# How Climate Activists Successfully Fight Obstruction

An episode of [Drilled](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/1439735906), 28 Dec 2025, 57 min.

Audio: https://podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/tracking.swap.fm/track/SxlTEPDY7xDg35RXkASs/pdrl.fm/3e5572/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/9a7ab5ee-ce11-48ff-a544-b3ec00ea9b1e/a98e86bc-eeee-45a6-95d6-b3ec00ead1cf/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=7f82f371-6316-4ea6-a108-b3ec00ea9b2d

Despite growing repression worldwide, climate activists continue to stick it to obstructionists and drive change. In this season's finale, Jennie Stephens (University of Ireland Maynooth) and Sharon Yadin (University of Haifa) share the effective strategies that activists can use to push back against the forces that block climate action. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

## Transcript

[0:05] Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome back to Drilled. I'm Amy wester Up.
[0:08] Speaker 1: Today we're bringing you the last episode in our season fourteen, Obstruction.
[0:14] Speaker 1: We were looking at this book from the Climate Social
[0:17] Speaker 1: Science Network that's pulled together all of the peer reviewed
[0:20] Speaker 1: research on climate obstruction globally. That book is called Climate
[0:25] Speaker 1: Obstruction a Global Assessment. There's a link in the show
[0:28] Speaker 1: notes to download a free copy of it if you'd
[0:30] Speaker 1: like it for a reference. I highly recommend you download
[0:34] Speaker 1: it and read it and keep all the footnotes links
[0:38] Speaker 1: to all the different studies. It's a super super handy reference.
[0:42] Speaker 1: Today the final episode maps to the final chapter in
[0:45] Speaker 1: that book, which is looking at one of the tactics
[0:48] Speaker 1: that works to combat obstruction. Last week we talked about litigation,
[0:54] Speaker 1: and this week we are talking about activism of various kinds.
[0:58] Speaker 1: To do that, I'm joined by Jenny Stephens at National
[1:01] Speaker 1: University of Ireland Manuth and Sharon Yadin from the University
[1:05] Speaker 1: of Haifa. Each of them walked me through a different
[1:08] Speaker 1: type of effective activism against obstruction, and I found both
[1:12] Speaker 1: of those conversations super super interesting.
[1:15] Speaker 2: I hope you do too. They're coming up after this
[1:18] Speaker 2: quick break.
[1:30] Speaker 3: I'm Jenny Stevens. I'm professor of Climate Justice at the
[1:33] Speaker 3: National University of Ireland in Manuth.
[1:36] Speaker 2: I actually wanted to ask you before we get into
[1:39] Speaker 2: some of the more detailed questions just about this chapter
[1:42] Speaker 2: in general, because it's one of the two chapters in
[1:45] Speaker 2: this book that actually look at some of the pushback
[1:48] Speaker 2: to obstruction and I guess I just want to ask you,
[1:51] Speaker 2: sort of broadly the role that activism plays in that
[1:55] Speaker 2: pushback and why it's effective.
[1:59] Speaker 3: Yes, I think one of the things that we did
[2:05] Speaker 3: in this chapter is really try to focus on how
[2:09] Speaker 3: important the resistance to climate obstructionism is and the kind
[2:16] Speaker 3: of revealing and expanding awareness, kind of the social exposure
[2:21] Speaker 3: peace is a big part of it, but also that
[2:24] Speaker 3: there's a lot of policy advocacy that's going on that's
[2:27] Speaker 3: also really important. And then campaigns and protests and and
[2:33] Speaker 3: you know, direct engagement with communities in mobilizing public concern
[2:39] Speaker 3: is another big part of it. So those are kind
[2:42] Speaker 3: of the three different areas that we looked at of
[2:44] Speaker 3: how we can and we are and people have been
[2:48] Speaker 3: for decades trying to resist and confront the denialism, the delay,
[2:53] Speaker 3: and then also the distraction. Right because I think a
[2:57] Speaker 3: lot of what we see is you know, putting up
[3:01] Speaker 3: other issues that are trying to just kind of distract
[3:06] Speaker 3: us from fossil fuel phase out or more transformative climate
[3:11] Speaker 3: policy that's urgently needed and the science has showed us
[3:14] Speaker 3: for so long that that it is needed.
[3:17] Speaker 2: Yeah. Okay, So there's this point that comes up in
[3:20] Speaker 2: the chapter that I thought was really interesting and important
[3:23] Speaker 2: to talk about, which is that you kind of make
[3:26] Speaker 2: this point that the research on climate obstruction and climate
[3:31] Speaker 2: activism needs to also be happening outside of universities because
[3:37] Speaker 2: of the academic capture problem on many university campuses. Can
[3:42] Speaker 2: you talk through some examples of what that looks like
[3:45] Speaker 2: and then also what the non university research looks like.
[3:50] Speaker 2: Sometimes it's hard for people to acknowledge that there's any
[3:54] Speaker 2: credibility in the research that's happening outside of universities, in
[3:58] Speaker 2: part because of you know, the think tanks and all
[4:01] Speaker 2: of that stuff that have been involved in obstructionism too. So, yeah,
[4:05] Speaker 2: examples of what the fossil fuel capture looks like and
[4:09] Speaker 2: this sort of no fly zone of even researching fossil
[4:14] Speaker 2: fuel phase out and things like that, and then what
[4:17] Speaker 2: is the research that's happening outside of universities.
[4:22] Speaker 3: So I've been studying climate action and transformative change toward climate,
[4:28] Speaker 3: responding to climate crisis in academia for over thirty years.
[4:33] Speaker 3: And what I experienced myself is realizing how much of
[4:39] Speaker 3: the climate and energy research in academia is actually funded
[4:44] Speaker 3: by fossil fuel interests. Right. They actually Charles Koch back
[4:49] Speaker 3: in the seventies identified invest in universities because it can
[4:54] Speaker 3: legitimize this market fundamentalism, pro business, anti regulatory regime, and
[5:01] Speaker 3: universities are so powerful and legitimizing certain approaches, including fossil
[5:06] Speaker 3: fuel friendly technologies like carbon capture and storage and solar
[5:11] Speaker 3: gew engineering. And so my own experience in academia a
[5:17] Speaker 3: lot of engagement with people, mentors who I looked up to,
[5:21] Speaker 3: who then I started realizing are promoting fossil fuel climate
[5:27] Speaker 3: obstructionist talking points, you know, in their academic research. So
[5:31] Speaker 3: this is this is the idea of academic capture or
[5:34] Speaker 3: corporate capture of higher education. And as part of the
[5:38] Speaker 3: Climate Social Science Network, I was part of a group
[5:42] Speaker 3: that you know, kind of has exposed some of this
[5:44] Speaker 3: the degree to which fossil fuel interests have been investing
[5:49] Speaker 3: in higher education, particularly in the United States, in the UK,
[5:53] Speaker 3: in Australia and Canada for big fossil fuel countries, you know,
[5:59] Speaker 3: is much deeper than many of us recognize, and it's
[6:02] Speaker 3: been going on for decades. So it's deeply embedded within
[6:05] Speaker 3: the academic climate and energy research culture. And so this
[6:11] Speaker 3: is where you know, I started. Many of us have
[6:13] Speaker 3: started to notice, why aren't we doing research on how
[6:15] Speaker 3: to phase out fossil fuels in our universities? That should
[6:18] Speaker 3: be the number one priority, right, but it isn't because
[6:22] Speaker 3: of this capture. So I think what's been really really
[6:25] Speaker 3: important is, as you mentioned, the non academic research, right,
[6:30] Speaker 3: there's so many NGOs, investigative journalists like yourself and others
[6:36] Speaker 3: who are you know, digging in exposing greenwashing and delay tactics,
[6:43] Speaker 3: exposing carbon offsetting strategies and how those are not you know,
[6:47] Speaker 3: just delaying things and net zero claims and corporate interests
[6:52] Speaker 3: in climate policy. So there's NGOs around the world. Many
[6:56] Speaker 3: of them are international and collaborating, some are specific to
[7:00] Speaker 3: specific countries that are really trying to and have been
[7:06] Speaker 3: really really important in exposing and how fossil fuel interests
[7:12] Speaker 3: are so deep and in particular. I think some of
[7:15] Speaker 3: the really important work has not just been with science
[7:19] Speaker 3: and kind of exposing the corporate interest, but in climate finance,
[7:24] Speaker 3: and I think you know, organizations like Oil Change International,
[7:28] Speaker 3: they're banking on climate chaos. They've really just kind of
[7:31] Speaker 3: exposed in ways that no academic is doing with the
[7:35] Speaker 3: same rigor and focus and really, you know, really being
[7:43] Speaker 3: able to create kind of a whole structure for trying
[7:51] Speaker 3: to hold accountable year after year what's going on in
[7:54] Speaker 3: all of these different contexts. So I think it's been
[7:57] Speaker 3: that's where the non academic research is just so important
[8:00] Speaker 3: because academic research, although it's supposed it is supposed to
[8:04] Speaker 3: be independent and you know, free and academic to study
[8:08] Speaker 3: what we want in the universities, there actually are these
[8:12] Speaker 3: deep constraints because of funding. I've been told all kinds
[8:17] Speaker 3: of things, very condescending, like, oh, you're so smart, why
[8:21] Speaker 3: aren't you focusing on this, you know, this kind of thing.
[8:23] Speaker 3: You know, I have a science an engineering background, like
[8:27] Speaker 3: a lot of these people that we're talking about, and why.
[8:31] Speaker 4: Are you wasting it studying justice? Jenny exactly.
[8:35] Speaker 3: And this is where a lot of the people who
[8:39] Speaker 3: have control over the research agendas really don't have very
[8:43] Speaker 3: much social science or interest in understanding how to even
[8:47] Speaker 3: study power dynamics. Right, So this is where there's just
[8:50] Speaker 3: like a blinders if, like, oh, it's all technical this
[8:54] Speaker 3: and this and economics and the money, and it's just
[8:57] Speaker 3: about costs and technology and that's it. Everything else is
[9:02] Speaker 3: just wishy washy. And that's where it's so constrained all
[9:06] Speaker 3: the climate energy research and universities as well. Yeah, yeah,
[9:09] Speaker 3: so little in the social science and the well.
[9:12] Speaker 2: And I feel like that made its way into the
[9:14] Speaker 2: IPCC too, right, where like it was only in the
[9:17] Speaker 2: most recent assessment that we even had social scientists included.
[9:21] Speaker 2: But that's wild to me that It's like, how long
[9:25] Speaker 2: have people been saying, oh, this is like a you know,
[9:27] Speaker 2: an issue of political will and all of that stuff,
[9:31] Speaker 2: but we're not going to have social scientists in here
[9:33] Speaker 2: to talk about what creates or blocks political will.
[9:37] Speaker 4: I know, it's frustrating.
[9:40] Speaker 2: In the US, we're dealing with the second Trump administration
[9:44] Speaker 2: and a huge amount of suppression of climate science in
[9:48] Speaker 2: general and university research and scientists and all of that.
[9:52] Speaker 2: I'm wondering if there's anything that's happened so far that
[9:57] Speaker 2: surprises you from a suppression stamp point. We're obviously seeing
[10:01] Speaker 2: like suppression of protest as well. I mean, you know,
[10:06] Speaker 2: it's all outrageous, but yeah, is there anything that that
[10:09] Speaker 2: like particularly surprises you as a suppression tactic.
[10:15] Speaker 3: I think what has surprised me the most is actually
[10:20] Speaker 3: the power and kind of contribution of the tech bros, right,
[10:28] Speaker 3: and how central they've been and I think AI and
[10:33] Speaker 3: promoting tech at all costs. I mean, I think the
[10:35] Speaker 3: tech companies have become major climate obstructionists. Right. They used
[10:41] Speaker 3: to have kind of sustainability climate but they've kind of
[10:45] Speaker 3: dropped a lot of that and they're now essentially getting
[10:49] Speaker 3: into the fossil fuel business because they need so much
[10:52] Speaker 3: energy for all the data centers and so they and
[10:58] Speaker 3: I think that's what the Trump administration and this new
[11:03] Speaker 3: era we're in, they are, you know, collaborating complicit in
[11:09] Speaker 3: ways that it's just so powerful. And I don't think
[11:13] Speaker 3: we even wreck you know, we're all coming to terms
[11:17] Speaker 3: with how much power they have. But I would say
[11:20] Speaker 3: that that is climate obstructionism, you know, but it isn't
[11:24] Speaker 3: often framed that way. We don't think of it that
[11:25] Speaker 3: way because it's climate is kind of off the agenda
[11:29] Speaker 3: for in many of these discussions. But that's exactly you know,
[11:33] Speaker 3: the most effective denial delay tactic is just don't talk
[11:38] Speaker 3: about it and just pretend it's not there and proceed
[11:41] Speaker 3: as if everything's fine and we can have all this
[11:45] Speaker 3: AI proliferation and data centers everywhere and increase our energy
[11:50] Speaker 3: demand for what. Like, it's not clear what AI is
[11:55] Speaker 3: offering in terms of the multiple the humanity is facing
[12:02] Speaker 3: right other than exacin no.
[12:03] Speaker 2: I know, Well, there's this whole weird talking point about
[12:06] Speaker 2: how AI is like just very vague with a lot
[12:09] Speaker 2: of conviction the AI is going to solve.
[12:11] Speaker 4: Climate change to like, Okay, I mean.
[12:15] Speaker 2: I get, I get that there are things that AI
[12:17] Speaker 2: can do efficiency wise to automate you know, energy efficiency
[12:22] Speaker 2: in certain processes. But then I feel like that's got
[12:26] Speaker 2: to be getting blown out of the water by the
[12:28] Speaker 2: extent to which they're just cramming it into everything and
[12:32] Speaker 2: creating huge energy needs and.
[12:37] Speaker 4: Data centers and all of that stuff.
[12:38] Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, it's it's a set of tools that
[12:40] Speaker 3: can be used for all kinds of things, but that
[12:43] Speaker 3: doesn't mean that, yeah, you know, it's critical for all
[12:46] Speaker 3: kinds of things. And even in the universities, the narrative
[12:51] Speaker 3: of inevitability, like we have to use it, we all
[12:53] Speaker 3: have to get on board to teach our students, and
[12:56] Speaker 3: it's just I mean, for me, it's part of climate obstructionism.
[13:00] Speaker 4: Yeah, it's interesting to watch.
[13:02] Speaker 2: Okay, So actually kind of related to the tech guys
[13:05] Speaker 2: because I feel like a part of what they've done
[13:07] Speaker 2: as well is take over the information ecosystem in this
[13:11] Speaker 2: way that I don't know, we almost kind of didn't
[13:14] Speaker 2: see coming. It's like everybody's been talking about social media
[13:17] Speaker 2: for a long time, but I don't know that people
[13:19] Speaker 2: understood the extent to which it was taking over the
[13:22] Speaker 2: role of news media. Like people talked about how it
[13:27] Speaker 2: was impacting the ad revenue model and you know, traffic
[13:32] Speaker 2: and this and that, but not necessarily like connecting the
[13:35] Speaker 2: dots to oh yeah, now it's becoming the way that
[13:38] Speaker 2: people get information.
[13:40] Speaker 4: And these guys have total control over it, which it's
[13:43] Speaker 4: you know, a smart move if you really hate the
[13:46] Speaker 4: media and you don't want people like prying into your business.
[13:52] Speaker 4: So anyway, there was this line in this chapter that
[13:54] Speaker 4: I'm going to read because I want to have you
[13:57] Speaker 4: talk about it a little bit.
[13:58] Speaker 3: I thought it was.
[13:59] Speaker 2: It was really interesting. So those media actors must also
[14:03] Speaker 2: navigate a public arena where authenticity or how easy it
[14:06] Speaker 2: is to believe information is increasingly valued over facticity the
[14:11] Speaker 2: degree to which the claims made can be verified. So
[14:15] Speaker 2: you mentioned a couple of countermeasures that are combating that issue,
[14:19] Speaker 2: especially around monitoring, and I'd love to have you talk
[14:23] Speaker 2: about those, And I also am curious for your take
[14:26] Speaker 2: on this attempt to label those kinds of measures as censorship,
[14:32] Speaker 2: which has been an interesting and kind of effective strategy.
[14:36] Speaker 2: I would say as well, So, yeah, what's working? And
[14:39] Speaker 2: then what's your response to the idea that any attempt
[14:42] Speaker 2: to I guess prioritize more factual information over not so
[14:48] Speaker 2: factual information gets branded as censorship.
[14:52] Speaker 3: Yeah. So I think the role of the media in
[14:59] Speaker 3: kind of countering the misinformation right is, I mean, is
[15:06] Speaker 3: so important. And I think there are these several you know,
[15:12] Speaker 3: we mentioned several of these kind of global coalitions of
[15:16] Speaker 3: actors trying to provide monitoring and then counter claims right
[15:22] Speaker 3: to hold accountable media representations that may not be accurate.
[15:29] Speaker 3: So I think, you know, and there's there's many different
[15:33] Speaker 3: ways that people are trying to do this, and I
[15:36] Speaker 3: think one really interesting one is the Climate Action against Disinformation,
[15:42] Speaker 3: which is a global coalition that is, you know, really
[15:46] Speaker 3: trying to combat the spread of misinformation, particularly on tech platforms.
[15:50] Speaker 3: And you know, I think that is just so important
[15:55] Speaker 3: in terms of trying to hold accountable Google x Meta,
[16:01] Speaker 3: like these big platforms that as we all know, have
[16:04] Speaker 3: so much power in terms of influencing what we see,
[16:08] Speaker 3: what we see, right, and what we don't see, and
[16:10] Speaker 3: what we learn about and what we don't learn about.
[16:12] Speaker 3: So I think these kinds of efforts are just so important,
[16:17] Speaker 3: and you know, and and but they're under attack, as
[16:21] Speaker 3: you mentioned, right, with being claims of of censoring the
[16:27] Speaker 3: media or also you know, being being attacked or losing
[16:31] Speaker 3: their funding. Right. I think that the Climate Nexus is
[16:35] Speaker 3: one of these organizations that closed in twenty twenty four.
[16:38] Speaker 3: But again, like throughout I mean the work that Drill does,
[16:42] Speaker 3: d smug in Australia, there's Skepticalscience dot org. There there's
[16:47] Speaker 3: also like Conscious Advertising Network, which is trying to get
[16:50] Speaker 3: advertising to be more responsible make sure it's not promoting misinformation.
[16:56] Speaker 3: So there are a lot of different efforts. The challenge
[17:00] Speaker 3: obviously is that we're what we're up against, right in
[17:04] Speaker 3: terms of the coordination and the very strategic algorithms that
[17:12] Speaker 3: are able to filter what we see and what we
[17:17] Speaker 3: what we have access to. So, I mean, these efforts
[17:20] Speaker 3: to kind of monitor and counter the disinformation and misinformation
[17:24] Speaker 3: are so important, and you know, it's really really hard work, right,
[17:29] Speaker 3: as we all know, like it's it's really and being attacked.
[17:33] Speaker 3: So it's it's challenging, challenging times for sure.
[17:38] Speaker 2: Yeah, the censorship industrial complex, that's what they call it. Okay,
[17:45] Speaker 2: So I want to have you define these terms disinformation, rebuttal,
[17:50] Speaker 2: and counterbalancing that come up in the context of lobbying
[17:55] Speaker 2: for climate policy.
[17:57] Speaker 3: So we characterize counter dirductionist lobbying as efforts in the
[18:03] Speaker 3: policy making processes to refute and resist climate obstructionism. So
[18:11] Speaker 3: this first term disinformation rebuttal refers to attempts to within
[18:18] Speaker 3: the policy process and within the lobbying to refute misinformation
[18:23] Speaker 3: on climate science or misinformation about the costs of specific
[18:27] Speaker 3: climate policies that's often a big one, right, or refute
[18:31] Speaker 3: information about the severity of climate risks. Right, There's a
[18:35] Speaker 3: lot of part of climate obstruction is saying, oh, it's
[18:37] Speaker 3: not that bad, we don't need to worry about it.
[18:40] Speaker 3: So this disinformation rebuttal phrase that we is about refuting
[18:45] Speaker 3: these obstructionist narratives in the policy process. The other term
[18:52] Speaker 3: is counterbalancing, which is more about actually another form of
[18:59] Speaker 3: counterpl structionist lobbying where actually refute the claims by pointing
[19:07] Speaker 3: out alternative benefits or reasons why that climate obstruction narrative
[19:15] Speaker 3: you know, in the policy process is it doesn't make sense.
[19:17] Speaker 3: So for example, one example that I think is helpful
[19:21] Speaker 3: to understand both of these is, for example, in twenty
[19:24] Speaker 3: twenty three in the EU, there was effort to weaken
[19:28] Speaker 3: the ban on fossil fuel internal combustion automobiles by twenty
[19:33] Speaker 3: thirty five, and Germany as a country was advocating on
[19:37] Speaker 3: behalf of their auto industry, let's try to weaken this
[19:42] Speaker 3: because you know, it's going to be too costly and
[19:45] Speaker 3: we don't need it. So that disinformation or rebuttal was kind
[19:49] Speaker 3: of saying, actually, it'll be more expensive, right if we
[19:53] Speaker 3: don't do it because of these reasons there, and it
[19:55] Speaker 3: will there will be environmental impacts if we don't do it, right,
[19:59] Speaker 3: this kind of thing, and the counterbalancing is pointing out
[20:04] Speaker 3: if we weaken the band, that would hamper all kinds
[20:07] Speaker 3: of decarbonization plans that all these companies have across Europe,
[20:10] Speaker 3: that would undermine the trust in public policy and climate
[20:14] Speaker 3: policy and so like. So that's an example of those
[20:19] Speaker 3: two the tactics I guess of counter obstructionist lobbying.
[20:25] Speaker 2: You point to kind of localized mobilizations as a key
[20:31] Speaker 2: counter obstruction tactic and a pretty successful one and one
[20:34] Speaker 2: that can you know, inspire broader regional or even global
[20:40] Speaker 2: action too. And I wonder and I feel like that's
[20:44] Speaker 2: one of the things that is giving people like the
[20:46] Speaker 2: tiniest sliver of hope these days, is like seeing communities
[20:51] Speaker 2: mobilize and achieve things at the local level and then
[20:55] Speaker 2: kind of seeing that spread a little bit. So I'm
[20:57] Speaker 2: wondering if you could talk through the Bohol protests as
[21:01] Speaker 2: an example of that.
[21:03] Speaker 3: Yeah, So in the Philippines, Bohol Island province in Central
[21:09] Speaker 3: Philippines is an example where really local mobilization really expanded
[21:15] Speaker 3: into regional, broader anti coal policy. So what happened there
[21:22] Speaker 3: was that there was proposal for a new coal fired
[21:25] Speaker 3: power plant and there was a local mobilization a coalition
[21:32] Speaker 3: of citizens, business people, and members of the clergy. The
[21:37] Speaker 3: Catholic Church was also involved, all resisting saying we don't
[21:43] Speaker 3: want coal a new coal fired power plant here. And
[21:48] Speaker 3: they very strategically, you know, used social media. They had
[21:52] Speaker 3: a joint position paper that argued for the next you
[21:57] Speaker 3: know why, it would be all kinds of negatives for
[22:00] Speaker 3: the and they had public events and they really were
[22:05] Speaker 3: successful and used kind of the local commitment to kind
[22:11] Speaker 3: of protecting what you love. That was their social media
[22:13] Speaker 3: campaign to protect our beautiful place and our space, but
[22:18] Speaker 3: connecting it with larger national and international campaigns and struggles.
[22:25] Speaker 3: And they were very effective and shifting kind of the
[22:27] Speaker 3: goals and frames by connecting the local with the global
[22:33] Speaker 3: in a powerful way. And it led to the government
[22:38] Speaker 3: prohibiting future coal based development and they really had a
[22:43] Speaker 3: very clear and coherent vision of a coal free future.
[22:46] Speaker 3: And it was quite quite a powerful example. And one
[22:50] Speaker 3: of our co authors on the chapter, Lawrence Delina, had
[22:54] Speaker 3: studied that specific case in quite detail, and so it
[22:58] Speaker 3: was it was a a powerful example of local mobilization.
[23:04] Speaker 3: And this is in the whole section in the chapter
[23:06] Speaker 3: about protests and campaigning and mobilization and I think there
[23:13] Speaker 3: are so many examples, and it is especially now when
[23:20] Speaker 3: you know there's so much at this high level, macro level.
[23:23] Speaker 3: The news is kind of saturated with big picture geopolitical highlights, right,
[23:30] Speaker 3: We're missing all of the resistance that is going on
[23:34] Speaker 3: all around the world in so many different ways. And
[23:37] Speaker 3: I think that, as you said, that is where people
[23:39] Speaker 3: get empowered, that's where people can feel hope, and there's
[23:43] Speaker 3: so much happening, and you know, this is where I
[23:47] Speaker 3: think there's This is where we need to and there's
[23:50] Speaker 3: so much opportunity for elevating these stories of resistance and
[23:57] Speaker 3: demonstrating how mainstream it is. Right in such a distorted
[24:02] Speaker 3: landscape in that we're told, oh, people don't care about
[24:05] Speaker 3: climate anymore, it's off the agenda, and you know, but
[24:08] Speaker 3: really it's not. It's just the powerful interests are controlling
[24:12] Speaker 3: and limiting what we're seeing day to day, so it
[24:15] Speaker 3: feels like it's off the agenda. But then I know
[24:17] Speaker 3: that's I mean the work that you do as well,
[24:20] Speaker 3: and I know that was one of the messages also
[24:21] Speaker 3: in the Carbon Bros. Podcasts that you know, it's just
[24:26] Speaker 3: the loud people are making these claims, but they actually
[24:29] Speaker 3: don't represent the majority at all. They're just quite influential
[24:34] Speaker 3: and powerful, and they're taking up a lot of space.
[24:37] Speaker 3: But most people do want transformative climate action and do
[24:42] Speaker 3: want a better future right, and are working toward that
[24:45] Speaker 3: in different ways.
[24:46] Speaker 2: Yeah, even the anti fascist protests are getting really suppressed,
[24:51] Speaker 2: both on social media and in the traditional media too.
[24:56] Speaker 4: I'm curious for your thoughts on that. Like, I know,
[24:58] Speaker 4: I know just.
[24:59] Speaker 2: From pertiononal experience, that the traditional media is very weird
[25:03] Speaker 2: about covering protests like sort of seen as like not
[25:09] Speaker 2: not a story.
[25:11] Speaker 4: And I feel like, actually, way too many.
[25:14] Speaker 2: Media outlets are more concerned about being accused of or
[25:17] Speaker 2: seeming biased towards activists than they are about being perceived
[25:23] Speaker 2: as or being biased towards corporate or political interests. And
[25:29] Speaker 2: it really has shaped just how the public even understands
[25:34] Speaker 2: resistance and understands actually how common it is and how
[25:39] Speaker 2: many other people also care. There was actually in one
[25:42] Speaker 2: of the other chapters in the book, John Cook talked
[25:46] Speaker 2: about how that actually is a form of obstruction and
[25:51] Speaker 2: of itself, that like when you reinforce the idea to
[25:55] Speaker 2: people that nobody else cares, it has a silencing effect
[25:59] Speaker 2: because people think right that like, oh well, I don't
[26:01] Speaker 2: want to I don't want to be the squeaky wheel.
[26:03] Speaker 2: Nobody else really cares about this or whatever. Anyway, I'm
[26:07] Speaker 2: curious for your thoughts on how and whether better coverage
[26:12] Speaker 2: of these things or information about these things, either in
[26:14] Speaker 2: traditional media or in social media, could help to I don't.
[26:20] Speaker 4: Know, spread them, or support them, or.
[26:23] Speaker 2: Shift people thinking about, you know, what's going on and
[26:26] Speaker 2: what can happen.
[26:28] Speaker 3: I think that, as you mentioned, protests are often thought
[26:34] Speaker 3: of as like fringe or these radical people standing out,
[26:40] Speaker 3: and you know, we experienced that before I moved to
[26:43] Speaker 3: Ireland in twenty twenty four. The campus protests right throughout
[26:48] Speaker 3: the United States were suppressed and were vilified the protesters,
[26:56] Speaker 3: and those of us who were supporting the protesters were
[26:59] Speaker 3: you know, of not doing our jobs, and so the
[27:04] Speaker 3: silencing and that kind of underestimation of the mobilization that
[27:09] Speaker 3: people are doing and or want to do. But I
[27:13] Speaker 3: but at the same time, I think we're seeing now,
[27:17] Speaker 3: you know, just this morning, what's happening in Nepal like
[27:21] Speaker 3: major resistance. Right We're at a point where there's you know,
[27:28] Speaker 3: going to be more of this resistance because there's no
[27:31] Speaker 3: other options, like you know, at what point you know?
[27:34] Speaker 3: So I think there's I think the coverage of resistance
[27:41] Speaker 3: and the coverage of protests and campaigning and local mobilization
[27:48] Speaker 3: is restricted, definitely, and there's often an underestimation right of
[27:52] Speaker 3: protest numbers like how many people showed up here or there?
[27:55] Speaker 3: And I've seen that here also in the Irish media
[27:59] Speaker 3: with protests. And this is where obviously in the United
[28:02] Speaker 3: States it's very scary because protesting is being increasingly outlawed right,
[28:09] Speaker 3: like it's it's you really risk being arrested or or
[28:15] Speaker 3: work or violence. So I think the the upholding the
[28:20] Speaker 3: right to protest right and the is so important and
[28:26] Speaker 3: being involved in multiple different ways, right, There's so many
[28:29] Speaker 3: ways that all of us as citizens can engage and
[28:33] Speaker 3: in our professionally and then in our personal capacity within
[28:37] Speaker 3: our communities at different scales, and I think that is
[28:41] Speaker 3: what people are eager for confirmation of right that yes,
[28:47] Speaker 3: you can connect with your community and get involved and
[28:50] Speaker 3: there is a lot happening. So I think those those
[28:54] Speaker 3: messages are are really valuable right now. But as you said,
[28:58] Speaker 3: constrained because of the larger powerful interests that are trying
[29:02] Speaker 3: to control a lot of what happens and also what
[29:06] Speaker 3: we hear about.
[29:08] Speaker 2: The climate justice movement has gone through a few a
[29:10] Speaker 2: few like waves where you know, when when the Green
[29:15] Speaker 2: New Deal was being talked about, there was this push
[29:17] Speaker 2: for like, oh yeah, climate connects to human rights and
[29:21] Speaker 2: social justice and inequality and war and even childcare and
[29:27] Speaker 2: all of these other things.
[29:28] Speaker 4: Right, and there was enormous pushback.
[29:31] Speaker 2: I'm like, of course there was like the Fox News pushback,
[29:34] Speaker 2: but like within the climate movement, there was huge pushback
[29:37] Speaker 2: in terms of this like stay in your lane, you know,
[29:40] Speaker 2: why are you connecting climate all these other things? Like
[29:43] Speaker 2: we have a hard enough time getting people to you know,
[29:46] Speaker 2: embrace energy transition, never mind all these other things.
[29:49] Speaker 4: But I do feel like, I don't know, I feel
[29:52] Speaker 4: like actually the climate.
[29:53] Speaker 2: Movements resistant, well, some people within the climate it's resistance
[29:58] Speaker 2: to connecting the climate issue to broader, you know, structural
[30:04] Speaker 2: issues around power and justice and all of these things.
[30:08] Speaker 2: Has made it very easy for the right when they're
[30:12] Speaker 2: looking for escapegoat to pin the ills of late stage
[30:16] Speaker 2: capitalism on. That's not the capitalists, to be like, oh,
[30:19] Speaker 2: it's the climate elitist and it's this, and it's that
[30:22] Speaker 2: you know, it's like, yeah, I don't know. I just
[30:25] Speaker 2: people are like, oh, you know, how do we connect
[30:29] Speaker 2: to populism?
[30:30] Speaker 4: And it's like, well, actually.
[30:33] Speaker 3: Yeah, I've written about and I've coined this term climate isolationism.
[30:38] Speaker 3: Oh interesting, where we try to keep the climate in
[30:42] Speaker 3: the lane. Yeah.
[30:43] Speaker 2: Like and it's a little like oh if like let's
[30:45] Speaker 2: just talk about solar panels and batteries and then no
[30:48] Speaker 2: one will be mad.
[30:49] Speaker 4: Like, first of all, they are still mad. And secondly,
[30:52] Speaker 4: you have now.
[30:53] Speaker 2: Lost like your entire any kind of coalition that would
[30:56] Speaker 2: have helped you, you know, win on any of these issues.
[30:59] Speaker 4: You're ever going to win is just that it's too small, no.
[31:03] Speaker 3: And the focus on greenhouse gas emission reductions and decarbonization
[31:07] Speaker 3: is all still so technical too. It's not what people
[31:10] Speaker 3: wake up and them running worried about. Right, So we've
[31:13] Speaker 3: missed these opportunities in a big way. And I think,
[31:17] Speaker 3: you know, within the climate justice movement, a lot of
[31:20] Speaker 3: people have been saying the climate crisis is a symptom.
[31:24] Speaker 3: It's not a cause, right, it's not the thing, it's
[31:26] Speaker 3: not a technical problem that needs to fix. It's actually
[31:30] Speaker 3: a symptom of this larger, extractive exploitative system that is
[31:37] Speaker 3: coming to the four of how detrimental and destructive it
[31:41] Speaker 3: is both for the environment and for people and communities
[31:44] Speaker 3: and families and right, so we are in a new phase,
[31:50] Speaker 3: I think with climate justice because it is more obvious,
[31:56] Speaker 3: especially with the tech bros and with the authoritarian games,
[32:00] Speaker 3: which are all showing off their petrovasculinity. And it's so blatant,
[32:07] Speaker 3: right that this is counter to plauser for everyone. So
[32:14] Speaker 3: I think that's where climate justice, or at least the
[32:17] Speaker 3: framing that I use to talk about climate justice and
[32:20] Speaker 3: the climate justice movement, and I mean it's you know,
[32:26] Speaker 3: trans rights, it's connecting people and the humanization of people
[32:30] Speaker 3: with what people need with a transformative change. And I
[32:35] Speaker 3: think it's and again this is what you know, many
[32:38] Speaker 3: of our those of us who've been working on this
[32:39] Speaker 3: for decades, see that the mainstream techno fix approaches are
[32:46] Speaker 3: never going to be sufficient or adequate, right, Like, we
[32:49] Speaker 3: need the bigger transformative change and that comes with change
[32:53] Speaker 3: in economic power, political power, and redistributing things. And that
[32:59] Speaker 3: gets into stemach structural changes, which are a lot harder
[33:03] Speaker 3: to do research on, harder to know, you know, how
[33:06] Speaker 3: to promote but I think it's coming to the fore
[33:10] Speaker 3: and people are realizing that in many more ways. So
[33:12] Speaker 3: that's why I think these larger coalitions of climate justice
[33:16] Speaker 3: connecting with a lot of other social movements around the world,
[33:21] Speaker 3: it is really really powerful and gives me inspiration.
[33:27] Speaker 5: Yeah.
[33:27] Speaker 2: I mean people keep saying like, oh, the reason people
[33:31] Speaker 2: are voting for authoritarianism is because they just they're voting
[33:34] Speaker 2: for change. They're not necessarily like pro authoritarianism. They just
[33:38] Speaker 2: like don't want to vote for the politician that's just
[33:42] Speaker 2: kind of offering the status quo. And I'm like, well,
[33:45] Speaker 2: we have like a pretty good change story, guys, why
[33:49] Speaker 2: aren't we It's a lot better than fascism.
[33:54] Speaker 3: But it's been it's been suppressed, right, it hasn't been
[33:57] Speaker 3: allowed to come through lot of the mainstream political discourse.
[34:04] Speaker 3: But I think it's coming.
[34:07] Speaker 4: It's bubbling up. All right.
[34:08] Speaker 3: That's good. Good.
[34:09] Speaker 4: We'll end on that note of optimism.
[34:13] Speaker 3: Thank you.
[34:19] Speaker 5: I'm doctor Sharon Yedin and I'm a senior lecturer of
[34:27] Speaker 5: law and regulation and I'm very interested in climate policy
[34:34] Speaker 5: and I'm also a CSSN scholar researching climate obstruction.
[34:41] Speaker 4: Can I have you start by defining both the term
[34:46] Speaker 4: social license and the term social exposure for me.
[34:50] Speaker 5: Sure well, Companies often need at least two types of
[34:54] Speaker 5: licenses to operate, so there's a legal one and also
[34:59] Speaker 5: a social So the legal license allows them to pollute
[35:03] Speaker 5: or do a certain amount or sell a certain product
[35:08] Speaker 5: under specific terms. But interestingly, firms also often need social
[35:15] Speaker 5: recognition or little legitimacy from stakeholders in order to exist.
[35:21] Speaker 5: And these stakeholders include residents or consumers, investors, the media,
[35:29] Speaker 5: as well as the public at large. So this can
[35:32] Speaker 5: be also a lot of other groups like suppliers and
[35:37] Speaker 5: creditors or NGOs, and these stakeholders can object to a
[35:42] Speaker 5: company or an industry is operations in a way that
[35:47] Speaker 5: can create problems for that industry and in terms of
[35:51] Speaker 5: financial harm. So that's the social license. Regarding the social exposure,
[36:00] Speaker 5: it refers to actions from civil society or even governments
[36:06] Speaker 5: that expose wrongdoing by corporations, for example, climate obstructive actions
[36:14] Speaker 5: like lobbying or litigating against clean energy bills, especially when
[36:20] Speaker 5: they're doing it based on disinformation. And also social exposure
[36:26] Speaker 5: is about highlighting greenwashing tactics that firms use, or sometimes
[36:33] Speaker 5: we call it even climate washing in the context of
[36:37] Speaker 5: climate change, and social exposure can be carried out through
[36:42] Speaker 5: naming and shaming, which involves publication of the information as
[36:47] Speaker 5: well as condemnation, and it can also be carried out
[36:51] Speaker 5: through media coverage and other means. And it also aims
[36:58] Speaker 5: to spend the public's awareness of climate obstruction and sometimes
[37:06] Speaker 5: nudge stakeholders to act. So basically, a social exposure aims
[37:12] Speaker 5: to revoke a company or an institution's social license, and
[37:18] Speaker 5: it can do so, for example, through research in academia,
[37:22] Speaker 5: and there's for example, there's a research uncovering shifts in
[37:26] Speaker 5: narrative that the fossil fuel industry uses, like climate denial,
[37:33] Speaker 5: the move from climate denial to climate delay. So that
[37:37] Speaker 5: means that there's a shift from arguing that the science
[37:40] Speaker 5: is wrong to arguing that no response is needed or
[37:45] Speaker 5: urgently needed on a policy level.
[37:48] Speaker 4: And I know you mentioned naming and shaming there and.
[37:51] Speaker 2: This comes up in the chapter as well, but you've
[37:54] Speaker 2: also written exceptedly about it, including this new book on
[37:59] Speaker 2: how regulators in particular can get involved in shaming. And
[38:03] Speaker 2: i'd love to have you talked a little bit about
[38:05] Speaker 2: what that looks like, What does it look like when
[38:06] Speaker 2: it's legislative bodies or regulators that are doing the naming
[38:10] Speaker 2: and shaming.
[38:12] Speaker 5: Yeah, well maybe the shaming In general, it can be
[38:15] Speaker 5: a governance tactic. It can also be a regulatory tactic tactic,
[38:20] Speaker 5: and it leverages the shamed entity social license I mentioned earlier.
[38:27] Speaker 5: So it's a form of social exposure and it aims
[38:32] Speaker 5: to resist an organization or entities efforts to appear as
[38:37] Speaker 5: something that they are not, for example, social or environment
[38:42] Speaker 5: environmentally responsible, or to expose their efforts to hide something illegal, immoral,
[38:50] Speaker 5: or unethical that they're doing so. In the context of
[38:54] Speaker 5: climate obstruction, both civil society and government actors can expose individuals, organizations,
[39:04] Speaker 5: and even countries for their actions, omissions, or decisions that
[39:09] Speaker 5: obstruct climate policy or may impede climate action. And these
[39:14] Speaker 5: tactic targets firms, corporate executives, and even policy makers engaging
[39:20] Speaker 5: in climate washing that I mentioned earlier also anti climate
[39:25] Speaker 5: litigation or anti climate organizational policies, and the goal is
[39:32] Speaker 5: to hold them accountable and deter ongoing or future climate obstruction. Importantly,
[39:40] Speaker 5: shaming involves a moral message exposing the deceitful nature of
[39:45] Speaker 5: climate obstructionists, usually naming specific people or entities. So this
[39:50] Speaker 5: is the naming part in the naming and shaming, and
[39:54] Speaker 5: the idea is to motivate action to counter these obstruction efforts,
[40:00] Speaker 5: not really causing feelings of shame, especially when we are
[40:04] Speaker 5: targeting entities or companies. And so this is basically the
[40:11] Speaker 5: mechanism in my book Fighting Climate Change Through Shaming, I
[40:16] Speaker 5: argue that regulators should use shaming tactics in addition to
[40:20] Speaker 5: their more traditional tactics, which often do not achieve the
[40:24] Speaker 5: desired fact. And I suggest that they convey what is
[40:30] Speaker 5: oftentimes perceived as credible information to the public corporate unharmful
[40:36] Speaker 5: corporate behavior that is contributing to climate change, with the
[40:41] Speaker 5: aim of inducing corporations to comply with climate laws, rules, regulation,
[40:45] Speaker 5: but also to adopt voluntary climate norms. Because we often
[40:51] Speaker 5: lack climate laws and rules, et cetera, so we need
[40:55] Speaker 5: to compliment that with with voluntary no norms as well.
[41:00] Speaker 5: And the idea of regulatory climate chaming is that companies
[41:06] Speaker 5: that wish to avoid being named or presented as contributing
[41:10] Speaker 5: to climate change will adjust their actions so to refrain
[41:14] Speaker 5: from reputational damage that may translate into financial damages.
[41:20] Speaker 2: M and to maintain that social license that you talked about, Right,
[41:25] Speaker 2: we definitely see this get turned around in the opposite
[41:28] Speaker 2: direction sometimes too, So I'm curious for your thoughts on
[41:31] Speaker 2: that that, Like, how does this work when, for example,
[41:35] Speaker 2: it gets weaponized against climate activists. I know, I was
[41:39] Speaker 2: just talking to a group of people. They're like professional
[41:42] Speaker 2: winter sports athletes and they work on climate staff, and
[41:45] Speaker 2: they were saying that, you know, the number one problem
[41:49] Speaker 2: they have and that, especially when when they're trying to
[41:52] Speaker 2: get other athletes to work with them, is that as
[41:55] Speaker 2: soon as they say anything online, they get people saying, well,
[41:58] Speaker 2: if you care about climate change, then you shouldn't be,
[42:01] Speaker 2: you know, flying around the world snowboarding for example, if
[42:04] Speaker 2: they're like as pro snowboarder or whatever.
[42:06] Speaker 4: So yeah, and I know that this does.
[42:08] Speaker 2: Have some impact with very visible climate activists now maybe
[42:12] Speaker 2: individually have a large carbon footprint that can dissuade people
[42:18] Speaker 2: from trusting in them too. So yeah, I'm just curious
[42:20] Speaker 2: about your thoughts on that, like how it gets weaponized
[42:22] Speaker 2: in the other direction.
[42:24] Speaker 5: Well, that's a good point. I think that if we
[42:27] Speaker 5: open the door to shaming and we become the shamers,
[42:32] Speaker 5: we definitely might might end up as targets of shaming,
[42:36] Speaker 5: and in the context of climate change, we need to
[42:40] Speaker 5: consider definitely consider the industry's vast resources to fight back
[42:46] Speaker 5: and restore their reputation or work really hard or on
[42:51] Speaker 5: their own building their own credibility even before the shaming
[42:55] Speaker 5: occurs and highlighting the let's call them up opponents agendas
[43:01] Speaker 5: the NGOs, academia even media to hurt the other person's
[43:07] Speaker 5: credibility or the other organization, and this may also create
[43:12] Speaker 5: a cycle of shaming and promote shaming or a cancel
[43:17] Speaker 5: car culture, which can be toxic for us as a society,
[43:22] Speaker 5: so we need to be careful of that. However, many
[43:25] Speaker 5: many shamers or those taking part in the shaming process
[43:30] Speaker 5: by responding to it for example through the investment campaigns,
[43:34] Speaker 5: remain anonymous and can't be shamed back, so in the
[43:40] Speaker 5: age of social media, etcetera, this is very common a situation. However,
[43:45] Speaker 5: I do think that when that happens to NGOs or
[43:50] Speaker 5: a media platform for example, they need to highlight the
[43:54] Speaker 5: significant difference in scale because most of the time the
[43:58] Speaker 5: industry is put much more more than them, but more importantly,
[44:03] Speaker 5: they engage in greenwashing on a much larger larger scale
[44:07] Speaker 5: and operate behind the scenes to impede climate law and regulation.
[44:12] Speaker 5: And that's that's that's what the message should be.
[44:16] Speaker 1: I think that's super interesting.
[44:18] Speaker 4: Okay, in at least in the US in the past,
[44:24] Speaker 4: you're maybe a little bit more. But I would say
[44:26] Speaker 4: even in some of in the UK and some of
[44:28] Speaker 4: Europe too, it does seem like companies are I don't know,
[44:32] Speaker 4: they almost seem emboldened and like they're responding less to
[44:37] Speaker 4: particularly public naming, Like they almost seem to be taking
[44:41] Speaker 4: this stance of yeah, whatever, we're oil companies. So yeah,
[44:46] Speaker 4: I'm wondering what you think of that, and what regulators
[44:49] Speaker 4: can do in response to these entities that sometimes seem
[44:53] Speaker 4: you know, shameless.
[44:56] Speaker 5: Right. Well, I think if we'll do the efficacy or
[45:01] Speaker 5: the effectiveness of regulatory shaming, then we do have a problem.
[45:07] Speaker 5: I think we do need to try and focus on
[45:09] Speaker 5: improving these let's call them soft law tools. If we
[45:13] Speaker 5: have a problem, we need to think about why that
[45:16] Speaker 5: is and what we can do about it. Because this tool,
[45:19] Speaker 5: as someone who've researched it a lot and I'm very
[45:23] Speaker 5: interested in it, I think it's too valuable to lose.
[45:26] Speaker 5: If we look at climate law, climate regulation, even climate governance,
[45:31] Speaker 5: it's not doing so well. So international agreements are very
[45:36] Speaker 5: weak and the Paris Agreement goals are not being met.
[45:40] Speaker 5: And as we all know, global temperatures keep on rising
[45:43] Speaker 5: and extreme weather events are happening all over the globe.
[45:49] Speaker 5: And when we look at climate laws and regulations in
[45:53] Speaker 5: various jurisdictions, they are insufficient and they're applied very loosely
[45:58] Speaker 5: if they exist at all. So formal legal and regulatory tools,
[46:02] Speaker 5: the Harlow tools, don't seem to do their job very well.
[46:07] Speaker 5: So I think it's important to harness public opinion when
[46:10] Speaker 5: we can and the public resources, which is the public's
[46:14] Speaker 5: ability to put pressure on firms and to expose facts
[46:20] Speaker 5: versus misinformation, disinformation and greenwashing, and highlight obstructive or manipulative
[46:28] Speaker 5: corporate behavior. Each time companies want to influence narratives, public
[46:34] Speaker 5: perceptions and therefore policy, we should expose that. I think
[46:39] Speaker 5: we shouldn't give up so, and of course combines softlaw
[46:46] Speaker 5: with hard low tools. But if we can't use shaming,
[46:49] Speaker 5: then it would be so easy, too easy to influence
[46:53] Speaker 5: people's perception, perceptions and promote false idea about climate change.
[46:59] Speaker 5: And it's implies. So I think we need to try
[47:02] Speaker 5: and encounter that by pointing the finger towards responsible entities
[47:07] Speaker 5: and their manipulative tactics.
[47:09] Speaker 2: Can I have you actually share an example of an
[47:14] Speaker 2: effective shaming campaign or move or I don't know, just
[47:18] Speaker 2: like an example of how this works when it works,
[47:21] Speaker 2: so that people have a sense of it.
[47:24] Speaker 5: Sure, there's a research, there's an important research in it's
[47:29] Speaker 5: outside of the climate change field, but it's closely related
[47:33] Speaker 5: because it concerns public health. And the agency that is
[47:40] Speaker 5: responsible for Occupational Safety OSHA use this tactic, this regulation
[47:47] Speaker 5: by shaming tactic for several years, and it used social
[47:52] Speaker 5: media Twitter now x to a name and shame employers
[47:57] Speaker 5: that were involved with the injuries or deaths incidents in
[48:03] Speaker 5: their workplace, and the agency would post facts as well
[48:09] Speaker 5: as very harsh condemning texts saying that this employer doesn't
[48:13] Speaker 5: respect its employees' health and wellbeing and it prioritizeses the
[48:21] Speaker 5: company's incomes rather than the employee's safety gear, et cetera.
[48:27] Speaker 5: And so, of course they had a major backlash from
[48:31] Speaker 5: the industry, but this is something that research has shown
[48:35] Speaker 5: that is very effective. In fact, one press release about
[48:41] Speaker 5: this was also accompanied with press releases. One press release
[48:46] Speaker 5: by Ocean Naming and Shaming Employers was equivalent to two
[48:52] Speaker 5: hundred physical inspections in terms of the deturns that it
[48:58] Speaker 5: caused in the industry. So this really highlights the effectiveness
[49:06] Speaker 5: as well as the resources that we can save by
[49:12] Speaker 5: just using communication and words and texts and narratives and
[49:17] Speaker 5: social media and we don't have to rely so heavily
[49:24] Speaker 5: on agencies budget, which is not always so great.
[49:30] Speaker 2: That's fascinating, but such a good example. I remember seeing
[49:33] Speaker 2: those things and it did work really, really well. Okay,
[49:36] Speaker 2: So towards the end of the chapter you talk about
[49:40] Speaker 2: assessing the effectiveness of efforts to resist climate obstruction. Why
[49:45] Speaker 2: do you think it's so hard to sort of assess
[49:48] Speaker 2: the effectiveness? And related to that, I do feel like
[49:51] Speaker 2: people are really quick after two years or five years
[49:54] Speaker 2: or whatever it is, be like, oh, this tactic doesn't work,
[49:57] Speaker 2: and kind of try to move on to something else.
[49:59] Speaker 2: And I'm curious for your thoughts on that, because I
[50:01] Speaker 2: do think that the the climate movement tends to suffer
[50:06] Speaker 2: from like magpie syndrome. You know, the next shiny object
[50:10] Speaker 2: is always attracting attention, So yeah, I'm curious when you
[50:14] Speaker 2: think about it, why is it hard to measure effectiveness
[50:17] Speaker 2: and why is there such a tendency to kind of
[50:22] Speaker 2: throw out tactics so quickly within the climate space.
[50:26] Speaker 5: Well, I think we're quite desperate to find the right tool. So,
[50:32] Speaker 5: as I discussed earlier, we really don't have that many
[50:37] Speaker 5: effective tools to tackle these problems. While the corporations have
[50:42] Speaker 5: vast resources. But climate obstruction is it's a complicated issue
[50:47] Speaker 5: and it's hard to assess its effectiveness, I think because
[50:52] Speaker 5: it's happening in many forms and many jurisdictions. The I mean,
[50:57] Speaker 5: first of all, the climate obstruction firts by multiple actors
[51:03] Speaker 5: and and and these actors are very motivated to start
[51:08] Speaker 5: obstruct climate policies. And this makes the problem very complex,
[51:14] Speaker 5: and it's often hidden from public eye, so it's difficult
[51:20] Speaker 5: to fight what we don't know that exists and where
[51:23] Speaker 5: and how it takes place. At the same time, when
[51:28] Speaker 5: when people are trying to counteract it, it's it's really
[51:32] Speaker 5: hard to track it because it's happening on so many levels,
[51:37] Speaker 5: from just regular people to companies and NGOs. There are
[51:44] Speaker 5: that are trying to monitor monitor the web for this
[51:49] Speaker 5: information for example, and even governments or international organizations. It's happening,
[51:57] Speaker 5: I think, on too many levels and too many arenas.
[52:00] Speaker 5: And as you mentioned, it's very dynamic, it keeps changing,
[52:05] Speaker 5: so it's very hard to track its effectiveness. While at
[52:09] Speaker 5: the same time, as I mentioned earlier, it's it's hard
[52:14] Speaker 5: to see results and to measure the results. How do
[52:18] Speaker 5: I know that lobbying efforts and litigation efforts have reduced
[52:23] Speaker 5: as a result of specific action from trying to fight
[52:28] Speaker 5: climate obstruction. So trying to resist climate obstruction, it's very
[52:33] Speaker 5: hard to put the finger on the right tactic or
[52:37] Speaker 5: person or initiative, and so as it's complicated to monitor
[52:44] Speaker 5: climate obstruction, it's also complicated from a policy or research
[52:49] Speaker 5: or point of view to measure its effectiveness.
[52:53] Speaker 3: Yeah, it's true.
[52:54] Speaker 2: I do feel like probably because of the resource thing
[52:57] Speaker 2: that you know, the industry can be using tactics at once,
[53:01] Speaker 2: and a lot of times those who are pushing for
[53:04] Speaker 2: climate policy have to just by virtue of time and
[53:08] Speaker 2: money and energy, focus on one or two at a time.
[53:13] Speaker 5: It's hard to keep track and to identify these tactics
[53:18] Speaker 5: in real time.
[53:19] Speaker 2: And to respond when they shift to Like I see
[53:21] Speaker 2: this happen a lot where just about the time climate
[53:25] Speaker 2: campaigners will figure out how to respond to one thing,
[53:28] Speaker 2: the industry will sort of stop using that and shift
[53:31] Speaker 2: to something else.
[53:32] Speaker 3: So it's hard to hard to keep up.
[53:36] Speaker 2: Okay, so we talked about naming and shaming a fair bit,
[53:40] Speaker 2: But is there anything else that you want to make
[53:43] Speaker 2: sure people understand about how this works. I know you
[53:45] Speaker 2: wrote a whole book about it, so I'm sure you
[53:48] Speaker 2: could talk for.
[53:49] Speaker 4: A long time, But what are any other kind of
[53:52] Speaker 4: key things.
[53:53] Speaker 2: That we didn't talk about that people should know about
[53:55] Speaker 2: how this works.
[53:57] Speaker 5: Sure, I'm happy to share some the insights from my
[54:01] Speaker 5: book and my latest articles. So I mostly discuss regulatory
[54:08] Speaker 5: climate chaming, and the idea is that companies that wish
[54:11] Speaker 5: to avoid being named or will adjust directions to refrain
[54:17] Speaker 5: from reputational damage. So some of the schemes discussed in
[54:23] Speaker 5: discussed in my book include, for example, implementing carbon rating
[54:28] Speaker 5: and labeled labeling systems for products and services, And this
[54:33] Speaker 5: is something we're starting to see sometimes from private organizations,
[54:39] Speaker 5: but I think that policy makers should also develop these tools.
[54:44] Speaker 5: Another type of scheme is publicizing regulatory rankings and blacklists
[54:49] Speaker 5: of oil and gas companies or other companies that are
[54:54] Speaker 5: also contributing to climate change, and this would be according
[55:00] Speaker 5: to indicators of their level of contribution. We can also
[55:04] Speaker 5: think about publicizing the details of climate litigation cases and
[55:10] Speaker 5: enforcement actions that are brought against companies, posting condemnatory messages
[55:16] Speaker 5: on social media like OSHA. And also we can think
[55:20] Speaker 5: about the opposite of naming and chaming, maybe naming and
[55:24] Speaker 5: faming just by lauding firms that are voluntarily reducing greenhouse
[55:31] Speaker 5: guest emissions and are adopting climate friendly practices. So it's
[55:36] Speaker 5: interesting to think about schaming more broadly and to think
[55:39] Speaker 5: about various communication tactics. And what's interesting about regulatory climate
[55:46] Speaker 5: shaming is that many people are very much interested in
[55:52] Speaker 5: someone telling them how they can help in this climate crisis,
[55:58] Speaker 5: what they can do, And there are a lot of
[56:01] Speaker 5: informational gaps, as we discussed earlier, and people don't have
[56:06] Speaker 5: enough information on who is responsible for the climate crisis
[56:10] Speaker 5: and what to do about it. So I think it's
[56:13] Speaker 5: important that regulators fill this gap by capturing the public's attention,
[56:18] Speaker 5: especially with new and important information like climate obstruction. And
[56:24] Speaker 5: I found that climate changing is especially effective when it
[56:28] Speaker 5: points to corporate deceit or intentional harms like climate denial
[56:34] Speaker 5: and climate washing, and when the information revealed is surprising.
[56:39] Speaker 4: Super interesting and very helpful. Thank you, Thank you so much.
[56:43] Speaker 2: This is really this is super interesting

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.