By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A UN special rapporteur is advocating for strict measures to combat the climate crisis, including criminal penalties for climate disinformation and a complete ban on fossil fuel industry lobbying and advertising. The report, presented to the general assembly, argues that wealthy fossil fuel-producing nations are legally obligated to phase out oil, gas, and coal by 2030, compensating communities harmed by climate change and fossil fuel extraction. Morgera emphasizes the need to “defossilize” economies, addressing the widespread human rights violations linked to fossil fuels and urging states to enforce harsh penalties. She highlights the urgent need for transformative action to prioritize human rights over industry profits, emphasizing that transitioning to renewable energy is now a more economically viable and healthier option for societies.
Read the original article here
The conversation surrounding the UN expert’s call to criminalize fossil fuel disinformation and ban lobbying is, to put it mildly, complex. The immediate reaction seems to be a resounding “good luck with that,” as the power dynamics heavily favor the fossil fuel industry. Many feel that such a move is idealistic, given the immense influence these companies wield, potentially surpassing even that of the UN itself. Criminalizing misinformation, some fear, could destabilize economies and open the door to censorship.
The practicality of implementing such a policy is a major concern. The fundamental question becomes: who decides what constitutes “misinformation”? The potential for political weaponization looms large, raising the specter of suppressing dissenting voices and curtailing freedom of speech. Some point to the dangers of a government, any government, controlling the narrative, especially considering how quickly those in power can change. The comparison to historical precedents, like Holocaust denial, also highlights the difficult balance between protecting truth and avoiding the slippery slope of censorship.
However, it’s clear that the current status quo is also unacceptable. The argument is that disinformation is being used as a loophole, actively harming society and jeopardizing the future. The suggestion that fossil fuel companies be banned from UN climate conferences, considering their long-standing dominance, seems overdue to many. There’s a sense of frustration that the very entities contributing to the problem are allowed to participate in the discussions aimed at solving it. This is viewed as a fundamental conflict of interest, undermining the credibility of the process.
The core of the debate circles around balancing the protection of free speech with the need to address demonstrable societal harm. Some argue that disinformation, particularly when it comes to climate change denial and the fossil fuel industry’s long history of misleading the public, should be treated similarly to other forms of harmful speech, such as incitement to violence. The fact that the science is clear on the impact of burning fossil fuels doesn’t seem to be adequately reflected in our legal and societal structures.
There’s a strong undercurrent of skepticism about the UN’s ability to enact such change, with some viewing the call as more symbolic than practical, particularly given the global political climate. The feeling is that the UN’s influence is limited, and it’s up against a formidable opponent in the form of the fossil fuel lobby, with its immense financial resources and political connections. Furthermore, the US, with its strong emphasis on free speech and its powerful fossil fuel industry, would likely resist such measures.
The idea of banning lobbying is presented as a potential solution, aiming to curb the undue influence of special interests on political decisions. It’s seen by some as a necessary step to level the playing field and ensure that policy decisions are made in the public interest, rather than for the benefit of powerful corporations. The problem with the idea of criminalizing lobbying is that it’s seen as impossible and could lead to corruption. The question of if, and how, these measures could be implemented while protecting freedom of speech and expression remains a significant challenge.
There are some who believe we need to face reality and prepare for the future in the face of the looming environmental crisis, even if that means reevaluating expectations and priorities. This includes acknowledging that current efforts may not be enough to avert the worst outcomes. While some see this as “doomerism,” others see it as a pragmatic approach. The focus shifts from denialism to preparation, understanding that the lives we know are changing, and adapting to that reality is crucial.
The discussion also touches on the broader issues of science, critical thinking, and the role of education. It highlights the need for individuals to develop critical thinking skills to discern truth from falsehood and to avoid falling prey to misinformation. Some argue that instead of censoring information, the focus should be on improving education so that people are better equipped to make informed decisions. The role of the media, social sciences, and the way we consume and understand information also is brought into the debate.