The Dangerous Politics of Denial and Erasure

Of the wide range of human coping mechanisms, denial seems like one of the most problematic. Perhaps it had evolutionary value when hunters needed to go after dangerous prey so they could convince themselves that everything would turn out fine, but I’ll leave this discussion up to the psychologists and anthropologists. In the policy world, denial works as a handy tool to escape responsibility and precaution, and an effortless way to use its close cousin, “avoidance” to resist knowledge, history, or facts that could disrupt the status quo. As we witness the aggressive dismantling of public institutions in the United States, coupled with attacks on science and knowledge itself, the public needs to monitor and refute the erasure, and continue to press for decision-making where facts, democratic process, and logic play the leading role.

As noted in earlier posts, the new U.S. regime is embracing climate denial with a passion and frenzy. The direction was set when the EPA administrator stated that an agency priority was “driving a dagger through the heart of climate change religion” (whatever that means). Since then, the EPA and other federal agencies have been pressed to rapidly discard the tools of science that help us understand and respond to the climate crisis.

In early April the Trump administration announced its intention to suspend monitoring and reporting requirements for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses from most major U.S. sources, including oil refineries, power plants and coal mines as well as those that make petrochemicals, cement, glass, iron and steel. But, suspending reporting will not make the emissions go away, nor their impact, and it hamstrings the analysis of climate impacts and global and local effects. It’s like telling a patient, “we’re not going to monitor your vital signs, because we might find something we don’t want to deal with, so just ignore those uncomfortable and potentially fatal symptoms.”

On April 29, the nearly 400 scientists who work on the congressionally mandated U.S. National Climate Assessment  (NCA) received an email from the deputy director of services of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) informing them that the agency is “now releasing all current assessment participants from their roles." CBS news reported:  “The move doesn't come as a major surprise as Project 2025 outlined a plan to reshape the report and the office that organizes it…In Project 2025, a policy roadmap outlined by the Heritage Foundation for the next Republican president, authors argued that bureaucratic offices like USGCRP should not have so much control and reports like NCA should include "diverse viewpoints." 

Issued every four years, the NCA report is a vital analysis of trends and projections that provides governments and the private sector with guidance on how to plan, prepare for, and mitigate risks and threats. If the required 2027 report comes out, we can only imagine who will write it. Within days of their dismissal, the scientists had rallied with a “plan B.” On May 3, Guardian U.S. reported:, “The American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the American Geophysical Union (AGU) said that they will work together to produce more than 29 peer-reviewed journals that will cover all aspects of climate change, including observations, projections, impacts, risks, and solutions. (See details and related stories on Mother Jones Climate Desk.)       

Denial and dismissal aren’t new tactics. Intentionally squashing data and research is part of an old playbook, and these latest actions reminded me of a 2018 plan for creative data denial here in Wisconsin. As most of us in the Great Lakes region know, the lakes play a significant role in shaping our climate and seasonal weather. In the western Great Lakes basin, a common summer atmospheric pattern pulls air northwest from the Chicago-Gary region across Lake Michigan to eastern Wisconsin. As a result, regional air pollution—especially excessive  ground-level ozone—can make local air unhealthy to breathe, even in breezy northern shoreline communities like Sheboygan. This can be a serious issue for anyone with a respiratory illness or heart disease, and even healthy athletes shouldn’t be running outdoors when conditions reach alert levels.

That summer, Sheboygan officials got weary of the local air quality alerts when these air masses rolled in because the pollution levels trigger stricter local air quality practices and restrict new developments that could make conditions worse. “After all,” they would argue, “we didn’t cause this problem!” Fair enough. However, their solution was to seek to shut off the air monitoring station near Sheboygan. No data, no problem! They even persuaded the  Wisconsin state Senate to pass a bill that would allow shutting down the ozone monitor in Sheboygan County’s Kohler-Andrae State Park on Lake Michigan. This proposal ultimately failed, but it is a brassy example of how desperately they wanted to avoid the difficult truth.

Air monitoring station at Kohler-Andrae State Park (Wisconsin DNR image)

This year, thanks, in part to that monitoring station and a network of them throughout the region, we learned about troubling trends. On April 30, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported “Milwaukee once again ranked among the worst metro areas in the country for ozone-polluted air, according to a new report by the American Lung Association. Milwaukee placed 26th worst out of 228 cities for ozone pollution, right behind Sheboygan, the 24th worst.” While this may not be cheerful news, it is valuable news, because it affirms that we have a regional problem that needs a better regional-scale solution. The data allows us to assess a public health threat and to inform decisions about how to address it.

Alas, with an issue at the scale of climate change, our deniers in chief are taking steps to blindfold scientists, policymakers, and the public by preventing agencies from gathering or reporting vital data that could help prevent disasters and reduce risk. Willful ignorance is a cruel and vengeful form of governing. Who benefits from killing research and deleting data? Not you, or me, or the world’s children. The robber barons and oligarchs might do well to remember that King Midas’ gold was a curse.

Whether it is the quality of the air we breathe, or the complex dynamics of temperature, precipitation and climate trends that are stressing the ecological vitality of the Great Lakes, we need good science, and diligent public servants to help us navigate the uncertain waters ahead. Keep reminding your elected officials.

—Jane Elder

GLEN welcomes diverse perspectives on Great Lakes protection. Please note that the views in our posts are those of the author. To subscribe to this blog, go to greatlakestogether.substack.com