Renaissance of Reuse

When I began to formulate some ideas for this blog post, I had thought to include some zero waste/reducing plastic tips and then I realised that actually I had enough to say on the topic of reusing or repurposing, so I decided to make that the main focus. I have long been someone who couldn't bear to throw out something that might conceivably have another future purpose. My candle business, which I ran for many years, was borne out of my distaste for throwing out old jars and containers and ends of wax from candles so I had lots of creative fun putting things to new use and making eco friendly candles out of upcycled containers. I decided to end the business as I had a lot on my plate and also other projects I wanted to pursue, but my love of reusing never left me. 

I guess it's partly frugality but also a sense that it's such a terrible waste to send things to landfill when they are completely fine and usable. Maybe it was also due to growing up with programs like Bagpuss and the Wombles, where creativity and imagination was coupled with finding a use for things and seeing the beauty in the somewhat shabby or old.  To be clear, I've always said that I'm not a perfect environmentalist - who is really?  And, honestly, I find 'green preaching' tedious and more likely to make me do the opposite so I sincerely hope that anything I write isn't seen in that way. We all make our choices based on our own circumstances and I'm very reluctant to put pressure on individuals, when a lot of the problems we have with waste require industry or legislative solutions. Having said that, I'd like to share the joy you can get in repurposing things and show that it's not the second best option but often the best way to add nice touches to your home, save money and save things from landfill for that little bit longer.

My magpie instincts always tell me to hang on to things that are pretty - I particularly love glass and the two vases pictured below were things I just couldn't let go of!

The blue bottle was just a water bottle that we got on holidays in Spain many years ago - honestly I would have brought more of them except that we were limited to small suitcases. The little jar was a reed diffuser and I'm using it as a vase for the moment but it might also double as a little plant propagator jar soon.

Speaking of plant propagation, this has been my passion during lockdown - plants are lovely presents and growing plants is such a nice hobby, and relatively inexpensive once you get the hang of the whole propagation bit. A lot of plants grow roots in water so I kept this little green jar which had been a plant mister but stopped working and now it's a very attractive propagator jar.

And still on the plant theme - I had kept candle containers for absolutely ages because I really liked the colour so when I got some mini plants, I cleaned them out and sprayed a gold segment at the top - I really like the combination of the gold and blue and they made perfect homes for my new plants.

Likewise with these houseplant containers, I didn't want to throw them out because I really liked the colours - one was a candle and one was a normal tea mug but the handle broke - I just have the handle bit facing to the back so you can't see it.

Clearly there is a recurring theme here but I also repurpose things which are not plant related :)

I've often seen jugs or special bottles for salad dressing but we have been using this nice bottle for years and it's exactly right for salad dressing - originally a balsamic vinegar bottle, we now just make up a batch of dressing and it's always on hand and great because the light doesn't get in to spoil the contents.

So I suppose what I'm trying to say is that sometimes the things we already have are just fine to use for multiple purposes and often look nicer than something bought new. Not only that, but over the years, I think, all these little objects have contributed to the fabric of the family and have a story and a part in our lives and that is something precious. Yes, of course, we have to get new things at times and there is so much marketing out there pushing us to change styles or house decor or whatever, that it can be hard to resist. But if something has a use or a possible new function, then it's just as nice to keep it and treasure its longevity.

Luckily, my husband is of the same mind and although we might disagree at times over what is actually good to keep, it generally works out ok and he has the added woodworking skills so that gives a lot more scope.

I really love this little shelf he made from old bits of shelving that were in the shed. It's perfect for our cleaning products and they were driving me mad, cluttering up the sink area so I was delighted when he made it.

Also, repurposed but on a much larger scale is this garden bench,  another creative make by my talented husband. It is entirely made from old pallets and although it's covered in plants at the moment, it's normally free for sitting out in the sun.  The disapproving cat is just a temporary feature :)

Finally, one of my favourite things to upcycle is bamboo toothbrushes - obviously these gather in quantity because there are 3 of us using them but they are just perfect as plant markets and I also used one as a label for my shampoo and conditioner, to stop it getting mixed up with ordinary soap.

I love that reusing and not buying new is becoming more normalised now and I hope it will just be something that's totally taken for granted by everyone in the future.  Aside from repurposing objects you already have, there are so many great things that are available via freecycle groups and in the free sections of sites like Adverts or Done Deal, so if I'm looking for something specific, I'll check out those listings before I commit to buying new. Our giant comfy kitchen chair was an adverts freebie and it's the favourite sitting spot in the house. Likewise, I offer anything I don't need anymore on some of the groups and I'm always delighted when they find a new home.

Charity shops of course are another option, not just for clothes but for all sorts of household items - I've bought heaps of picture frames in charity shops over the years and just spruced them up with chalk paint or spray paint to fit in with my own decor.  The possibilities are endless, particulary if you can also sew - which I can't! It's on my list of things to learn because I'd love to be able to make old clothes into something new. 

I hope I've shown some of the lovely possibilities of repurposed items.

(*Originally posted on www.puritybelle.com)

Ecocide - A Case for Implementation

This post was originally an academic assignment but as I worked my way through it, I became very convinced that implementing ecocide as a crime within the Rome Statute has the potential to be a key tool in how we view the natural world around us and enabling a shift from our anthropocentric world view.

If I had more time, I might have reworded to make it a big more blog friendly but I'm just presenting the essay as is, because I think it's an important topic of our time.

It is proposed to add ecocide law to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as a 5th Crime. Whilst there are some arguments against this as an effective measure to tackle ecocide, it is an action that is likely to raise global awareness of environmental damage and its consequences on the human population. It will act as a stronger deterrent for those undertaking environmental works and it will ensure that those countries who are signatories to the Rome Treaty must then embed ecocide law into their own national laws.

Ecocide Law: The Background.

The term and concept of ecocide originated with the Vietnam War and the use of ‘Agent Orange’ and other herbicides. The function of these agents was to reveal enemy combatants by deforestation of cover and also to deplete food supplies of the enemy. According to Olson and Morton (2019), ‘the strategy had intended and unintended consequences on South Vietnam soils and sediments, agricultural and forested landscapes, civilian populations, and US, South, and North Vietnamese military personnel.’ The ‘intended and unintended consequences’ is a key point in the background to the definition of ecocide as it was originally coined as a term in the context of war, rather than a definition of environmental destruction that stood alone. Much of the thinking at the time justified environmental destruction as part of military necessity and the Vietnam War was not an isolated incident in terms of large scale environmental damage inflicted as part of a military strategy. The term itself is attributed to Dr. Arthur W. Galston who was instrumental in the discovery of the defoliant properties of 2,4,5-T, one of the main components of Agent Orange (Hough, 2016) and in 1970, at the Conference on War and National Responsibility’, Galston suggested a ban on ecocide. The term was then used by Arthur Westing, one of the main academic critics of the U.S. policy in Vietnam and in 1972, at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, the Swedish Prime Minister, Olaf Palme, also used the term in his criticism of the defoliation programme (Hough, 2016).

Ecocide and Climate Change.

Ecocide and climate change are interconnected in many ways. The scientific consensus is that the warming of our planet has been caused by human activity and that we need to work towards warming of not greater than 2 degrees in order to avoid the most damaging effects of climate change. The most recent IPCC Report ‘recognizes the interdependence of climate, ecosystems and biodiversity, and human societies’ (IPCC, 2022). Fossil fuel extraction, for example is not only at the root of carbon emissions, but also plays a part in the decimation of ecosystems. For example, ‘the Athabasca ‘tar sands’ stands as an example of the artificial division and fragmentation of the local ecosystem in an attempt to extract oil with no regard for the anti-ecological effects this unnatural throughput and transfer of energy and materials has on the local environment and, critically, the local population’ (Crook and Short, 2014). With greater knowledge of some of the negative effects of industrial activity on human populations, and the consequences of extreme weather events which are correlated to climate change, an awareness of climate justice has also developed. Activities such as fossil fuel extraction have had an adverse effect on indigenous communities around the world. ‘As a result of colonialism, many of the traditional adaptation practices that allowed indigenous communities to endure environmental changes are no longer possible’ (Norton-Smith et al., 2016).

In the context of climate justice, and with regard to the health and safety of populations around the globe, protecting our valuable ecosystems plays a key role in climate mitigation. With regard to climate adaptation, a recognition of ecocide as a legal policy instrument may also offer a protection against maladaptation which is defined as ‘action taken ostensibly to avoid or reduce vulnerability to climate change that impacts adversely on, or increases the vulnerability of other systems, sectors or social groups’ (Barnett and O’Neill, 2010).

The adaptive capacities of indigenous peoples is both an ecological and a climate justice issue. The role of ecocide in diminishing adaptive capabilities is significant and there are instances where climate adaptation efforts are creating ecological problems and furthering climate injustice. An example is wind energy development in the Tehuantepec region of Oaxaca, Mexico, which was the subject of a study by Dunlap, (2018). Dunlap relayed that, according to those interviewed, land use changes ‘altered agricultural and livestock patterns, but necessitated the clearing of animal habitat, compacting of soil for roads, loss of birds, transforming the ground water into concrete for wind turbine foundations and, finally, leaking oil into the ground, which people claimed contaminated both the ground water and animals’.

The evolution of ecocide law.

So how did the proposal to implement ecocide law at the International Criminal Court evolve?

Although the movement to add ecocide to the Rome Statute has been growing since 2010, when Polly Higgins, an English Barrister, presented a definition to the UN Law Commission (Stop Ecocide International), ecocide was, in fact, on the agenda in much earlier years. According to Mehta and Merz, (2015), ‘three options were discussed to incorporate ecocide into the draft Code of Offences against the Peace and Security of Mankind, precursor to the Rome Statute establishing the ICC, as a stand-alone crime, included under Crimes against Humanity or under War Crimes’. The crime of ecocide, however, was not included at that time, the reasons being unclear although it may have been political expediency. There was a suggestion from Christian Tomuschat, ‘Rapporteur of the working group on environmental crime’, that nuclear arms may have played a part in the final decision (Mehta and Merz, 2015). Despite this original outcome, there has been a growing body of work and activity around the campaign to have ecocide included in the Rome Statute.

In 2016, the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC issued a policy paper which seemed to open the door for a closer examination of ecocide law. Under Case Selection Criteria 5 (41) it is outlined that 
‘the Office will give particular consideration to prosecuting Rome Statute crimes that are committed by means of, or that result in, inter alia, the destruction of the environment, the illegal exploitation of natural resources or the illegal dispossession of land’ (The Office of the Prosecutor, 2016). It should be noted that although there is provision for damage to the environment in a military context, Pereira, (2020), remarks that ‘even though serious environmental damage often accompanies armed conflicts and there is a well-established international legal framework governing environmental damage in armed conflicts, so far there have been very few prosecutions for environmental damage since the Second World War’. However, the 2016 policy paper recognises that environmental damage can be a prosecutable offense.

In November 2020, the Stop Ecocide Foundation convened an Independent Expert Panel. This was an opportunity for wide ranging consultation with multiple stakeholders and for gathering input from experts. As Jojo Mehta outlined ‘the resulting definition is well pitched between what needs to be done concretely to protect ecosystems and what will be acceptable to states’ (Stop Ecocide International). See figure 1 below for the proposed amendments that were agreed by the expert panel.

In June 2021, the Expert Panel concluded its work and in December 2021, the Foundation presented a statement to the 20th Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

 

Limitations of adding ecocide as a 5th Crime.

(I) Whilst adding ecocide to the Rome Statute is likely to be a step forward in tackling widespread intentional environmental damage, it must be recognised that there are some limitations. Firstly, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court has 123 signatories but there are significant absences, like the United States, China and India wherein reside some of the world’s largest multinational corporations (Phillips, 2021).

(II) The ‘principle of complementarity’ governs the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. This means that the Court will only prosecute crimes which are not being addressed by the States themselves. According to a report by the ICC ‘The ICC may only exercise jurisdiction where national legal systems fail to do so, including where they purport to act but in reality are unwilling or unable to genuinely carry out proceedings’ (International Criminal Court, Office of the Prosecutor, 2003). This could result in long delays to prosecution of ecocide, as the intent of ecocide would need to be established, as well as assigning responsibility for the crime. The possibility of moral conflict could also arise in the impetus of states to prosecute ecocide, in the event of there being an economic gain to citizens in the implementation of industrial activity which has an environmental impact.

(III) There is a possibility that it may be superfluous to other environmental protection.
Instruments which are already in place, in the form of international treaties and national law.

(IV) ‘The ICC only has jurisdiction over natural persons’ (Phillips, 2021), which means that individuals will be prosecuted rather than corporate entities - is this an overreach in terms of individual responsibility for ecocide on a widespread scale?

(V) The complexity of ecosystems and the environmental damage caused to them may be difficult to correlate to particular industrial activity at a particular point in time. Whilst the immediate environmental impacts may be obvious, longer term consequences on land, water and living species can only be estimated and therefore, it could potentially create ambiguity around intent to cause widespread harm.

However, despite the limitations outlined above, the case for implementing ecocide as part of the Rome Statue is strong and likely to influence behaviour and attitudinal change around environmental damage. Outlined below are the main points in favour of implementation.

The case for implementation.

(I) The acceptance of its addition as a 5th crime by signatories of the Rome Treaty may signify a cultural change in terms of how we deal with environmental damage. The anthropocentric weighting of the Rome Treaty would benefit from an addition of ecocide and a recognition, that in this time of climate crisis, a fundamental change in treatment of the natural environment is key to addressing climate impacts.

(II) The authority of the ICC is widely recognised and likely to influence legal policy globally. The addition of an ecocide law at this level may add an increased gravity to prosecution of environmental crimes around the world. Furthermore, given that legal instruments can influence policy making, this is likely to be a significant instrument in terms of future policy making.

(III) It is a symbolic and practical shift from the current anthropocentric world view to a different societal paradigm where planetary and human needs are better balanced. Given that human systems have led to climate breakdown and have shown themselves to be ill equipped to tackle climate change in a timely manner, it is important that changing needs begin to be embedded in law and policy.

(IV) The definition of environment as outlined in Figure 1 above is ‘the earth, its biosphere, cryosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, as well as outer space’. This comprehensive definition could potentially be significant in terms of future carbon removal technologies which might possibly create unknown impacts.

(V) The limitations of dealing with environmental crime within the Rome Statute as it currently is, could be addressed by adding the crime of ecocide. Although the Statute recognises environmental destruction, this is within the context of military operations and the consequences thereof. It can be argued that environmental crime is an issue within itself, outside of war time and that the human consequences are so significant that it merits its own addition, particularly in order to tackle environmental damage which is contributing to climate change and biodiversity loss.

In conclusion, there is a strong case for adding ecocide as a crime to the Rome Statute. According to Stop Ecocide International, ecocide ‘is a root cause of the climate and ecological emergency that we now face’. The act of making this a crime, rather than simply a matter of civil suits, is likely to be a deterrent for corporations who are answerable to their shareholders. Some of the potential crimes of ecocide are those that might result from the actions of fossil fuel companies, such as fracking and other extractive processes. The process of implementation requires that an amendment is proposed by one of the signatory countries to the Rome Treaty. A majority vote is then required to approve and enact the amendment. This process in itself would be a clear signal that ecocide is to be seriously considered and once ratified, ecocide must be implemented in each of the ratifying countries (Stop Ecocide International).

Under laws of international jurisdiction, even though there are countries who are not signatories, citizens of those countries may still be prosecuted within the ratifying countries if the crime of ecocide is committed on their soil. This means that the opportunity to cause environmental harm will be more restricted and that the consequences of embarking on damaging projects will need to be seriously considered. In short, implementation of ecocide will give a clear and unequivocal message to potential polluters that there will be consequences and potentially criminal prosecution if environmental damage is likely to occur and there is an awareness of same, as a result of industrial projects. In conclusion, implementing an ecocide law is likely to play an important part in tackling climate change.

(*Originally posted on www.puritybelle.com)

You may also like:

Quarrying and Climate Change: The Impact on Communities

Renaissance of Reuse

Bibliography

Andrei, M. (2019) ‘Long-Term Fate of Agent Orange and Dioxin TCDD Contaminated Soils and Sediments in Vietnam Hotspots’, ZME Science. Available at: https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/agent-orange-continues-to-pollute-vietnam-environment-study-finds/ (Accessed: 7 March 2022).

Aparac, J. (2021) ‘A Missed Opportunity for Accountability? Corporate Responsibility and the Draft Definition of Ecocide’, Völkerrechtsblog. doi: 10.17176/20210709-135824-0.

Barak, G. (2015) ‘Climate Change, ecocide and the crimes of the powerful’, in The Routledge International Handbook of the Crimes of the Powerful. Routledge.

Barnett, J. and O’Neill, S. (2010) ‘Maladaptation’, Global Environmental Change, 20(2), pp. 211–213. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.11.004.

Chiarini, G. (2021) Ecocide and International Criminal Court Procedural Issues: Additional Amendments to the ‘Stop Ecocide Foundation’ Proposal, University College Cork. Available at: https://www.ucc.ie/en/media/academic/law/CCJHRWPSNo15GiovanniChiariniEcocideandtheICCNov2021.pdf (Accessed: 6 March 2022).

Crook, M. and Short, D. (2014) ‘Marx, Lemkin and the genocide–ecocide nexus’, The International Journal of Human Rights, 18(3), pp. 298–319. doi: 10.1080/13642987.2014.914703.

Dan Harvey (2018) The Ecocide Trial., YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2c-usvIsHI (Accessed: 5 February 2022).

Dunlap, A. (2018) ‘The “solution” is now the “problem:” wind energy, colonisation and the “genocide-ecocide nexus” in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, Oaxaca’, The International Journal of Human Rights, 22(4), pp. 550–573. doi: 10.1080/13642987.2017.1397633.

Environmental Crime ‘ecocide’ Back On International Criminal Court’s Agenda (2021) The Irish Times. Available at: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/environmental-crime-ecocide-back-on-international-criminal-court-s-agenda-1.4711088 (Accessed: 11 February 2022).

European Commission (2009) Nature’s Role in Climate Change. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/climate_change/en.pdf (Accessed: 5 February 2022).

Gauger, A. et al. (2013) The Ecocide Project ‘Ecocide is the missing 5th Crime Against Peace’. Human Rights Consortium School of Advanced Study University of London. Available at: https://sas-space.sas.ac.uk/4830/1/Ecocide_research_report_19_July_13.pdf (Accessed: 6 February 2022).

Godin, M. (2021) Lawyers Are Working to Put ‘Ecocide’ on Par with War Crimes. Could an International Law Hold Major Polluters to Account?, Time. Available at: https://time.com/5940759/ecocide-law-environment-destruction-icc/ (Accessed: 13 March 2022).

Greene, A. (2019) ‘The Campaign to Make Ecocide an International Crime: Quixotic Quest or Moral Imperative?’, Fordham Environmental Law Review, 30(3). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1814&context=elr (Accessed: 20 March 2022).

Higgins, P., Short, D. and South, N. (2013) ‘Protecting the planet: a proposal for a law of ecocide’, Crime Law Soc Change, 59(3), pp. 251–266. doi: 10.1007/s10611-013-9413-6.

Hough, P. (2016) ‘Trying to end the war on the world: the campaign to proscribe military ecocide’, Global Security: Health, Science and Policy, 1(1), pp. 10–22. doi: 10.1080/23779497.2016.1208055.

International Criminal Court (no date) The States Parties To The Rome Statute. Available at: https://asp.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/asp/statesparties/pages/thestatespartiestotheromestatute.aspx (Accessed: 23 March 2022).

International Criminal Court, Office of the Prosecutor (2003) Informal expert paper: The principle of complementarity in practice. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/20bb4494-70f9-4698-8e30-907f631453ed/281984/complementarity.pdf (Accessed: 27 March 2022).

IPCC (2022) Summary for Policy Makers, Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edited by H.-O. Pörtner et al. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg2/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf (Accessed: 8 March 2022).

Killean, R. (2021) Prosecuting Environmental Crimes At The International Criminal Court – Is A Crime Of Ecocide Necessary?, IntLawGrrls. Available at: https://ilg2.org/2021/06/30/prosecuting-environmental-crimes-at-the-international-criminal-court-is-a-crime-of-ecocide-necessary/ (Accessed: 20 March 2022).

Lytton, C. H. (2000) ‘Environmental human rights: Emerging trends in international law and ecocide’, Environmental Claims Journal, 13(1), pp. 73–91. doi: 10.1080/10406020009355152.

Mehta, S. and Merz, P. (2015) ‘Ecocide – a new crime against peace?’, Environmental Law Review, 17(1), pp. 3–7. doi: 10.1177/1461452914564730.

Meiners, J. (2020) Ten Years Later, BP Oil Spill Continues To Harm Wildlife—especially Dolphins, National Geographic. Available at: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/how-is-wildlife-doing-now--ten-years-after-the-deepwater-horizon (Accessed: 6 February 2022).

Norton-Smith, K. et al. (2016) ‘Climate change and indigenous peoples: a synthesis of current impacts and experiences’. doi: 10.2737/pnw-gtr-944.

Olson, K. R. and Morton, L. W. (2019) ‘Long-Term Fate of Agent Orange and Dioxin TCDD Contaminated Soils and Sediments in Vietnam Hotspots’, OJSS, 09(01), pp. 1–34. doi: 10.4236/ojss.2019.91001.

Pereira, R. (2020) ‘After the ICC Office of the Prosecutor’s 2016 Policy Paper on Case Selection and Prioritisation: Towards an International Crime of Ecocide?’, Crim Law Forum, 31(2), pp. 179–224. doi: 10.1007/s10609-020-09393-y.

Phillips, S. (2021) Unpacking “ecocide”: A Note Of Caution For International Criminalization, SEI. Available at: https://www.sei.org/perspectives/unpacking-ecocide-international-law/ (Accessed: 11 February 2022).

Stop Ecocide Foundation (2021) Independent Expert Panel for the Legal Definition of Ecocide COMMENTARY AND CORE TEXT. Available at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ca2608ab914493c64ef1f6d/t/60d7479cf8e7e5461534dd07/1624721314430/SE+Foundation+Commentary+and+core+text+revised+%281%29.pdf (Accessed: 22 March 2022).

Stop Ecocide International (no date a) Polly Higgins — Stop Ecocide International, Stop Ecocide International . Available at: https://www.stopecocide.earth/polly-higgins (Accessed: 15 March 2022).

Stop Ecocide International (no date b) What Is Ecocide? — Stop Ecocide International, Stop Ecocide International. Available at: https://www.stopecocide.earth/what-is-ecocide (Accessed: 11 February 2022).

The Office of the Prosecutor (2016) Policy Paper on Case Selection and Prioritisation, International Criminal Court. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/Itemsdocuments/20160915_Otp-Policy_Case-Selection_Eng.Pdf (Accessed: 20 March 2022).

Climate Change Denial and how to Combat it

 Firstly, I'd like to say that this is an opinion piece rather than a research article, although I have tried to reference academic expertise for anyone who would like to delve more deeply into this. Climate change denial is not my area of expertise although I'm fascinated with communication around climate issues and the key role conversations and media portrayals have, in tackling what is not just a scientific problem, but a social and economic problem.

The good news is that climate deniers are very much in a minority. In Ireland 96% of people believe that climate change is happening.^[1]  

  ^{[1] EPA: Climate Change in the Irish Mind}

Similarly, research done by Yale^[2] in the United States shows that just 9% of people are dismissive of climate change.  

Artwork by Michael Sloan 

 The '6 Americas' research is interesting because it captures the wide variety of responses to climate change and the nuanced views on this topic really need to be contextualised within a social context. 

  ^{[2] 6 Americas}

The bad news, I suppose, is that those who are invested in denying climate can often be the most vociferous on social media, which can give a skewed perspective of the larger picture, and lead to an overall impression that climate denial is much more prevalent than it is.  Whilst it's important to remember that many may question climate change based on hearsay or simplistic binary frames that have been presented by the media, there is also a cohort who are deeply embedded in this denial and will actively try to spread it as widely as possible. There are a few different reasons for this - one is that the fossil fuel industry and 'think tanks' like the Heartland Institute, who are largely backed by a very conservative element in society, invest heavily in dissemination of doubt. Robert Brulle, who conducted a study in 2013, which showed that over $125m was spent over 3 years on climate misinformation, describes this as 

 'a well-oiled, complicated, cultural and political machine of the right wing of the conservative movement.' 

Although outright climate denial is becoming more and more difficult to stand over, new techniques as described by Michael Mann^[3] are 'deflection, delay, division, despair mongering, doomism.'

  ^{[3] Climate Deniers Shift Tactics}

These techniques regularly play out over social media, and in the news, with messages like 'we need to think about homelessness first', 'scientists disagree about climate change', 'climate change activists are anti rural or anti farmer'.  The divisions and the deflections can be a very powerful tool, particularly given the complexity of climate science.  It should be noted, also, that those who advocate and share their climate knowledge can often be attacked in a deliberate and consistent way. It seems likely to me that this can work as a deterrent for those who would maybe like to share more openly or frequently, because not everyone is equipped to deal with an onslaught of negativity or agression in online public spaces.

John Cook, in an article from 2017^[4] says that:

'Science denial causes a range of damaging impacts on society. This is particularly the case with climate science denial, which has resulted in strong polarization around a non-controversial scientific issue, and prolific dissemination of climate misinformation.'

Cook discusses the term 'climate sceptic' which he critiques as being invalid, as true scepticism involves an evidence based approach, as opposed to climate denialism,

'which involves denial of inconvenient evidence and eager adoption of pseudo-scientific arguments if they support preconceptions.

He goes on to discuss the connection of acceptance of climate science with political affiliation, which he says has a greater influence than other factors, such as gender, race or economic status, and outlines that:

'Climate science denial is not a coherent, evidence-based worldview—rather, it is a collection of rhetorical arguments pursuing political objectives.'

Countering this denial and misinformation is not an easy task. For some people the misinformation becomes an integral part of their world view, and trying to dislodge this can have a negative effect. Cook suggests than critical thinking and inoculation are useful tools.These perhaps are not so useful in day to day conversations (see original article for details) but are probably techniques that should be employed widely in educational settings.

    ^{[4] Understanding and Countering Climate Science Denial}

Rather than a direct countering of the misinformation, or adding an overload of scientific information, it's sometimes effective to provide a simple factual explanation that reframes the issue.  Personally, I think the semantics contained within misinformation arguments can also be challenged. I would sometimes question why a particular topic is being looked at in a certain light, and suggest an alternative. Fortunately (or unfortunately!),  those who are spreading climate denial are often working off a rehearsed playlist of phrases and ideas, and it can be relatively easy to uncover the lack of solidity behind them. It should be stressed though, that entering into arguments with climate deniers is generally not very productive as they aren't going to shift their world view, but it is necessary sometimes, if others are a witness to their 'fake news', that the position is corrected somewhat.

Katherine Hayhoe, who is the author of 'Saving Us' and who is an excellent source of information for climate communication, put it well in the following tweet below:

In conclusion, although the title of this blog may be somewhat misleading, given that combatting climate denial is not a straightforward exercise, having a greater critical awareness of the context and sources of climate denial is a crucial part of tackling this problem.  This denial is often firmly situated within wider global political agendas, and is well funded and deliberate much of the time.  The links with conspiracy theories and right wing politics are also well documented, as referenced in this article - Climate Change Denial Strongly Linked to Right Wing Nationalism

Having a cognisance of this, regardless of our own political beliefs, and being able to separate the science from the fake narratives, is vital to remaining clear about the precarious position our planet is in currently.  And whilst it may not be worthwhile directly challenging the climate deniers, it is absolutely worthwhile to have conversations around climate change and to spread knowledge as much as possible.