Categories
Interviews

Interview with Amy Westervelt – “these strategies were really concocted to help all industries and companies avoid regulation and get around democracy in a variety of ways.”

Amy Westervelt, of Drilled (etc!) kindly agreed to an interview about her new book, Brought to You By: How Corporations Warped the Truth, Conned the Public, and Broke Democracy,

1. Who are you? Where did you grow up and did you have “unstructured minimally/supervised play” in natural settings before the age of 11 (this apparently is a major indicator of adults’ interest/concern for nature). Where were you educated? 

Oh wow interesting! I grew up in Ojai, California, which is a super small town in southern California. When I was growing up it was a hippie town, today it’s sort of a Hollywood weekend town so very different vibes. I did​ have a lot of unstructured play in natural settings as a kid, esp once we moved out of town and up into the mountains when I was about 9. In the summer and on weekends my mom would send my brother and I out of the house around 8 and expect us to be out wandering around the mountain til dinner. I have a twin brother and there were a couple of neighbor kids who were also brother and sister around the same as us with parents equally disinterested in supervising their kids lol. It was a lot of fun and the worst trouble we ever got into was the occasional interaction with poison oak.

2. Do you remember when and how you first heard about carbon dioxide-buildup/”the greenhouse effect”, and what you thought? When did it – well, take over your life? (!) 

I learned about it a little bit throughout high school, but I actually really learned about it when I was doing a random job to make ends meet, writing up case studies for an engineering firm that had redesigned offshore oil platforms for Shell in the 1990s to help prepare for sea level rise. It got me reading about sea level rise and then I was also pretty sure the oil companies weren’t talking about this as a problem at the time…which seemed like a good story for me to pitch as a freelance writer. So I did and wrote about it for a small environmental magazine that no longer exists, and kinda never stopped thinking about it.

But the takeover for me was less about the greenhouse effect and more about the injustice inherent to some small group of people knowing terrible things were coming and that we could stop them, but blocking the whole world from dealing with it. 

3. What is “Drilled”, how did it come to be and why should everyone listen to it? 

Drilled started out as a true-crime podcast about climate change and is now a global newsroom producing both the podcast and cross-border investigations into climate obstruction with a wide range of partner outlets.

It started out because I had been a longtime climate reporter in print and was wishing I could do radio and then thought well I probably could if I learned how, so had gone to work for a radio station. They had trained me in audio reporting, but I was still working as a climate reporter, at the time mostly for The Guardian where I worked on retainer for several years. There was a bit of a narrative podcast boom at the time, driven primarily by the podcast Serial, and I thought there should be something narrative on climate–only a handful of climate pods existed and they were all interview-based, not stories. But I couldn’t think of something that could carry a whole podcast season either.

Then I got assigned to cover one of the early climate liability cases in California, where the cities of Oakland and San Francisco were suing some of the world’s largest oil companies for their role in delaying action on climate change and thus increasing the costs of adaptation for cities. The judge in that case had called for a climate science tutorial — he was an eccentric guy, known for such things – and both legal teams showed up in San Francisco prepared to present on who knew what, when, and what they’d done with that information. All the characters were there: The eccentric judge, the scientists, the slick oil company lawyers, the activists, and I thought “aha! that’s it, I’ll make a true-crime podcast about climate change.”

At the time, people weren’t really talking about climate as a crime so it was somewhat novel and I thought it was a great idea, but none of the podcast companies were interested. They all said there wouldn’t be enough of an audience. I was really convinced they were wrong so I made it anyway with an audio engineer friend and a small seed grant from a nonprofit, and we wound up getting a million listens to our first season, so that proved that there was an audience. By that point I had ideas for the next three seasons and now we’re working on Season 18.

I still think we produce a pretty unique show — a LOT of investigative research goes into it, but a lot story editing and sound design does too, so hopefully it’s both entertaining and informative. 

4. This book – how did it come to be? What is it trying to achieve? What does it do that other books (Ross Gelbspan, Oreskes and Conway) that have looked at climate propaganda didn’t do? 

It had a very circuitous path! I co-hosted a season of the podcast Scene on Radio (highly recommend! they dig into the roots of everything from race to patriarchy, the climate crisis, capitalism and more), and an editor at Bloomsbury listened to the season and really liked it and then found out about Drilled from that and listened to the show, then subscribed to our newsletter and so forth and eventually reached out to me to ask if I’d been working on any book ideas. The idea I initially pitched him was a whole book on Herb Schmertz, the legendary VP of public affairs for Mobil, and one of these days I still want to write that book. BUT understandably he thought it was a bit too niche. So we bounced ideas around for about a year and basically co-wrote the proposal for the book. Which is highly unusual!

I felt like other books had focused on one particular type of propaganda — science denial or PR or lobbying — but none had looked yet at how it al works together. I also thought there’d been this tendency to frame this issue as though one industry figured this stuff out and then another industry copied it, which didn’t jive with the documentation I’d seen. I think it’s helpful for people to see how this works across industries and how these strategies were really concocted to help all industries and companies avoid regulation and get around democracy in a variety of ways. 

5. Tell us a bit about the process – rummaging around in physical and digital archives? Interviews? Etc? What was the most enjoyable and least enjoyable part of the whole process. 

A lot of the research I had already done over the past ten years — I definitely have a bit of an obsession with historical archives and especially visiting them in person, so had been collecting a lot of interesting documents over the years. But to flesh out the book, I did go to quite a few more and yes conducted several interviews. The book is about 370 pages but 100 pages or so are footnotes, because I did pretty exhaustive research and also because I want people to be able to go to primary sources as much as possible, especially if they don’t agree with my take on things. 

6. There’s no point giving you five minutes to discuss your books with anyone in the US administration – they’d either forget what you said or ignore you. So instead, I’ll give you five minutes with Prime Minister Andy Burnham. Let’s say he’s read your book. What ELSE would you say to him? 

I’d tell him to talk to Tessa Kahn of Uplift about why everything he’s said about North Sea oil is wrong

7. What next for Drilled? For Amy Westervelt? 

We’ve got a season coming next month from Nina Lakhani looking at three communities that have been displaced by climate change and what it tells us about current approaches to adaptation, mitigation, and loss and damage; and then two seasons planned after that, one on the intersection between the climate crisis and the tech takeover and one on the absolute scam that is investor-state dispute settlement.

I’m co-producing a scripted film on Herb Schmertz and consulting on a couple of other TV and film projects as well. I actually really want to write a speculative fiction book so might just try to do that even though no one is lining up to publish it.

I don’t know if people realize this but I do all the administrative and operational stuff too and it’s a lot of work. Keeping Drilled going financially requires a lot of work and a lot of stress, it never feels like we can be certain we’ll be around from one year to the next, so definitely looking for ways to make things more stable on that front too. 

8. Any shout outs to other climate journalism, journalism fullstop – people who deserve more attention than they are getting. 

Always! Let’s see, well first I want to make sure to shout out all the other reporters working with Drilled – Alleen Brown, Royce Kurmelovs (who is single-handedly producing a massive amount of Australia’s investigative climate journalism), Nina Lakhani, Diana Taremwa-Karakire in Uganda, Rishika Pardikar in India, Alice de Souza an excellent Brazilian journalist living in the UK, Ana Dominguez in Argentina, Jose Catalayud in Spain, Alex Brutelle in France.

Then I think the folks at the Intercept Brasil are some of the best journalists around. Sharon Lerner does incredible work at ProPublica. Hilary Beaumont all over the place, Sara Sneath at The Guardian. Kendra Pierre-Louis has been doing amazing climate reporting for years. I know I’m immediately going to kick myself for forgetting someone. 

9. Anything else you’d like to say. 

Thank you!

Categories
Australia

November 1, 1953 – Australia strikes oil

Seventy two years ago, on this day, November 1st, 1953,

“The year was 1953. Humanity was venting 6.65bn tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each year, of which Australia contributed 59.43m tonnes, and the very first hole drilled struck oil at a depth of 1100m. Temperatures had risen to 38C in the open air that day and it was 1pm in the afternoon on 1 November 1953 when it happened. The roughnecks working on the rig had stripped back to stay cool in the hot afternoon sun. Earlier in the morning they had run a test and it had taken them about an hour to raise, disconnect and stack each 30m section of pipe. It was heavy, time-consuming work, so no one noticed it at first. When they were done, someone found the floor of the rig was awash with a hot, waxy, kerosene-smelling, green-brown oil. Their find made geological history and William Walkley would go down a legend.”

From Slick by Royce Kurmelovs

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 312ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the second world war led to astonishing advances in transportation, ways of seeing (sonar, radar etc)  in all sorts of “production sciences”. Meanwhile, Australia’s elites were desperately looking for supplies of oil, in case of another (non-atomic) war…

The specific context was that Australia was in a hot war (Korea) and keen to find its own sources of energy.

What I think we can learn from this – is that Royce writes well!

What happened next – you’ll need to read Royce’s book! Hint – those atmospheric concentrations kept going up and up.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

November 1, 1959 – M1 motorway section opened

November 1, 1974 – UK civil servants writing to each other on “Climatology”

November 1, 1975 – Stephen Schneider tries to clear up the “Carbon Dioxide Climate Confusion.”

November 1988 – Australian Mining Journal says C02 is a Good Thing

November 1, 1989 – Senior Australian politician talks on “Industry and Environment”

November 1, 1989 – “Greenhouse Action Australia” launches…

November 1, 2004 – Brilliant “Balance as Bias” article published 

Categories
Academia Propaganda

“Books, books, and more books”: a key climate delayer technique

The battle for the public mind is never-ending. And one of the key weapons remains… wait for it… books.

This below is inspired by reading Royce Kurmelovs’ review of a new tiresome pronuclear abundance tome that makes utterly baseless allegations about the funding behind “Friends of the Earth.” (Full disclosure, Royce is a friend, we’ve collaborated in the past and I had a very minor role in the research of this review).

A book is a “hook” – the author(s) get, er, booked, to appear on radio shows, tv programmes. The book is excerpted in newspapers, which are then quoted by columnists in papers and by politicians in parliament. The book can be the excuse for a tour of cities. The book gets you on podcasts. The book can get turned into instagram posts and tiktok videos.

None of this is new, but it is worth remembering.

Two particular (albeit American) examples should be part of any intelligent media-observer’s toolkit.

The first is the statement by Julian Simon about what the “conservative” movement needed. This from Jane Meyer tells you what you need to know.

His father evidently lost his mother’s fortune, motivating Simon to make his own. On Wall Street, he became a hugely successful partner at Salomon Brothers, where he was an early leader in the lucrative new craze for leveraged buyouts. But what neither Olin nor Simon had was influence over the next generation. “We are careening with frightening speed towards collectivism,” Simon warned.
Only an ideological battle could save the country, in Simon’s view. “What we need is a counter-intelligentsia. … [It] can be organized to challenge our ruling ‘new class’ — opinion makers,” Simon wrote. “Ideas are weapons — indeed the only weapons with which other ideas can be fought.” He argued, “Capitalism has no duty to subsidize its enemies.” Private and corporate foundations, he said, must cease “the mindless subsidizing of colleges and universities whose departments of politics, economics and history are hostile to capitalism.” Instead, they “must take pains to funnel desperately needed funds to scholars, social scientists and writers who understand the relationship between political and economic liberty,” as he put it. “They must be given grants, grants, and more grants in exchange for books, books, and more books.”
Under Simon’s guidance, the Olin foundation tried to fund the new “counterintelligentsia.” At first, it tried supporting little-known colleges where conservative ideas — and money — were welcome. But Simon and his associates soon realized that this was a losing strategy. If the Olin foundation wanted impact, it needed to infiltrate prestigious universities, especially the Ivy League.

Mayer 2016 (emphasis added).

    The second is the Joan Peters debacle. Somebody wrote a book, published under her name in 1984, about how there weren’t any Palestinians in the 19th century – “a land without people for a people without a land” stuff, and the US academics lapped it up. Then along came Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky… I URGE you to read Chomsky’s account, here.

    The beauty of the book technique is that – if it comes from a ‘reputable’ publisher – it gives any old bullshit argument a heft, a solidity, it doesn’t deserve. It sells copies (publisher happy) and the author gets exposure, and bandwidth gets taken up, nonsense talking points get repeated and regurgitated, no matter how many times the book is “demolished” (see Chomsky above)

    See also

      Categories
      Australia

      Richard Gun, South Australian politician, makes first #climate warning, March 1970

      My friend Royce Kurmelovs (you should buy his book Slick: Australia’s toxic relationship with Big Oil, which has been lauded by critics and is short-listed for a Big Award) has a typically stonkingly good article on the Guardian Australia website.

      The Australians who sounded the climate alarm 55 years ago: ‘I’m surprised others didn’t take it as seriously’

      It’s based on two things. First, an interview he did recently with Richard Gun, who was the first Australian politician to say – in Federal Parliament at least — that carbon dioxide build-up was a very serious problem. Gun said this in his maiden speech, in March 1970. Full disclosure, as stated in the Guardian article, it was me who pointed Royce to this fact).

      Second, it takes details from Royce’s book Slick (have you bought it yet? Have you?) about a chemistry professor called Harry Bloom who, a year before Gun’s speech, had told Australian senators pretty much the same thing. The article adds further context to the portion in Slick (which you should buy).

      What do we learn?

      a) People knew enough to be worried (and in some cases quite emphatically so) a very very long time ago.

      b) (Therefore) the problem is only in part about ‘information deficit’.

      c) Royce is a journo to watch, and to learn from.