48% of Americans doubt the existence of climate change.
«The reason there are so many climate sceptics, is that when it comes to climate change it only takes ten seconds to come up with an asinine statement, but ten minutes to explain why the statement’s asinine.» Jean Jouzel
Small equation, big question From the very start of the first sequence there is a small equation to be solved: why is 4500 = 23? 4500 scientific articles published in peer reviews validate the reality of climate change, while 23 articles deny it. With such a gap, one would think that the numbers would speak for themselves. But they don’t. In fact, in the USA, 48% of Americans doubt the existence of climate change. In France, the percentage rises to 30. How have climate sceptics (CS), managed to kidnap the brains of 48% of Americans or one-third of those of the French? What methods have they been using? Why is something that is scientifically false, valid or acceptable media-wise? Why is 4500 = 23 in the minds of tens of millions of people?
The Form Laure Noualhat — environmental journalist — ponders this question and invites the viewer to do so in turn. As a journalist at Libération, she has been covering environmental topics for thirteen years. Climate change, the collapse of biodiversity, depletion of resources... every day she is faced with a flood of news backed by the work of researchers from across the globe. In this film, she will step into a climate sceptic’s mind, getting close to them, to their networks and organizations in an attempt to understand the psychology of this denial. A psychology obviously crowned with success, since a significant number of people think that ecology is «making too much of this”, that environmentalists are just “Drama Queens” and that, “it’s not that bad”; or even that, “Mankind can adapt”.
The content All international experts in the field scientifically validate global warming. Glaciologists, climatologists, oceanographers... climate scientists have attested to this since the 70s: the surface temperature of the globe is rising, the atmosphere is warming causing more and more unusual weather events. At the end of September 2013 in Stockholm, climate experts gathered to publish the first volume of their fifth report on the state of global warming, its impacts on human societies and
the means of coping. Nothing exceptional was said, no scoop was to be found on the horizon, only the confirmation of the urgency to act and adapt to the ongoing changes. Yet a handful of diehards deny this fact. The purpose of the film is to understand how the climate sceptical brain, mind and even psyche, work. What mythology inspires these advocates of denial? Introduction: who and what are we talking about? What is a climate sceptic? Are there different currents within the movement? Are there many climate sceptics? Which country hosts the majority of them?
Rajendra Pachauri - Chief, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
There are four more or less distinct families of climate sceptics (eco-sceptics, by extension): those who do not believe; those who believe that the phenomenon plays just a marginal part in the earth’s climate change; those who deny the responsibility of human activities in the ongoing changes; and those who are sure that Humankind will cope, notably through geo-engineering. The CS current originated in the United States and Great Britain. It gradually spread to the entire Western world. In France, it is Claude Allegre who spoke of «climate impostors», openly criticizing the scientific community’s warnings in his widely published books. His background, charisma, personal interpretations and well-known habit of rigging scientific curves, make him the ultimate CS: incompetent, shifty, but at the same time, an impressive listener with an exceptional aura.
Changes Things have changed since the film was initially written. Climate sceptics are occupying less media space (Climategate dates back to 2009). In truth, those who would blatantly deny the reality of current changes do not exist anymore. The others ones are: those who minimize the effects of these changes; those who think the changes are not due to human activity; and those who believe that man can reverse the course of events through geo-engineering. There are still adepts but not necessarily the same ones.
Over $22 million
this is the amount paid out by Exxon Mobil and the Koch brothers to a dozen climate sceptic organizations.
Regardless, they have strong contacts in the parliamentary chambers where decisions are taken and irrefutable arguments presented. These CSs are very personable, to put it simply. In the United States, we follow a model CS who has turned his doubts into his profession. A charismatic lecturer, he has been tirelessly walking the land, making guest appearances on American TV, publishing book upon book, teaching anyone who will listen that the climate impostor’s aim is to destroy individual freedom and attack American values. His name: Robert Bryce, Wall Street Journal reporter and graduate of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research which is funded by ExxonMobil and Koch Industries. An outstanding tribune. Then there is Steven Milloy, columnist for Fox News, a blogger who is very close to the CS think tank “Advancement of Sound Science Center”; and then there is lobbyist Paul Driessen as well.
INVESTIGATION
The different stages of the film:
Part I: the hypotheses that explain the success of «offerings.» This is the core of the film.
1 2
1. Industrial interests are such that they cannot bear the restrictive legislations concerning CO2 emissions. Recognizing the reality of climate change is a paradigm shift: it means consuming differently (if not less); giving up old polluting technologies; turning towards the future; in short, changing. However, a myriad of companies do not wish to change, so they fund «sowers” of seeds of doubt. We learn of a survey in the USA, home of the CS, on the financial circuits of climate-scepticism (Exxon, Koch Industries, all the CS think-tanks, the relays in Congress, in the Senate, in the Tea Party…), then we visit Washington, where the «Toxic Six» — fierce CS Republican elected representatives — wreak havoc.
2. Without media relay, an idea cannot thrive. Yet, climate sceptics have found countless relay contacts in the media. But are we helping the necessary debate of ideas — pluralistic by definition — by giving the same voice to scientifically questionable (based on their resumés) ultra-minority elements, as to the experts in the field? How is the information on this topic created (how the battle plays out on TV, Climategate, books, personalities...)? Why does the media relay climate sceptic convictions? Why has doubt, albeit a scientifically legitimate concept, become certainty??
3
3. Human psychology, a third hypothesis, is much more trivial but can be a much more satisfying answer than the previous two. The human brain is not designed to make long-term decisions. Social and behavioural sciences reveal modes of operation that cannot stand up to the environmental issues at hand. Long-term vs. short-term, the psychology of commitment, societal denial/schizophrenia as to what we «can’t feel», «can’t see»... The resistance to change is revealed in the studies conducted by researchers of Columbia University, in the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED). Moreover, in the United States, the preponderance of religious movements continues to undermine science (whether it be with creationism or absolute faith in the texts, the floodgates have opened). The latest surveys of the Pew Environment Research Center reveal a correlation between politics and climate: for 58% of Republican voters, there is no global warming. Here, science has become a matter of ideology.
Part 2: the consequences of climate scepticism
1 2 3
1.Climatic policies are impeded. On the eve of the UN climate negotiations at the European Parliament in Brussels, the lobbyists toil without tire. A demonstration of this takes place in the office of Yannick Jadot, EELV Deputy, assailed by requests not to vote for the climate package or for the European Union dispositions on climate (the “20-20-20 targets”: 20% GHG reduction, 20% renewable energy and 20% energy efficiency improvements).
2. Research time is squandered. Researchers retaliate with one weapon: communication. Certain field scientists find themselves obliged to transform into extraordinary communicating machines. Jean Jouzel and Valérie Masson-Delmotte reveal the secrets of media training, the time “wasted” in attempt to convince as well as to refute the fallacious arguments of their opponents... 3. Because doubt kills action, the public opinion is demobilized. Yet — and this could be the conclusion of the film — action is beneficial in all cases. Demonstration with Pascal’s wager.
The Participants : Present in the first development Jean-Louis Mouël — IPGP, Academy of Sciences and Foundation for a future ecology — internationally renowned geophysicist, member of the Academy of Sciences and above all, former director of the IPGP (Institute of Earth Physics of Paris), «lair» of climate sceptic scientists in France. Koch Industries Inc. — Leading contributor to the climate-sceptic lobby in the United States, just ahead of ExxonMobil. The Koch brothers’ fortune is estimated at $50 billion. Robert Bryce — Journalist at The Wall Street Journal, graduate of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, funded by ExxonMobil and Koch Industries Inc. Steven Milloy — Fox News commentator, blogger, very close to the Advancement of Sound Science Center, CS a think tank. Paul Driessen — CS lobbyist. Christian Gérondeau — head of the Automobile Club of France, a lively climate sceptic ecologist. A willing subject. Richard Muller — the repented climate sceptic. Professor of Physics at the University of California, he was one of the major scientist advocates of climate scepticism in the country. Victor Menotti — Director of the International Forum of Globalization (IFG), an anti-climate sceptic think tank based in San Francisco. He has extensive knowledge on the financing channels. Véronique Masson-Delmotte — Internationally renowned climatologist. She works at the Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) and at the Pierre-Simon Laplace Saclay Institute. She is one of the 1,800 expert writers who penned The Physics of Climate, the first part of the Fifth Report of the IPCC (the Intergovernmental Group of Experts on Climate Change). Yannick Jadot — EELV Member of the European Parliament. Pascal Bruckner — author and essayist, Pascal Bruckner is the non-scientific media spokesperson for climate scepticism in France. Jean Jouzel — Vice President of the IPCC, Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore in 2007 for IPCC’s work on climate. Ben Orlove — Co-director of the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED), Columbia University. The researchers are working on the domestic obstacles in environmental decision-making.
DIRECTOR’S STATEMENT OF INTENT
Climate Sceptics: The Anatomy of a Success The purpose of this documentary is not to convince the world of the reality of climate change due to human intervention. Instead, we wish to prove another reality: that of its denial. In psychoanalysis, denial is a defence mechanism where one denies a traumatic reality. Thus, those who do not want to face the reality of our abuse vis-à-vis the planet, protect themselves by inventing other explanations or minimizing its importance. However, depending on the position held by the concerned, the reasons for this denial differ widely. For some — such as industry lobbyists — the defence of their private interest is an obvious explanation. For others — such as some renowned intellectuals — the motivations seem obscure at first and obey more complex rules. But whatever the origin of the denial or whoever is in denial, we are attempting to decode the way that denial functions, an especially delicate operation since it doesn’t seem to follow any form of rationality. In appearance, at least. And it is here within that the narrative motor of the film lies: understanding this mechanism means demonstrating the ability to empathize with those who practice it daily. Our angle is to “get into the shoes” of a climate sceptic. And what could be more epic than confiding the task of an environmental journalist who is convinced of global warming? This will be a true challenge for Laura Noualhat. For over 13 years in each of her articles, she has concentrated her efforts on informing the public of the preoccupying seriousness of the climatic situation, and whose ardent desire is that the obvious be recognized. Asking of Laure that she empathize with a climate sceptic, is probably as difficult as asking a vegetarian to devour a steak! But this angle is also a way to shake up the codes and build our sequences upon a truly dynamic narrative. Laure, playing innocent, will lead the questioning of the film with such thematic proposals as: why is this denial so widely echoed in our Western societies, whereas we are so well informed? Or, how does this minority — though systematically being smacked down by irrefutable evidence — continue to exist in the media landscape, somehow or the other? Penetrating a climate-sceptic’s mind is also embracing the thesis so as to push them into their last stronghold, even to the point of the absurd. The film in its form will leave ample room to sequences where Laure’s in vivo interventions will take place. We adopt this position not so much to contradict the climate sceptics upfront, but more to encourage them to follow their claims through, to publicly assume their ideas which are often developed in secret in think tanks, or other corridors of power. We already know that Laure will focus more specifically on an American climate sceptic in his crusade between the media, think tanks, fundraising galas and conferences, as well as on an MEP in his confrontation with CS lobbies during the development of the amendments of a climate bill (Yves Jadot). The journalist’s presence will not be ostentatious, however. The objective is not to
stage her as a character, nor constantly see her image on the screen, but to use her energy to articulate the film. In this sense, the reporter’s live questions and reflections will be an essential part of the sequence construction and thus will be preserved in the edit. They will be mostly presented off-camera. The journalist’s on-screen presence will be exceptional and only in situations where interaction with the cast is absolutely necessary. Hence, we will avoid face-to-face interviews as much as possible but instead, favour in situ exchanges (in conference hall corridors, forums, public areas, at the workplace, in research laboratories, etc.). The usage of a shoulder cam will accentuate this dynamic but the image quality will never be neglected. The choice of the Canon 5D video camera in this sense, is hardly insignificant. Its camera-like aspect makes it a suitable device for a smooth non-aggressive approach to the people encountered. For having used this device on many a documentary, it has proven itself to be a great advantage. Moreover, its high optical quality lends a unique smooth character to the image that is close to traditional film, in many aspects. To illustrate the commentary on climate change, we will use exceptionally high-quality graphics made for the NASA, or for the European Space Agency (CG animations of the planet, atmospheric layers, time-lapse landscapes of different climatic zones of the world, etc.). We will also create our own animations from still images like those we previously designed for our previous documentaries (see «DNA, our ancestors and us» — Arte). We are also considering the use of stock footage to lend a lighter aspect to the film and a popular American science show from the 50s has caught our attention. This black and white show featuring a Professor Calculus lookalike, has a great deal of charm and its inclusion also gives a slant to the all-accepted perspectives of scientific knowledge. We believe that despite the seriousness of the subject, the tone of this film can also be impertinent, funny or even quirky. Particularly in the USA where encountering situations and colourful characters should be quite easy, as our previous experience filming in the U.S. has shown us (see «United States of Obama», « I love democracy, USA « — Arte). It is keeping all these inspirations in mind, that we are moulding our next feature. Frank Guerin