A counter-movement of anthropogenic climate change acceptance has lead to the controversy across the globe and especially in the US. Since the US has recently been declared oligarchical (Princeston, 2014) it has shed some light on the agenda of the “Elite”. The carbon industry is one of the largest economic drivers and is effectively keeping the global infrastructure running due to the amount of applications relying on it. To give you some perspective on our dependency on oil, we use it for gas, plastics, fertilizers, food preservatives, clothing etc…
Climate change opposes the oligarchical agenda at a fundamental level, describing naturally that CO2 is indeed a major cause of climate change. The case for climate change has been building exponentially as we continue to develop and this is frightening news for large businesses that are dependent upon non-renewable resources. It’s also frightening for consumers to learn that their favourite products are directly influencing a change in climate and this alone provides insecure justifications for buying these products over ethical consumer responsibility.
A lot of funding has gone into campaigns against the acceptance of anthropogenic effects on the environment and climate. The amount of which is yet unknown because of anonymous funding from the companies who’re producing goods heavily dependent on carbon-based fuels, however we can speculate over $500,000,000 – $2,000,000,000.
The situation is very much like the lead market in the late 60’s to early 70’s where propaganda and a lot of money was spread by corporations to say that lead was perfectly fine and even healthy for people. Lead was being used as energy, paint and even toys! However, Clair Patterson a geochemist opposed them whilst researching the effects of lead within the atmosphere after hearing about various accounts of people falling ill unexplainably. The court case went on for years until Patterson provided the court with sufficient evidence which was arguably achieved with his assumption.
The US is a large country and there’s not a lot of education surrounding climate change within primary and secondary education. There’s even been speculation of educational authorities trying to remove key aspects of climate science in existing curriculum’s. Perhaps another campaign to induce denial. Graduates of school and other higher education simply don’t understand the science behind the climate, so when contrarian scientists provide pseudo facts and figures they could potentially find relief in hearing they’re not to blame, perpetuating consumer ignorance.
This will change in time as more public figures and scientists speak out against climate change denial. As these corporations clearly have an unsustainable business model for the future, they will hopefully see sense and eventually branch out into renewable sources of energy or simply fade out along with the resources.
Douglas Fischer, T. (2014). “Dark Money” Funds Climate Change Denial Effort. [online]. Available at:
Testing Theories of American Politics : Elites, Interest Groups , and Average Citizens. (2014). Princeton. [online] Available at:
Wikipedia, (2014). Clair Cameron Patterson. [online] Available at: