countries insisting the treaty should continue to be enforced over five-year commitment periods, and the EU expressing its preference for an eight-year commitment period that would allow it to be replaced by the new international treaty in 2020.

A colleague, Seyni Nafo, the spokesperson of the African Group of Negotiators (AGN), expressed deep concern that the inadequate mitigation pledges remain on the table. They risk temperature increases that will have catastrophic impacts worldwide, and particularly for Africa.

Africa believes that a successful outcome at the Doha talks will be one that includes a strong five-year second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (2013-2017); and a successful conclusion of the LCA (life-cycle assessment) that carries with it a high level of economy-wide reduction target by non-Kyoto parties (the United States and Canada) that are comparable with the level of ambition in the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol.

Much as journalists can educate the public, they can also be instruments of (mis)education.
Hence in the US one can quickly find The Heartland Institutes latest propaganda piece: a mugshot of Ted Kaczynski next to the words, I still believe in Global Warming.

Do you? Heartlands not-so-subtle subtext: If you think the climate is changing, you're no better than terrorists like the Unabomber.

This billboard, which appeared alongside a Chicago highway, was the first in a series that, Heartland said, would have included other standout characters like Osama bin Laden and Charles Manson.

But the message was so outrageous that the backlash which included public withdrawals of funder support convinced Heartland to cancel the ad within hours.

Theincident is the latest in a series of ethical quandaries that have cropped up since the think-tank switched on its climate change denial machinery.

The Heartland Institute bills itself as a pro-business non-profit organisation with a $6 million annual budget for education, lobbying, advertising, and regular instalments of its International Conference on Climate Change, which features climate sceptics from around the world.

Recent leaked internal documents describe (mis)education plans and public opinion campaigns designed to perpetuate the embarrassingly pervasive American disbelief in human-driven climate change, despite overwhelming scientific consensus to the contrary.

Heartland is just one part of the pervasive climate change denial machine, which spans think-tanks, interest groups, and political parties. Its financers represent an even broader spectrum, from private donors to corporations built on fossil fuel usage.

But its getting harder and harder to figure out whos paying for which messages because, as evidence of climate change mounts, citizens are getting more suspicious.

Given Heartlands position on climate change, its not surprising to note that, since 1998, the think-tank has received more than half a billion dollars from ExxonMobil a multinational energy firm that would do particularly well by convincing us not to worry about our carbon footprints.

Though in 2006, rocked by public relations scandals surrounding its support of climate change denialism, ExxonMobil reportedly cut ties with Heartland, its still a key member of the American Petroleum Institute, the political voice of the oil and natural gas industry in the US.

The bottom line is simple: If you sell oil, coal, or gas, acknowledging climate change is bad for business.

But what all these firms also understand, very clearly, is that climate change is happening, and that it can, in itself, be bad for business. Droughts in sub-Saharan Africa and melting glaciers in Uganda and Tanzania threaten the stability of millions of the farmers.

And then there's the elephant in the room: fossil fuel supplies are finite, and we are already on the downhill side of production. Major oil and gas companies are adding alternative energies to their portfolios, hoping to ensure their survival in the post-fossil fuel world.

Perhaps thats why in 2002, long before it froze out Heartland, ExxonMobil committed $100 million in research funds to Stanford's own Global Climate and Energy Project.

So its our job as journalists and consumers of oil, and of advertising to see those ties anyway.

Because as long as environmental concerns threaten the profits of these big firms, a very powerful face will be working in somebody's shadows!