dollars

If you were going to pick a single issue whose treatment exemplifies the forces at work in this midterm election, the best choice would be one over which there’s been relatively little contention — climate change.

That’s not because there is any broad agreement among the candidates on the severity of global warming or human activity’s contribution to it. To the contrary, the question seldom has been discussed in this campaign because views on it have become utterly politicized. Skepticism about human technology’s role in accelerating climate change, and doubt concerning the phenomenon’s very existence, have become, at least on the Republican side, a matter of lock-step partisan orthodoxy.

For example, 19 of the 20 GOP candidates who are in closely contested races and have expressed a position on the issue say they have doubts about the scientific evidence for global warming, despite the overwhelming consensus among scientists. That includes Arizona’s John McCain, who formerly supported legislation to reduce carbon emissions. Mark Kirk of Illinois, who voted for cap-and-trade as a congressman, is the lone Republican holdout. Some of the other senatorial candidates express ambivalence about the science but firmly reject any legislative or regulatory remedy; more agree with Louisiana’s David Vitter, who calls the evidence for climate change “pseudo-science garbage.”

Recent polls show just how deeply partisan the split over global warming has become, and how closely it conforms to the deep fissures that have reshaped this year’s electoral landscape. A survey by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, for instance, found that over the last four years, the percentage of Americans who believe there’s solid scientific evidence for climate change has declined from 79% to 59%. In 2006, half of us believed that global warming was caused by human activities; today, only 34% do. An Opinion Research Corp. survey found that while 82% of Democrats feel the United States should take a leading role in addressing global warming, only 39% of Republicans now do.

In part, public opinion researchers agree, the rise of the “tea party” movement accounts for both the growing skepticism and the demand, which we now can recognize as characteristic, for ideological conformity. In its survey, for example, Pew found that 70% of self-described tea party sympathizers don’t believe there’s convincing evidence that the Earth is warming. A New York Times/CBS poll found that only 14% of tea party supporters say that “global warming is an environmental problem that is having an effect now.” Opinion Research reported that only 27% of tea party adherents support the idea of America taking a leading role on the problem.

The New York Times also has documented among some tea party adherents a strong streak of religious objection to the reality of climate change. As Norman Dennison, one of the group’s Indiana founders, told the paper, global warming “is a flat-out lie…. I read my Bible. He made this Earth for us to utilize.” Another Indiana tea party member asserted that “being a strong Christian, I cannot help but believe the Lord placed a lot of minerals in our country, and it’s not there to destroy us.”

The fundamentalist delusion, whether about the Constitution or theology, and demands for a purified orthodoxy are defining characteristics of this campaign. When it comes to the politicization of a purely scientific question — climate change — so too is the role of money quietly or covertly dispensed by big business and the self-interested rich. Some of the tea party’s biggest funders, including Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, are creatures of the oil and coal companies. They’ve also supported virtually the entire network of fringe scientists, think tanks and publishers who over the past few years have raised a host of spurious questions and allegations concerning the consensus on climate change among reputable scientists.

They’re the same individuals and companies putting up big money to support Proposition 23, which would gut California’s attempts to reduce carbon emissions. Koch Industries and Murray Energy Corp. already are major givers to the U.S. Senate’s biggest deniers, including James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), who has called global warming “the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”

Think back to the billions Big Tobacco spent on the long guerrilla war to stave off regulation of its death-dealing products and you’ve pretty much got the picture here, though this time around, the corporate manipulators are hoping that they’ve co-opted the climate skeptics in order to fill the oil and coal companies’ coffers for years to come.

timothy.rutten@latimes.com

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department recovered $2.3 million in cryptocurrency ransom that Colonial Pipeline paid to hackers whose cyberattack last month shut down its major East Coast pipeline, leading to gas shortages up and down the East Coast, authorities said.

Deputy Atty. Gen. Lisa Monaco said the FBI on Monday seized the majority of the ransom that Colonial Pipeline paid to hackers who used malware developed by DarkSide, a Russia-linked hacking group, to encrypt and lock up the company’s computer systems. The company, which Monaco credited with quickly alerting the FBI to the attack, said it paid the hackers $4.4 million in bitcoin to regain access to its systems.

“Today we turned the tables on DarkSide,” Monaco said, calling such ransomware attacks an “epidemic” that poses a “national security and economic threat” to the U.S. “This was an attack against some of our most critical infrastructure.”

Though the malware did not affect systems that operate the company’s pipelines, which stretch from New Jersey to Texas, Colonial discovered the hack on May 7 and closed its spigots for five days out of an abundance of caution. The pipeline supplies about 45% of the jet fuel, gasoline and heating oil consumed on the East Coast, and the shutdown sparked panic from drivers, who raced to top off tanks, leading gas stations to run out of fuel.

The Justice Department did not disclose how much Colonial paid in ransom, but the company’s chief executive told the Wall Street Journal last month that it made a $4.4-million payment in bitcoin. Colonial CEO Joseph Blount said the company paid the extortion demand because he was concerned a prolonged disruption of the pipeline would hurt the nation.

“I know that’s a highly controversial decision,” Blount told the newspaper. “I didn’t make it lightly. I will admit that I wasn’t comfortable seeing money go out the door to people like this.”

Ransomware hackers typically trick unwitting employees into opening an email and clicking on an attachment or a link, which then infects computer servers with malware that encrypts data and locks the systems. Victims must pay a ransom to the hackers to obtain a decryption key to unlock and recover the information. DarkSide’s malware poses a double whammy — it can also siphon out information, giving hackers more leverage because they can threaten to disclose sensitive data if they are not paid.

FBI Deputy Director Paul Abbate said DarkSide produces ransomware that it sells to hackers who conduct cyberattacks and share a percentage of their proceeds with the malware’s developers. DarkSide’s product is one of about 100 ransomware variants the FBI is investigating, Abbate said.

The bureau has been investigating DarkSide since last year, Abbate said, and has identified more than 90 victims of its ransomware in manufacturing, legal, insurance and healthcare industries. Working with other U.S. government agencies, the FBI identified “a virtual currency wallet” that the DarkSide hackers were using to collect payment from a victim, Abbate said.

The Justice Department then obtained a warrant to seize those bitcoins, officials said.

“The old adage ‘follow the money’ still applies,” said Monaco, the deputy attorney general. “That’s exactly what we do.”

The Colonial Pipeline attack was the latest in a series of ransomware assaults that has crippled government agencies, hospitals and businesses, including a major meat producer that was forced last week to idle plants, sparking concerns about potential increases in meat prices and shortages. A task force of more than 60 experts from industry, government and nonprofits issued a report in April that calls ransomware “a flourishing criminal industry that not only risks the personal and financial security of individuals, but also threatens national security and human life.”

The report, published by the nonprofit Institute for Security and Technology, estimates that nearly 2,400 governments, healthcare facilities and schools were victims of ransomware attacks last year. Ransom payments rose to $350 million last year, a 300% increase over 2019, the report says. The average such payment topped $300,000.

Cybersecurity experts and former federal prosecutors and agents blamed several trends for the increase. The rise of difficult-to-trace cryptocurrency has made it far easier for criminal gangs to collect payments, the experts said. Cybercriminals have also begun to increasingly operate within the borders of U.S. adversaries, particularly Russia. The Kremlin, for example, allows hackers to operate with impunity if they do not target Russian businesses or citizens and focus their energy on sowing chaos and confusion in the West.

The Biden administration is seeking to find ways to combat the rise. President Biden said he will discuss ransomware attacks this week with U.S. allies during a European trip, and bring up the subject during a June 16 meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Justice Department has launched a task force to better coordinate its approach to the crime wave. Justice Department officials said the Colonial Pipeline ransom seizure was the first such payment recovery by the task force. Justice Department officials could not say how many other ransoms they have recovered.

“This is a big deal,” said Scott Jasper, a lecturer at the Naval Postgraduate School and author of “Russian Cyber Operations: Coding the Boundaries of Conflict.” “The question is: Will this be big enough to change the behavior of DarkSide or of other cyber actors? It’s too early to tell. It’s a slow game, a long-term game. This is a significant, big business. This is a big enterprise.”