Newsflash: You can't trust the fossil fuel industry

I feel I'd be neglecting my duties to those few readers of mine who don't read enough other sources if I didn't at least mention Andy Revkin's piece in today's New York Times. An anonymous lawyer slipped him, in what would have once arrived in a brown paper envelope, a document unearthed in a California lawsuit. It doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know, generally speaking, but it's always good to be able to point to specific evidence when you summarily dismiss an entire industry as untrustworthy.

Here's what a coalition of coal, oil and auto industries said their scientific advisers told them about climate change back in the 1990s:

"The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood... scientists differ" on the issue.

And here's what the coalition's advisers actually told them:

The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied.

Again, the fact that industry would misrepresent science is not news. Especially not when it's industries that make their money by producing fuels that emit greenhouse gases and the science is climate change. It's sad to note that the coalition in question included the auto industry, which could have embraced the reality of global warming long ago and helped spur the transformation to renewable and clean fuels, a transformation that we might have waited too long to set in motion. If it had, Detroit would probably still be on the verge of bankruptcy, but who knows?

Andy's story is here, and the smoking gun, if you can call it that, is here. There's not much else in the newly uncovered document that qualifies as newsworthy and I disagree with Greenpeace media director Glen Hurowitz's characterization of the story as "blockbuster." A group of scientists working for industry summarizes the state of climate change science, emphasizing at every opportunity the uncertainty of the few conclusions that can be drawn and the inadequacy of the empirical and analytical tools available in 1995.

Yawn.

But there is a lesson for those who haven't learned it already: don't trust people with vested interests.

I'll give the last word to Hurowitz, who has a vested interest, too, although it would be silly to compare his (promoting an organization devoted to supporting environmentally sustainable technologies and practices) to the fossil fuel industry's (making money):

I'm sure the oil and coal industries have a memo somewhere that will come out in 15 years showing that, in fact, their economists knew the environmentalists were right all along: a clean energy economy will in fact boost GDP, create millions of new clean energy jobs, and save consumers money on their electricity bills.

But until that memo comes out, they're going to continue peddling totally concocted junk economics about dirty energy to reporters - and impede the creation of the clean energy economy.

It's time for journalists to learn from experience that no matter what your instincts or how slick and knowing the industry flacks seem, they cannot be trusted. They can't be trusted when they say tobacco is safe, they can't be trusted when they deny the need for seat belts, they can't be trusted when they deny the dangers of climate change, and they most certainly can't be trusted when it comes to the new green economy.