Whether or not the backers are directly linked to the oil industry, they reflect how
the fight over energy policy remains highly polarized, well financed (on both sides), and — so far — has resulted in few policies that oil markets or the climate system are likely to notice any time soon.
Not exact matches
I agree with Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that climatology is a young field that developed for decades out of the limelight, and that has suddenly been thrust into the heart of a multi-trillion-dollar
fight over national and global
energy policy.
Such moments of consensus are rarely visible given how the heated
fight over climate and
energy policy is mainly shaped, particularly in Washington, as a political tug of war.
If the context behind the arguments is not included, the public just sees dispute, and can simply lump a science
fight with those
over abortion, gun rights,
energy policy and other issues framed by ideology or values as much as (or more than) data.
Here's an excerpt from one of my previous posts laying out how the
fight over climate - related
energy policy is incredibly lopsided regardless of who's spending more money:
They all are talking about an end to the rhetoric of catastrophe that permeates the
fight over energy and climate
policy.
The
fight over clean
energy and climate
policy in California is dripping with out - of - state oil money because the oil billionaires want to stamp out the progress that has been made to move toward clean
energy and
energy efficiency, and keep us addicted to their fossil fuels.