Two more degrees are not a big deal. A history of climate denialism» (Editorial Cátedra). 20 years ago that sounded like something far away. Today, however, to something too close. Already in 2024, pre-industrial levels were exceeded by about 1.55°C.
Are there fewer deniers than before or have they changed tactics in the face of reality?
No, what there has been is an evolution in their strategies. Since current climate change can no longer be denied, we move from explicit denialism to retardation with messages such as “there are emissions, but we have technological alternatives to advance in their capture.” I wish it could be done, but it’s impossible. 0.1-0.2% of emissions of tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) are being captured and in 2024 we will emit 38 million. They also send a message that regulations will destroy economic activity.
When did the first denialist voices emerge in 1950 or 1970?
Between 1955 and 1960. There were already scientists who were talking about the subject, but with the problems of air pollution in Los Angeles, the American Petroleum Institute financed research by Keeling, who demonstrated an increase in the concentration of CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels. In 1959, a conference was held in New York and it was there that Teller explained that if we use fossil fuels we will generate climate change. And that is where the sector begins to position itself in radical climate denialism.
How does denialism affect health?
The combustion of fossil fuels has carcinogenic effects, in addition to generating respiratory, cardiovascular, brain and reproductive system problems. Then there are global and long-term effects of climate change due to heat waves, droughts, etc. And also due to extreme weather phenomena such as DANA in 2024. There have always been floods. But climate change made it 15-20% more intense than it would have been. And then there are important indirect health effects.
What do you think about so many Climate Change Summits (COP)?
At this moment, unfortunately, every COP process is a failed process. These summits have ceased to have their function. It must also be said that without COPS current emissions would be higher. Another important detail of why the COPS has not advanced is because of the petrostates. State fossil fuel corporations are 77% owned by governments.
In his book he explains that most fossil fuel companies recorded higher production in the 7 years after the Paris Agreement than in the 7 before that date. By?
Because they want to take advantage of every last drop of what the system allows them to use. They continue with their model of blocking renewables and electric vehicles. But it is also linked to the fact that in 1990 there were 5,000 million people and 400 million vehicles. In 2024 there will be more than 8.2 billion and more than 1.4 billion vehicles. Primary energy consumption has doubled in the last 25-35 years.
With what denialism do you place Trump with his statement “Climate change is the biggest scam ever perpetrated”?
It is a representation of basic American denialism. Explicitly deny it to maintain your interests.
In his book he explains that the FAO went on to say that livestock emissions were responsible for 18% of GHG emissions in 2006 to 14.5% in 2013 and 12% in 2015 according to the FAO 2023 report. Not so many people have become vegan… Why is that?
It was due to a problem with the emissions methodology. The FAO did not follow the IPCC guidelines, but rather the life cycle analysis.
Why has the impact of methane generated by cows been exaggerated?
To divert attention from the main cause: the use of fossil fuels. I haven’t been able to find out who blamed the cow belching, but I’m convinced of it.