Monthly Archives: April 2015

Lois Chang

Anchor Intro

Pollution in the Arctic

4/18/15

Industrial chemicals

The frozen land of the Arctic, called the Cryosphere, is in trouble and scientists say industrial chemicals bear much of the blame.

Polychlorinated biphenyls (po-li-chlo-ri-nat-ed bi-phi-nuls) are among the industrial chemicals that have traveled up from countries such as China, Russia, and the US and ended up in the Northern Cryosphere.

Lois Chang reports on the problem of the pollutants that persist in the Arctic environment.

Tape log index (4:56)

Lois Chang (2:44)

Reporter

David Nugent ( :15)

Professor and Director of Emory University’s Development Practice Program

Greg Huey( :10)

Professor and Chair of Georgia Institute of Technology

Crispin Halsall( 1:00 )

Professor of Lancaster University, UK

Lois Chang

Anchor Intro

Pollution in the Arctic

4/18/15

Reporter Voicer (20)

Polychlorinated biphenyls (po-li-chlo-ri-nat-ed bi-phi-nuls) are man-made chemicals that were manufactured and widely distributed in countries like the U.S., the UK, China, and Russia. It wasn’t until 1970’s when they were banned globally.

Industrial chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls travel from these countries and settle down in the Arctic.

Crispin Halsall (Crisp-in Hal-sahl), an environmental chemist and professor of Lancaster University, explains how the chemicals are building up and destabilizing the Arctic environment.

Actuality (13 )

Crispin Halsall

Professor of Lancaster University, UK

Those chemicals can over time deposit, end up in surface media like marine waters, surface snow and soil in the tundra. And they can eventually accumulate into the Arctic food web.

Reporter Voicer (20)

Given the widespread pollution of chemicals in the Arctic ecosystem, the chemicals are building up and destabilizing the Arctic environment.

Georgia Institute of Technology professor Greg Huey (Greg Hew-ee) explains that climate change melts the permafrost and unleashes these chemicals.

Actuality (10)

Greg Huey

Professor and Chair of Georgia Institute of Technology

The Cryosphere is ultimately mobile. Tundra that used to be permafrost melt periodically throughout the year because of climate change. You’re going to start mobilizing things that haven’t been mobilized before.

Reporter Voicer ( 12)

Heightening atmospheric temperatures are dramatically melting the ice in the North Pole. For this reason, the chemicals trapped inside the ice is starting to enter the environment at an increasing rate.

Halsall (Hal-sahl), the Lancaster professor, says climate change is harming the Arctic

ecosystem in other ways. Chemicals are contaminating traditional food supplies and creating a

dilemma for indigenous people.

Actuality (20 )

Crispin Halsall

Professor of Lancaster University, UK

The Arctic is undergoing unprecedented changes because of climate change. There’s lots of subtle timing of events and changes which may be affecting or exacerbating chemical pathways or routes of exposure to the marine food-web that we haven’t thought about before.”

Reporter Voicer ( 10 )

Halsall (Hal-sahl) admits that traditional diet may be healthier than the alternatives.

Actuality ( 12 )

Crispin Halsall

Professor of Lancaster University, UK

The country food diet is a very healthy diet. Overall the country style diet is a good one and you should pursue that. Lots of the culture of those people is based on hunting and the sharing of food. It would be devastating to stop that process.

Reporter Voicer (10)

Halsall argues that the Indigenous people ought to pursue their traditional diet. At the same time, he recognizes the potential dangers associated with it.

Actuality (10 )

Crispin Halsall

Professor of Lancaster University, UK

That’s the difficulty with contaminant science. You want to preserve those communities but you also want to prevent the detrimental health effects because of exposure to these chemicals.

Reporter Voicer (12)

The hunting and sharing of traditional food such as seal, whale, and fish have been practiced for thousands of years. This livelihood makes up the Indigenous communities in the Arctic. David Nugent (Da-vid Noo-gent), an anthropologist who studied Inuit lifestyle and ecology on Canada’s western coast, explains indigenous people often have a community approach to food.

Actuality (15 )

David Nugent

Professor and Director of Emory University’s Development Practice Program

There are three powerful obligations that everybody has in respect to food in particular. To give…to receive…and to repay. That keeps the cycle going. They just don’t use private property concepts with respect to subsistence activities.

Reporter Closing (15)

The tension that exists between the scientific knowledge on the industrial chemicals and the ethical values of preserving Indigenous culture continues to be a problem today. With much effort by public health officials, scientists and anthropologists, steps are been taken forward in finding some compromise.

Tag: Lois Chang, Emory News Now

Claire Brisse

Podcast Script

4/25/15

Oil Use in US

ANCHOR INTRO (0:00)

Natalie Eggert

Emory University Student

In February of this year, President Barack Obama vetoed the Keystone XL Pipeline. If it had been completed, it would have finished a project connecting oil sources in Canada to the US Gulf Coast.

Oil is an energy source that triggers poor health and environmental consequences. However, it is also a pillar of the U.S. economy.

Claire Brisse (BREES) reports further on this oil driven struggle.

Tape Log Index of Actualities (3:29)

Aubrey Tingler

Emory University Student (0:52)

Tracy Yandle

Emory University Environmental Science Professor (1:26)

Barry Ryan

Rollins School of Public Health Professor (2:03)

William Size

Emory University Environmental Science Professor (2:40)

William Size

Emory University Environmental Science Professor (3:07)

Aubrey Tingler

Emory University Student (3:21)

NATURAL SOUND (0:24)

No thank you, pipeline, no thank you, pipeline.

REPORTER VOICER (0:34)

These are the sounds of over 100 peaceful activists protesting the Keystone XL Pipeline last spring. This ongoing political argument has touched many Americans across the country. Aubrey Tingler is an environmental activist and a senior at Emory University. She agrees with the protestors and the final decision to veto.

ACTUALITY (0:52)

Aubrey Tingler

Emory University Student

The Keystone XL Pipeline running through you know, essentially the middle of the country would do a lot more harm than good, it would pollute our water, it would give dangerous jobs to people who maybe don’t have other opportunities and feel desperate and so I really don’t think we benefit economically or environmentally in the long run.

REPORTER VOICER (1:10)

Since the pipeline will no longer be completed, the alternate method of transportation for oil is by train. Emory environmental science professor Tracy Yandle has a starkly different opinion and argues that the pipeline was actually more environmentally friendly than the alternatives.

ACTUALITY (1:26)

Tracy Yandle

Emory University Environmental Science Professor

The way it makes it to the market right now is it gets loaded onto railway cars that have horrendous safety track records, that can come off the tracks, can rupture, can go into rivers, kill fish. It’s not working.

REPORTER VOICER (1:42)

Despite various contradicting opinions on the pipeline veto, there is a general understanding of the hazards related to oil, such as pollution, oil spills and climate change. Barry Ryan is a professor at Rollins School of Public Health and has a chemistry background. He explains that oil has a direct contribution to dangerously high levels of greenhouse gases.

ACTUALITY (2:03)

Barry Ryan

Rollins School of Public Health Professor

Burning fossil fuels essentially releases carbon dioxide, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that raises the temperature of the earth substantially. We’re at a point now where we’re close to the saturation effect of carbon dioxide.

REPORTER VOICER (2:16)

According to the Energy Information Administration, which is an independent data resource, the United States is the largest oil consumer in the world by at least 54%. These rates of usage are huge despite the known consequences of oil use. William Size, a geologist from Emory University explains the positives of oil us, possibly explaining the high rates.

ACTUALITY (2:40)

William Size

Emory University Environmental Science Professor

So it’s easily transported from one place to another, it has a high content of energy per unit mass. It burns easily, the efficiency of it of it is that there’s fairly little waste for burning oil.

REPORTER VOICER (2:53)

The infrastructure for oil is already in place, in addition combined with natural gas, oil directly or indirectly supplies the US economy with over 9 million jobs. Size uses an analogy to further explain oil’s influence.

ACTUALITY (3:07)

William Size

Emory University Environmental Science Professor

It’s liquid money basically, and a lot of people base their economy on oil.

REPORTER VOICER (3:13)

Oil has a strong influence on the country. Is it even possible to switch to renewable energy? Tingler explains her hope for the future.

ACTUALITY (3:21)

Aubrey Tingler

Emory University Student

I think it is possible because I’m one of those optimists who thinks that if you can make your voice heard something will start to happen.

TAG:

Claire Brisse, Emory News Now

Emily Li

Anchor Introduction (Pollinators in Atlanta)

4/19/15

Pollinator populations are in unsustainable decline all over the world. Pollination refers to the act of moving pollen from one flower to another of the same species. Common pollinators, such as bumblebees and butterflies, are essential to maintaining healthy ecosystems and sustaining successful flowering plant reproductive cycles.

In bees alone, beekeepers in the US and Europe have been reporting annual hive losses of 30% or higher for the past decade. In the face of severe environmental, economic, and ethical consequences, new initiatives are underway in Atlanta to combat the issue.

Emily Li reports on local pollinator population decline in Atlanta for Emory News Now.

TRT (3:54)

Elbert Liang—anchor introduction (0:00-0:37)

Dennis Krusac (1:07-1:26) (2:11-2:26) (3:15-3:26) [total: 0:45]

Greater Atlanta Pollinator Partnership Founder

Jennifer Leavey (1:47-1:57) [total: 0:10]

Georgia Tech Urban Honeybee Project Coordinator

Emily Dobbs (2:26-2:41) (2:41-2:55) [total: 0:30]

Emory University Brosi Labs Manager

NAT POP (:05)

Bee buzz audio clip (0:37-0:42)

REPORTER VOICER (0:25)

The nearby buzz of a bumblebee might scare the average citizen in Atlanta. To local conservationists, it’s music to the ears. Many, like US. Forest Service Endangered Species Specialist Dennis Krusac (KROO-sahk), fear the repercussions of the current decline in pollinator populations. As co-founder of the Greater Atlanta Pollinator Partnership, he claims dropping populations carry serious consequences for food production. (0:42-1:07)

ACTUALITY (0:19)

Dennis Krusac

Greater Atlanta Pollinator Partnership Founder

Every third bite of food we eat is a result of some kind of animal pollination. So, the grains are all wind-pollinated. So you can have all the pasta you want. But if you got pasta, there’s not gonna be any tomato sauce. There’s not going to be any garlic. There’s not going to be any basil, or oregano, no spices. You can have boiled pasta. (1:07-1:26)

REPORTER VOICER (0:21)

Professor Jennifer Leavey at the Georgia Institute of Technology agrees pollinators are crucial for food security. Further, she believes pollinators are becoming increasingly relevant from sustainability and urban planning perspectives. In 2013, she helped coordinate Georgia Tech’s Urban Honeybee Project, which focuses on the impact of urbanization on honeybees. (1:26-1:47)

ACTUALITY (0:10)

Jennifer Leavey

Georgia Tech Urban Honeybee Project Coordinator

As people live in more and more concentrated areas and also try to grow food in those areas, it’s really important that these pollinators be very efficient in their work. (1:47-1:57)

REPORTER VOICER (0:14)

Conservation experts seem to agree on the importance of pollinators for their varied services. What’s less clear is what exactly is causing these drastic declines in populations. Krusac believes the main culprit in Atlanta is habitat loss. (1:57-2:11)

ACTUALITY (0:15)

Dennis Krusac

Greater Atlanta Pollinator Partnership Founder

During the housing boom of the 1990s and early 2000s, we were losing about 55 acres of green space a day and gaining about 20 acres of impervious surface—parking lots, rooftops, roads. So over 20 years we lost over 400,000 acres of green space. (2:11-2:26)

REPORTER VOICER (0:15)

Emily Dobbs, research specialist and lab manager of Emory’s bee-focused Brosi (BROH-see) Labs, agrees that habitat loss is a major driver. However, she says disease, pesticide use and other factors are probably involved. (2:26-2:41)

ACTUALITY (0:14)

Emily Dobbs

Emory University Brosi Labs Manager

It’s probably a combination of a bunch of things that maybe on their own would not have a very significant effect, but because they’re all occurring at the exact same time we’re seeing major consequences in pollinator populations. (2:41-2:55)

REPORTER VOICER (0:20)

Conservation initiatives and pollinator habitats are now sprouting up in Atlanta to counter the declines. Krusac, with the Greater Atlanta Pollinator Partnership, helps restore pollinator habitat by educating citizens on growing pollinator-friendly gardens. The project’s mission reflects a shift in conservation efforts toward citizen involvement. (2:55-3:15)

ACTUALITY (:11)

Dennis Krusac

Greater Atlanta Pollinator Partnership Founder

You need to get to the individual homeowner—that’s where the garden is going to be. And it doesn’t matter whether you own a house with a yard or if you’re in a condo with a balcony on the 10^th floor, if you plant the right plants you can attract pollinators. (3:15-3:26)

REPORTER CLOSING (:15)

In a collaborative effort, Atlanta conservationists, researchers, officials and citizens are working to ensure the sustainable health of local pollinators. These groups are restoring pollinator habitats, pursuing research, and spreading the buzz about pollinators to help save these critical species. (3:26-3:44)

TAG:

Emily Li, Emory News Now

Anne Nichols

Green schools are popping up all over the nation. These schools are considered environmentally preferable because they take measures to ensure more sustainable use of the planet’s resources and a healthier school environment for students.

The most popular tool for measuring sustainable practice is the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certification, or as most call it, LEED.

Anne Nichols reports on the reasons why schools are taking these steps to become greener.

Anne Nichols (1:45)

Laura Bollman (0:26)

Drew Charter School’s Director of Implementation and Design

Charlie Cichetti (1:01)

CEO of Sustainable Investment Group

Leesa Carter-Jones (1:46)

Former Executive Director of U.S. Green Building Council-Georgia Chapter

Cichetti (1:59)

Bollman (2:22)

Carter-Jones (2:42)

NAT POP (Drew Charter School Band Playing) (0:09)

Anne (0:20)

The band students at Drew Charter School’s Senior and Junior Academy begin their day in a ceiling-to-floor windowed room surrounded by enhanced acoustical design. These features are a result of the administration’s decision to pursue LEED certification. Laura Bollman (LORAH BOWLMAN), Drew’s director of implementation and design, played an integral role in this decision.

Laura Bollman (0:20)

Drew’s Director of Implementation and Design

“We truly believe our school is an environment that we want our students to learn in, and learn from, and so along the way we really decided to pursue LEED as we saw the overlaps continuing to happen between what we wanted to do green building wise and what LEED was offering.

Anne (0:15)

The major benefits of a LEED certified school are lower costs of operating, better student health, and a smoother functioning school. Charlie Cichetti (CHARLEE KICHEHTEE), chief executive of Sustainable Investment Group, says going green pays off for schools.

Charlie Cichetti (0:17)

CEO of Sustainable Investment Group

“The LEED certification is not just saving energy it’s saving water, but we look at everything, the materials you build the building out of, make sure they last longer. For LEED for Schools especially we look for the chemicals even on the desks that the students sit at.

Anne (0:31)

LEED buildings conserve energy and water in various ways. Installing high efficiency air conditioning systems and using natural daylight to mitigate the need for artificial light are just a few of these ways. LEED also encourages schools to lower volatile organic compounds in the school’s building materials and eliminate hazardous chemicals in janitorial supplies. Leesa Carter-Jones, former executive director of the US Green Building Council Georgia Chapter, agrees schools should be taking the steps to become certified.

Leesa Carter-Jones (0:10)

Former executive director of the U.S. Green Building Council-Georgia Chapter

“Those two reasons alone, children’s health and cost to the community and good community resources, it’s like I don’t even understand why we’re still having a conversation about it.”

Anne (0:06)

Cichetti (KICHEHTEE) goes on to explain opposition to schools becoming LEED certified.

Charlie Cichetti (0:11)

I think those that would be opposed to LEED for schools are more opposed to idea that it’s going to cost a lot more for this school that we can barely afford maybe in the public environment.”

Anne (0:09)

The benefits for Drew Charter School greatly outweigh the green premium. Bollman contends the school gains by functioning better and building community.

Laura Bollman (0:08)

“Ultimately we decided to pursue LEED to add credibility and distinction to our school for our students, teachers, donors, everybody.

Anne (0:10)

Carter-Jones says green initiatives raise awareness among students and engages them in the conversation about the environment. They go home and discuss it with their parents.

Leesa Carter-Jones (0:08)

“It begins to create a community change and transformation which I think is at the heart of what the green building industry is trying to do.” (7:26-7:34)

Anne (0:23)

More and more schools are beginning to take Drew Charter School’s lead to become certified. There are currently 866 certified schools in the nation and 1,296 schools in the process of becoming certified. With the lower operational costs, improved health benefits, and overall functionality of the school, the trend of LEED certification for schools seems to logically be on the rise.

Anne Nichols, Sustainable Investment Group (0:04)

NAT POP (0:10)

The Politicization of Climate Science

ANCHOR INTRO, Jack MacKay (:25):

In recent years the scientific consensus has grown stronger and stronger that human activity is causing global climate change with severe implications for our planet. Nonetheless, there remain many powerful deniers to climate change.

Supporters of climate denial, led by the fossil fuel industry, are able to propagate their beliefs because of a phenomenon known as the politicization of science.

Ben Perlmutter reports on the politicization of climate science for Emory News Now.

TRT (3:22)

POLITICAL SCIENTIST, DR. TOBY BOLSEN (:32)

EMORY STUDENT, JORDAN KOLPAS (1:42)

POLITICAL SCIENTIST, DR. TOBY BOLSEN (2:21)

SCIENCE HISTORIAN, NAOMI ORESTES (2:53)

AUDIO CLIP, Sen. Ted Cruz (:05):

“the global warming alarmists are the equivalent of the flat-Earthers.”

REPORTER VOICER, Ben Perlmutter (:28):

Those are the words of Republican Senator and presidential hopeful Ted Cruz. While Cruz compares advocates of man-made climate change to flat-earthers, a broad scientific consensus disagrees with him.

Cruz and fellow climate deniers, are able to spread their scientifically questionable claims like this because they “politicize climate science.”

Georgia State political science professor Toby Bolsen defined the politicization of science in a phone interview:

ACTUALITY, Dr. Toby Bolsen (:09):

“Politicization occurs when an actor emphasizes the inherent uncertainly in science by casting doubt on the existence of a scientific consensus.”

REPORTER VOICER, Ben Perlmutter (:59):

Actors, for their self interested reasons, spread doubt about science amongst the public while there is little to no doubt within the scientific community.

Emory University environmental science professor Woody Hickcox explained that climate science is particularly susceptible to politicization because it is so complicated. Hickcox says it requires the contributions of many disciplines, from biology, to astrophysics, to oceanography, to ecology. There are many points at which politicization can occur.

Powerful interests in the fossil fuel industry have been the main funders of climate denial research, especially ExxonMobile, the world’s largest oil company, and the Koch brothers, owners of the petrochemical giant Koch Industries.

They stand the most to lose from taking action on climate change, as their products, fossil fuels, produce greenhouse gasses, which in turn cause climate change.

College senior and environmental science and biology major Jordan Kolpas thinks that is of dubious ethics for the fossil fuel industry’s to fund climate science:

ACTUALITY, Jordan Kolpas (:23.5):

“If you have research like the stuff that the Koch brothers are funding its like illegitimate research, and like as a biology major, I’ve seen a lot of different ways you can skew um scientific studies to portray some sort of picture. But you need funding first off, but if you need funding secondly and its coming from an biased source, its illegitimate.

REPORTER VOICER, Ben Perlmutter (:15):

Fossil fuel companies also try to directly appeal to the public to create a perception of doubt about the scientific consensus on climate change.

Dr. Bolsen elaborated on why politicizing science is such an effective tactic for skewing public perception:

ACTUALITY, Dr. Toby Bolsen (:13):

“When elites do this, when politicization enters the picture, people can’t reason. They can’t know whether or not to trust scientific evidence in particular cases.”

REPORTER VOICER, Ben Perlmutter (:19):

Self-interested elites, in this case the fossil fuel industry, create a public perception of doubt, while there is none amongst climate scientists.

Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science and author the best selling book about politicizing science, Merchants of Doubt, explains how this tactic is so effective in an online interview:

ACTUALITY, Naomi Oreskes (:22):

“A key part of the strategy from the very beginning is to undermine the idea of scientific consensus. And one of the things they discovered in their own market research was that if you can persuade people that there’s no scientific consensus, then people will think that it will be premature to act…and this is why you hear them saying as a kind of mantra, ‘there’s no consensus.’ ”

REPORTER VOICER, Ben Perlmutter (:03):

And thus, the debate rages on in the public forum.

TAG (:02.5):

Ben Perlmutter, Emory News Now

Food vs Fuel Debate–Matt Wu Podcast

Yeji Park

Anchor Intro (Food versus Fuel Debate)

4/27/15

About 10 years ago, awareness for global warming began and stirred call for clean, renewable energy.

The United States found ethanol made from corn to be a viable option and launched the Clean Energy Act of 2005. The law pushed for increased alternative fuel production to combat global warming.

By 2022, the United States wants to produce 36 billion gallons of ethanol. Compared to 2008, this is a 4-fold increase.

But the initiative also sparked the food versus fuel debate where some believed that corn should be used to fight hunger and others to save the environment.

Matt Wu reports on the ongoing debate for the future of ethanol for Emory, News, Now.

Yeji Park—Anchor Intro (0:00-0:38)

TRT (3:28)

Yeerin Kwon

Emory University Student (1:06)

Eri Saikawa

Emory University Professor (1:37)

Eri Saikawa

Emory University Professor (2:04)

Eri Saikawa

Emory University Professor (2:33)

Lance Gunderson

Emory University Professor (2:53)

MW (:28)

Used as a fuel, corn-based ethanol has great potential to be green by lowering certain greenhouse gases.

Last year by incorporating ethanol into gasoline, carbon dioxide emissions from transportation were reduced by 39.6 million metric tons. Imagine removing 8.4 million cars from the road for an entire year.

Some argue that ethanol production is worthwhile because it promotes the planet’s well-being. Emory University student, Yeerin (YEH-rin) Kwon (KWAHN), shares why we should be environmentally conscious.

SOT (:13)

Yeerin Kwon

Emory University student

It’s important to be green because it affects both our physical and psychological well-being. Also, the environment affects our everyday lives and our future.

MW (:17)

However, the corn grown for ethanol, requires heavy fertilizer use. These fertilizers emit other greenhouse gases, but since these emissions come from the soil, they are unregulated.

Eri (EAR-ee) Saikawa (PSY-kah-wah), an environmental health expert at Emory

University, says growing corn for ethanol can produce more greenhouse gases than use of the fuel saves.

SOT (:14)

Eri Saikawa

Emory University Professor

Now we don’t have any standard of how much fertilizer can be put and what kind. Depending on what type of fertilizer you put, you get different types of emissions. You can definitely get more greenhouse emissions.

MW (:11)

While corn can be made into a fuel, it still has great value as a food source.

Around the world, it is considered a staple of many populations.

However, Saikawa (PSY-kah-wah), explains that limited resources make growing enough corn for both food and ethanol difficult.

SOT (:14)

Eri Saikawa

Emory University Professor

I don’t think it’d be possible to use the land for energy and serving of for people in terms of food. It would be less food for people in the countries.

MW (:13)

In 2013, 5 billion bushels of corn were used to produce ethanol in the U.S. This would be enough to feed 500 million people for an entire year.

If biofuel production continues, ultimately corn producers will be the most impacted, says Saikawa.

SOT (:09)

Eri Saikawa

Emory University Professor

The money that goes for exports don’t necessarily go for farmers. If we were to do that, the poor will still go poor and more hungry.

MW (:11)

SOT (:23)

Lance Gunderson

Emory University Professor

There’s a link between energy and money. The economic systems are not neutral. There are preferences in terms of guiding the trajectory of development. For example, the agricultural price support system drives corn-based ethanol and supports a corn-based ethanol solution.

MW (:11)

At the moment, the food versus fuel debate remains unresolved.

The environment and hunger problems both carry weight of their own, but for now, ethanol will continue to be made.

Matt Wu, Emory News Now.

Cami’s podcast:

ANCHOR INTRO:

As it becomes clear beyond a reasonable doubt that human activity is causing global climate change with severe implications for our planet, there nonetheless remain many powerful deniers to this scientific truth.

The Republican Party leads the climate denial movement in the United States. The Republicans, supported by the fossil fuel industry, are able to propagate denial because of a phenomenon known as the politicization of science.

Ben Perlmutter reports on the politicization of climate science for Emory News Now.

AUDIO CLIP, Sen. Ted Cruz:

“the global warming alarmists are the equivalent of the flat-Earthers.”

REPORTER VOICER, Ben Perlmutter

Those are not the words of some crazy on street corner, but those of Senator and Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz.

Cruz and Fellow Republicans, are able to spread bunk claims like this because they “politicize climate science.”

Georgia State professor Toby Bolsen explains in a phone interview:

ACTUALITY, Dr. Toby Bolsen

“Politicization occurs when an actor emphasizes the inherent uncertainly in science by casting doubt on the existence of a scientific consensus.”

REPORTER VOICER, Ben Perlmutter

Actors, for their self interested reasons, spread doubt to science while there is little to no doubt within the scientific community.

Dr. Bolsen elaborates:

ACTUALITY, Dr. Toby Bolsen

“When elites do this, when politicization enters the picture, people can’t reason. They can’t know whether or not to trust scientific evidence in particular cases.”

REPORTER VOICER, Ben Perlmutter

Emory University environmental scientist Woody Hickcox explained that climate science is particularly susceptible to politicization because it is so complicated — it requires the contributions of many disciplines, from biology, to astrophysics, to oceanography. There are many points at which politicization can occur.

Powerful interests in the fossil fuel industry have been the main funders of climate denial research. ExxonMobile, the world’s largest oil company, and the Koch Brothers, owners of the petrochemical giant Koch Industries, have been the largest funders of climate denial research.

They stand the most to lose from taking action on climate change, as their products, fossil fuels, produce greenhouse gasses, which in turn cause climate change.

By politicizing climate science to create the public perception of doubt, fossil fuel companies stop the public from coming to the consensus that climate change is occurring and needs to be addressed.

And, Republicans have joined in link step with the fossil fuel industry, as that’s where the money is. In the 2014 national elections, the Koch Brothers spent over $290 million.

College senior Claire Carter thinks about the politicization of climate science:

ACTUALITY, Claire Carter

“I think its ridiculous and has become too politicized and is following the money rather than the science.”

TAG

Ben Perlmutter Emory News Now

Claire Brisse – Oil in the US

Hello my name is Claire Brisse and I’m currently a student at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. Fossil fuels including coal, natural gas and oil are some of the dirtiest forms of nonrenewable energy. They produce various greenhouse gases and carbon emissions that are leading to climate change and ultimately rising temperatures. The United States is the largest consumer of oil in the entire world with a whopping 18.9 million barrels of oil a day, that’s roughly 290 billion gallons of oil a year.

Dr. William Size from Emory University goes on to explain how oil is formed:

0:00 Total 12 second Voicer: Dr. Size: 9:05 – 9:17 (in tape)

This oil it trapped underground until a drilling process removes it. It then must be refined and is eventually used for things such as gasoline. In the US transportation accounts for 70% of its oil use and 27% of greenhouse emissions. Dr. Ryan Barry from Rollins School of Public Health explains the health impacts of these emissions:

0:30 Total 12 second Voicer: Dr. Ryan: 16:13 – 16:25 (in tape)

He goes on to explain how asthma is caused by the nitrous oxides and other dangerous vapors being released that could impact human health. Oil spills are another huge danger with regular oil use. Gary Harper from the Environmental Protection Agency explains some of these risks:

0:51 Total 35 second Voicer: Gary Harper: 14:45 – 15:20 (in tape)

He explains that in the southeast regions the EPA respond to roughly fifty oil spills every year of various sizes. In addition, sometimes these spills lead to human evacuations. Despite the environmental and health risks associated with oil, the industry is still a prominent piece of American economy as Dr. Size explains:

1:11 Total 25 second Voicer : 20:00 – 20:25 (in tape)

Ultimately, the oil and natural gas industry provides America with 9.8 million jobs. Oil is a huge driver of US economy. Dr. Ryan elaborates further on some of the positives of this energy source.

1:26 Total 15 second Voicer: 7:37 – 7:52 (in tape)

Aubrey Tingler is a senior at Emory University in the Environmental Science Department. She has a different opinion about the oil industry:

1: 46 Total 11 second Voicer Aubrey Tingler: 1:47 – 1:58

Earlier this year President Barack Obama vetoed the Keystone XL Pipeline, highlighting the controversy over oil us in the US. This pipeline would have completed the last 60% of a project that had started over a year ago, running an oil pipeline from Alberta Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. It would shuttle 830,000 barrels of oil a day. Dr. Yandle, a professor in the Environmental Science Department at Emory University argues that this was a poor decision, because the alternative method of transportation is by rail. She explains that trains that have poor safety records, and actually produce more carbon emissions just getting the oil to the refiners and it’s less efficient:

2:10 Total 14 second Voicer Dr. Yandle: 1:41 – 1:55

Dr. Ryan disagrees, and believes that the veto was a good decision. The pipeline would run through the Ogallala Aquifer in the Midwest, which would use large amounts of water and also cause possible sources of pollution. Opinions are still polarized on this issue. Ultimately, in order to prevent climate change the use of oil is limited. Tingler has the final thoughts on this:

2:30 Total 30 second Voicer Aubrey Tingler: 2:14 – 2:45

Finish exactly at 3:00

This March Republican presidential hopeful Sen. Ted Cruz, audaciously compared global warming activists to people who believe the world is flat.

Cruz could not be further from the truth. It is in fact him and climate deniers like him that are on the wrong side of science.

Since humanity created the scientific method, there have always been doubters of science. From doubters of a heliocentric universe, to creationists, to anti-vaxxers, some people have refused to concede to scientific truth. Today, climate deniers are yet another iteration of these opponents to scientific reality.

Climate deniers are able to perpetuate their false beliefs through a phenomenon known to social scientists as the politicization of science.

Georgia State political science professor Toby Bolsen explained in a phone interview that “politicization occurs when an actor emphasizes the inherent uncertainly in science by casting doubt on the existence of a scientific consensus.”

People who do not like a scientific consensus, for whatever reason, are able to twist facts to make it seem like doubt exists when there is in fact none. Climate change science is particularly vulnerable to politicization because climate change is such a complicated field of study.

Emory University environmental scientist Woody Hickcox explained climate science is a particularly complicated discipline because it takes from so many different fields of study. Climate science needs to take into account meteorology (to see how weather has changed, chemistry (to understand how greenhouse gasses are emitted), astrophysics (to measure climate changes from outerspace), ecology (to study the effect of climate change on life), the list goes on and on.

No single academic paper can prove that human green house gas emissions are causing climate change. Rather a large body of literature proves the influence of human’s on climate change.

This body of literature has many uncertainties because scientists, following the tried and true scientific method, try to falsify conclusions, rather than prove them. Science is designed to be open to critiques in its incessant quest for the truth.

Climate deniers emphasize the inherent uncertainty of science even though this doubt is in reality far overwhelmed by a scientific consensus pointing towards the influence of humans on climate change. Deniers amplify uncertainty not to promote science, but to promote a political agenda.

By casting doubt on climate science, deniers distort public opinion on climate change away from science towards a position politically advantageous to them.

One of the favorite tactics of climate denying politicians is to claim that they are not scientists, and therefore cannot speak on climate change, as the science is unsettled.

President Obama, a staunch climate change advocate, said during the State of the Union address in response to Republican climate deniers: “I’ve heard some folks try to dodge the evidence by saying they’re not scientists – that we don’t have enough information to act. Well, I’m not a scientist, either. But you know what? I know a lot of really good scientists at [NASA], and [NOAA], and at our major universities.”

While the president is certainly correct to put his trust in scientists, his prestigious endorsement is not nearly enough to counter the vast machinery that supports climate denial.

The fossil fuel industry has been the largest contributor to funding climate denial. Fossil fuels are one of the largest contributors to green house gas emissions, so the industry have a lot to loose if government creates legislation to curb emissions, hurting these companies’ bottom line.

ExxonMobile, the worlds largest oil company, and Koch Industries, a gigantic petrochemical company, are the two greatest contributors to the politicization of climate change.

Earlier this year, Harvard scientist Willie Soon, who had argued that recent climate change could mostly be explained by natural variation in the sun’s energy output, was discovered to have not exposed that he received $1.2 million for his research from Koch Industries and Exxon Mobile. Scientists must disclose conflicts on interest like this. Dr. Soon’s failure to expose his conflict of interest sparked widespread outcry from the international media, climate activist groups, and the scientific community.

Many climate deniers have cited Dr. Soon’s research as justification for their climate denial. Sen. James Inhofe, who claims that climate change is a hoax, has repeatedly cited Dr. Soon to justify his claims.

This recently controversy about Dr. Soon’s research is emblematic of the Politicization of climate change in American politics. Interests with vested interests in climate denial fund a scientist with fringe beliefs. Then politicians who support climate denial cite this fringe scientist to justify their climate skepticism. Thus, doubt in climate change is seeded.

Tales like that of Dr. Soon are all too common. Unfortunately it is impossible to know how much money Exxon, Koch, and other vested interests give to climate denial research because they often fund via the research third-party, “dark money” conservative groups, a 2013 study by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle reports.

Greenpeace, an environmentalist group, and other researchers found that Exxon and the Koch-backed charity foundations have funneled money to climate denial research through Donors Trust, a charity that supports ultra-free market ideas. Donors Trust gave $146 million to climate denial groups between 2002 and 2011. Due to lax oversight on donations to charities like Donors Trust, it is impossible to fully ascertain how much of the organization’s money came from the fossil fuel industry.

With all of this doubt being disseminated, the general public has difficulty telling the real science from the fossil fuel funded bunk. This leads to a debate where there should be no debate, yanking discussion away from how to grapple with climate change to whether there is climate change. Reaction to climate change continues at a tepid pace, as fossil fuel companies continue their greenhouse gas emissions unabated.