A couple meta-thoughts about this story:

It was always a mistake to accept the weaponization of the word "misinformation". The word "propaganda" already existed and was broadly understood. Everyone knew that governments, industries, the media, and civic groups engaged in propaganda -- one-sided information intended to convince people of a particular view. If we were media-savvy, we'd acknowledge that we're awash in propaganda and try to sort through it, along with plain facts and observations, to arrive at our own perspective.

But I think the word "misinformation" was introduced as a cynical, Orwellian way to convince people to believe one side's propaganda, without question. In this framework, there is "the truth", opposed by so much devious misinformation. Unfortunately, because the people who love using the term are not acting in good faith, today's misinformation can be tomorrow's truth, and vice versa. In other words, it's a term used by the powerful to silence debate and manufacture consent.

Climate scientist, Michael Mann, is a great example of someone who weaponizes the word. Mann will accuse anyone who doubts whether our political system, or capitalism, will be able to achieve the stretch goals in the Paris Agreement as an agent of Russian/fossil-fuel-company misinformation. He's able to get away with such a sloppy dismissal of criticism because many people have bought into the framing of "misinformation" vs "the truth" (often, the peer-reviewed scientific truth). The sleight-of-hand is the implication that those who represent the truth (or the science) are beyond reproach, driven by pure reason and logic.

I hope that most people are starting to see through this cynical weaponization of language. And if you find yourself reaching to use the word "misinformation" as a cudgel (because our leaders and media figures do it), stop and consider what you're really trying to express, and why.

Another thought about this news story:

It's important to be careful how we frame objection to these industrial projects. For instance, I'm reminded of the indigenous-lead anti-pipeline protests in North Dakota. I always thought it was a misstep to call themselves "water protectors" and emphasize that they were encamping because they wanted to prevent potential oil pollution running into the rivers. This framing gave the system (represented by politicians, regulators, oil companies, and their enablers) a way out -- the system could say, "ok, we'll reroute the pipeline away from the river". Or, "ok, we hired unbiased experts to do an extensive, scientific environmental study that proves there's no threat to the water supply". And these arguments could essentially nullify the main objection that the protesters presented. (ultimately, The System, embodied by President Obama, essentially said "our need for oil overrides your fear of pollution", and crushed the resistance)

I understand the reasoning behind calling yourself a "water protector". After all, who would be opposed to clean water?! But that's just the point. The System as a whole also agrees with protecting water, and it will find ways of accommodating or deflecting concerns and mitigating damage, while also continuing it's rapacious march across the landscape.

If you want to oppose a pipeline, or a transmission line, or a battery storage facility, don't appeal to logic and values that are compatible with The System. If you say you're worried about a fire risk, they'll say they'll install sprinklers. If you say it'll be too loud, they'll come back to you with decibel measurements and scientific studies about safe volume levels. And on and on.

Instead, (and this is probably controversial or edgy to think about) tap into deeper values that you know to be true but can't prove scientifically: This project, and all projects like it, are a desecration of the environment. The political/financial system which pursues technological "progress" is based on a cannibalistic delusion of infinite growth, subjugating and eradicating the more-than-human world in the process. These projects represent and enable an extractive way of life that is fundamentally out of balance with the web of creation. I oppose it because it is evil, along with those who profit from the destruction of life.

The System might simply ignore or dismiss such arguments, because it doesn't have morals or know how to deal with them. But for those who oppose the encroachment of the technological system, in all its gruesome forms, it's good to clarify where the opposition comes from. Are we really just worried about decibel levels, or is it deeper than that? And if it is deeper, can we have the courage to express our values, in our own particular ways?

November, 2025