Answer:
One thing distinguishing the US Congress that just passed landmark climate legislation: 7% fewer “climate deniers” than the previous session, and 23% fewer than the Congress convened less than six years ago, according to a running tally.
That may have helped pave the way for the country’s first major climate law since the initial Congressional hearing was held on the topic four decades ago. If denying there’s a problem is no longer an option, and the argument you’re left with is this isn't the right time to act, that may not exactly resonate when people are enduring unprecedented heatwaves, wildfires, and deadly floods linked to climate change.
This shift in approach in the US mirrors trends elsewhere.
An analysis of “right-leaning” UK newspaper editorials found that the percentage naysaying climate action dwindled during the past decade, as the number advocating for more action swelled. In the EU, climate change only ranked third among the most serious perceived problems in a 2009 poll, but advanced to first last year. And voters in every federal seat in Australia now support increased action on climate change, according to survey results published last year.
Climate change denialism may not be an official casualty of climate crisis just yet. But its demise is being hastened by a growing awareness of the cost of complacency.
A few years after a Swedish scientist suggested in 1896 that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide will raise Earth’s surface temperature, his theory was knocked down by a peer and went dormant for decades.
A brief newswire item in 1969 noted that scientists had “warned the human race” about pollution’s impact on the climate. That year, an adviser to US President Richard Nixon argued in a memo that the “carbon dioxide problem” might be one that can seize the imagination of voters “normally indifferent to projects of apocalyptic change.” He suggested the administration get involved.
As people began to realize the scientists alarmed by global warming might know what they’re talking about, denialism gained momentum and generous financial backing.
The benign-sounding Global Climate Coalition appeared in 1989. A few years later the US lobbying group issued a press release emphasizing that some scientists think “the world’s climate is naturally, gradually cooling.” In the lead-up to negotiations for a global climate agreement in Kyoto in 1997, the group placed an advertisement calling it a “bad deal for America.” The US opted out.
Abundant denialism carried into the next century. A form of news reporting that both-sidesed the “debate” by portraying denialists as independent thinkers, despite evidence to the contrary, didn’t help.
HOPE THIS HELPS!