Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Politics

Climate Denial the Heritage Foundation Way

What happened when the brain behind Project 2025 took the stage at New York Climate Week.

Kevin Roberts.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

New York Times readers were already aghast even before Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts — the man behind Project 2025 — took the stage at the outlet’s Climate Forward event, held during New York’s bustling Climate Week. Normally, this is when famous people including researcher Jane Goodall, Bangladeshi economist Muhammad Yunus, and Rivian CEO R.J. Scaringe would discuss climate solutions before an audience of the thoughtful and well-heeled. Inviting Roberts violated that norm, which may have been the point — nothing draws eyeballs like outrage, and for the Times’ elite liberal readership, bringing Roberts to a climate discussion certainly counts as outrageous. But Roberts’ segment, in which he was interviewed by climate reporter David Gelles, was as revealing as anything the more friendly celebrities had to say.

Not because Gelles exposed Roberts for the climate denier he is, discrediting fossil fuel stooges once and for all. That’s what many hope for from this kind of encounter, but it almost never happens. Gelles did his best, but Roberts was more than up to the challenge of advocating the conservative approach to addressing the warming of the planet (or rather, not addressing it) to a hostile audience.

We’ve come a long way from the time when crude denialists like Senator Jim Inhofe were bringing snowballs to the Senate floor to show that global warming must be a hoax. Roberts said many things that were framed in ways seemingly designed to appeal to liberal principles — he defended scientific skepticism, and claimed that when Project 2025 proposes ending civil service protections for government employees so they can be replaced by political appointees, its intention is to depoliticize the government (“We don’t care whether they’re Democrats or Republicans; we actually want them to be objective”) — but he returned again and again to one conspiracy-tinged notion. Serious climate policy, he argued, is an attack not just by American elites, but rather by an entire global elite against ordinary people, whom they are immiserating with ill-considered ideas not based in science, or even in reality.

While it might seem ironic to hear the head of a think tank with a nine-figure annual budget that comes largely from corporate interests talking like a tribune of the common folk, that’s where Roberts began. He started with a punch in the nose, saying that while he was surprised to get the invitation from the Times, “I’ll go anywhere to talk about how the climate agenda is ending the American dream.” In response to the criticisms of Project 2025, he said, “Rather than take the well-funded agenda of elites in New York and Brussels and in the Chinese Communist Party, why don't we ask the American people?” And those struggling people, he insisted, are being harmed by the transition away from fossil fuels “far more than any of the harms that you would cite from so-called climate change.”

Does that mean he’s a climate denier? Heavens no. “That doesn’t mean that we’re rejecting that humans have an effect on climate; clearly they do,” he said. So climate change is real, but also maybe not; whatever perspective you like, you can decide Roberts agrees with you. He also claimed that according to Heritage’s irrefutable research, there’s just nothing we can do to stop that warming, which isn’t really a problem anyway. “Let’s just take all the ideas of everyone in this room and we implement them with a magic wand,” he said. “Our estimates show, what would the difference in temperature be? Zero point two three degrees Celsius. It's simply not going to make a difference.”

That kind of faux-precision is impossible to adjudicate in the moment, of course, which is why it can be so effective. This is another key theme for Roberts and others like him. “There is this thesis that if the United States leads on climate policy, the world will follow. That hasn't happened,” he said. “In fact, if we eliminate all emissions and pollution in the United States, it has an almost non-measurable impact on pollution and emissions worldwide.” That’s just false — the U.S. is still the second-largest carbon emitter in the world, after China — but if it were true, then why should we bother cutting our emissions, if doing so would have a “non-measurable impact”? There are no benefits, only costs.

The Biden administration, he said, “have made a grave mistake. They have taken the will of elites and they've imposed this on the American people.” And don’t think Roberts is an advocate for the corporate elites that pay his considerable salary; heck no, he’s just a humble reg’lar fella, thinking about the good honest folk who have no one to speak for them. “I see public policy through the lens of working-class people,” he insisted. “Our perspective at Heritage is on behalf of not just ordinary Americans but the global poor who are damaged by these policies.” The global poor.

What Roberts offers is climate denial without guilt. The details of increasing temperatures and their effects on people in the present and future are quickly minimized, then the focus shifts to imaginary harms to the vulnerable not from climate change but from climate action. Every emissions reduction proposal is dismissed as an indulgence of repugnant elitists, leaving only one moral alternative: to do nothing about climate change except burn more fossil fuels.

Presenting climate denial as an act of selflessness might seem appalling, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t attractive. If you want to hold to outright denialism, Roberts is with you. But if you admit that climate change is happening, he’s got you covered; what matters is that we shouldn’t do anything about it, because inaction is the real way to care for the vulnerable and fight back against the nefarious forces holding the world in their grip. The chutzpah is jaw-dropping, but it would be a mistake to think no one will find this argument attractive.

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
AM Briefing

Exxon Counterattacks

On China’s rare earths, Bill Gates’ nuclear dream, and Texas renewables

An Exxon sign.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Current conditions: Hurricane Melissa exploded in intensity over the warm Caribbean waters and has now strengthened into a major storm, potentially slamming into Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Jamaica as a Category 5 in the coming days • The Northeast is bracing for a potential nor’easter, which will be followed by a plunge in temperatures of as much as 15 degrees Fahrenheit lower than average • The northern Australian town of Julia Creek saw temperatures soar as high as 106 degrees.

THE TOP FIVE

1. Exxon sued California

Exxon Mobil filed a lawsuit against California late Friday on the grounds that two landmark new climate laws violate the oil giant’s free speech rights, The New York Times reported. The two laws would require thousands of large companies doing business in the state to calculate and report the greenhouse gas pollution created by the use of their products, so-called Scope 3 emissions. “The statutes compel Exxon Mobil to trumpet California’s preferred message even though Exxon Mobil believes the speech is misleading and misguided,” Exxon complained through its lawyers. California Governor Gavin Newsom’s office said the statutes “have already been upheld in court and we continue to have confidence in them.” He condemned the lawsuit, calling it “truly shocking that one of the biggest polluters on the planet would be opposed to transparency.”

Keep reading...Show less
Red
The Aftermath

How to Live in a Fire-Scarred World

The question isn’t whether the flames will come — it’s when, and what it will take to recover.

Wildfire aftermath.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

In the two decades following the turn of the millennium, wildfires came within three miles of an estimated 21.8 million Americans’ homes. That number — which has no doubt grown substantially in the five years since — represents about 6% of the nation’s population, including the survivors of some of the deadliest and most destructive fires in the country’s history. But it also includes millions of stories that never made headlines.

For every Paradise, California, and Lahaina, Hawaii, there were also dozens of uneventful evacuations, in which regular people attempted to navigate the confusing jargon of government notices and warnings. Others lost their homes in fires that were too insignificant to meet the thresholds for federal aid. And there are countless others who have decided, after too many close calls, to move somewhere else.

By any metric, costly, catastrophic, and increasingly urban wildfires are on the rise. Nearly a third of the U.S. population, however, lives in a county with a high or very high risk of wildfire, including over 60% of the counties in the West. But the shape of the recovery from those disasters in the weeks and months that follow is often that of a maze, featuring heart-rending decisions and forced hands. Understanding wildfire recovery is critical, though, for when the next disaster follows — which is why we’ve set out to explore the topic in depth.

Keep reading...Show less
The Aftermath

The Surprisingly Tricky Problem of Ordering People to Leave

Wildfire evacuation notices are notoriously confusing, and the stakes are life or death. But how to make them better is far from obvious.

Wildfire evacuation.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

How many different ways are there to say “go”? In the emergency management world, it can seem at times like there are dozens.

Does a “level 2” alert during a wildfire, for example, mean it’s time to get out? How about a “level II” alert? Most people understand that an “evacuation order” means “you better leave now,” but how is an “evacuation warning” any different? And does a text warning that “these zones should EVACUATE NOW: SIS-5111, SIS-5108, SIS-5117…” even apply to you?

Keep reading...Show less