Colorado Used Strategic Rhetorical Strategies to Kill Climate Labels
Colorado, following Hawaii, introduced HB 25-1277 that would require oil companies to disclose the climate and health effects from gasoline and diesel fuels. The bill was effectively killed by the usual chorus of fossil fuel industry opposition. But lawmakers were part of the reasonable sounding chorus opposing Colorado’s pioneering action to regulate fossil fuel markets for their hidden climate effects. Governor Jared Polis’ spokesperson responded to HB 25-1277 by stating Colorado has already “cut hundreds of millions of metric tons of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions since 2010” and is “committed to proven strategies that are good” for everyone. Obviously forcing the oil industry to disclose the health and climate harms from burning gasoline to the public would not be so good for the industry. But the governor’s statement ignores the strategic intent of the labeling program. Preliminary research for gas pump warning labels shows they engage mainstream concerns about fossil fuel-driven climate change which can motivate the driving public to consider cleaner alternatives to conventional gas and diesel as part of an overall plan to reduce emissions in transportation. Colorado, to reach its emissions reduction goals, will lean on electrification which it is assumed consumers will freely choose in the future, en masse, and without further incentives.
The Colorado governor, without evidence, concluded he was “skeptical of the labeling requirements”. Despite numerous lawsuits accusing the fossil fuel industry for its repeated failure to warn the public of the hidden health and climate effects of its product and Colorado stated interest to reduce transportation emissions as their largest source of greenhouse gas, lawmaker and oil interests in Colorado effectively erased a basic tenet of the labeling program — to reach its emissions goals in transportation, Colorado will ultimately depend on a permanent consumer shift away from fossil fuel.
Indeed, the opposing rhetorical strategy of the Colorado fossil fuel industry, in unison with political leaders, effectively called the labels progressive overreach and an attempt to shame people. Although there is no evidence the labels would provoke an angry mob, the rhetoric effectively distorted their popular support and how the program mobilizes popular concern about the health effects from fossil fuel-burning in particular (read Dr. Gregg Sparkman’s interview on this here).
But a key aspect of Colorado’s rhetorical strategies to foreclose a much needed regulation beyond Democrats not wanting to look sissified as the Trump Administration emasculates climate science, is that none of it relied on tired climate denial tropes. The opposition's rhetoric in fact, was on board with mainstream climate science if not ever mentioning climate change, while effectively obstructing the urgent need for bold policies. What happened in Colorado is what scholars are increasingly observing is a politically dominant and mainstream denial of the urgency of climate change that exists in both the political left and right. These “politics of delay” fully acknowledge the existence of manmade climate change while defensively, they delay policies that would meaningfully address it.
We believe these politics played a key role in making it easier for the fossil fuel industry to oppose the climate labeling bill in Colorado. My study of climate policy discourse published last month shows how the fossil fuel industry, in collaboration with politicians, has employed specific rhetorical strategies to obstruct effective climate governance at the state level. The results showed Governor Polis' statement of opposition to the bill used the most commonly applicable rhetorical technique found in the study to delay more-direct climate action; “emphasizes the downsides” and “response skepticism”. This rhetoric aligned with mainstream political antipathies toward state intervention and deregulatory sentiments in both liberals and conservatives.
Even though personal action to address climate change, like purchasing an EV for their next vehicle, which is a state interest, is not a top priority amongst the broader public, the economic skepticism and anti-regulatory values shared by Polis’ audience are leveraged to block a tool to address consumer apathy and manage a key environmental injustice. Which illustrates an important subcategory found in the study, “policy perfectionism”, of rhetorical strategies utilized to delay climate action. While no studies have been done to date on the label's effectiveness in reducing actual greenhouse gas emissions, it is important to note that comprehensive emissions reductions in this sector will be multi-causal, including greater investments in public infrastructure and the public adopting new clean transport technology. Real emissions reduction due to the labels will likely be modest, considering the various factors that will contribute to Colorado’s emissions reduction goals for transportation. What we do know is the labels can make people feel “personally obligated ‘to do their part’ in the broader societal transition away from fossil fuel”, according to Dr(s). Sparkman and Stephanopoulos. That is, because the labels are supported by majorities, they would place a new social pressure on drivers to choose cleaner alternatives to fossil fuel. Also a public interest. But the governor’s rhetorical strategy made the labels need to be perfectly-crafted solutions and “supported by all affected parties”, as noted in the study. We can already see Colorado’s fossil fuel industry does not support them.
~ James Brooks and Phoenix Eskridge-Aldama
