The Future of Climate Policy Debates
December 5th, 2006Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
How about this comment from George Monbiot today, a columnist for The Guardian:
[E]very time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned.
Or this not long ago from NASA Scientist James Hansen (PDF):
. . . a certain shock treatment is needed, but it would best be delivered with a two-by-four as a solid whack to the head of politicians who remain oblivious to fundamental physical facts.
Allusions to murder and beatings kind of puts a chill on discussing options for climate policy, doesn’t it? Maybe that is the point. It certainly makes me think.
In my view people who fashion themselves as public intellectuals have an even greater obligation than everyone else to encourage civil debate and discussion. This applies to people on all sides of political debates. It is all too easy for leaders to incite people to actual violence on issues that they are passionate about. Mr. Monbiot and Dr. Hansen (and others, again on all sides) may not have that outcome in mind as they write such statements, but if they don’t watch out, that may be what they get.
So how about we all encourage some common civility in public discussions of climate change, especially from (but not limited to) our public intellectuals?
December 5th, 2006 at 8:29 am
Roger
While I applaud your appeal to reason and moderation, I fear your warning will fall on deaf ears. Direct and indirect incitement to violence has always been part and parcel of apocalyptic movements throughout the ages. The environmental movement is not exempt from this totalitarian trait. People who are genuinely fretful about imminent global catastrophe will almost inevitably direct their psychologically distressing inner fear into outward forms of aggression. Any text book on apocalyptic movements (both religious and secular) reveals the same psychological dynamics that often link the horror of mega-disaster with increased levels of violent imagery and behaviour. Given that there is no short-term solution to rising CO2 emissions, there is indeed a steadily growing risk that the use of violent language may sooner or later turn into manifest violence. I have pointed out this particular societal risk in a recent interview
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/LTT-interviewNo06.pdf
December 5th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
If a magazine editor rants, well that is what they do. Worse can and will happen.
http://busmovie.typepad.com/ideoblog/2006/12/the_thompson_me.html
December 5th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
Benny- Thanks for the link. A very interesting interview!
December 6th, 2006 at 3:32 am
It makes me think that the scientific argument isn’t robust. Presumably Monbiot believes that there were no floods in Bangladesh during the Holocene until the emission of anthropogenic CO2.
December 6th, 2006 at 4:59 am
On July 25, 1997, Senator Snowe and Senator Rockerfeller, along with 93 other senators (five did not vote), voted for adoption of a resolution stating that ‘the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto’. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00205
December 6th, 2006 at 7:29 am
Benny:
May I suggest Peter Berger`s “Going to Extremes; Between Relativism and Fundamentalism”, http://www.the-american-interest.com/ai2/, as perhaps a little more explanatory but along similar lines? One can see similar tendencies towards fundamentalism in among the skeptics as well; Sen. Inhofe and Rep. Joe Barton in the US might be paragons.
December 6th, 2006 at 7:39 am
Roger, I`m sure you realize the cite to Hansen is in appropos; he`s using a very venerable metaphor to describe the difficulties that we have changing our minds.
Monbiot sounds a little like Ann Coulter and other Bush supporters over the past five years, doesn`t he? I think you`re right this time, but you may recall how you and Benny both misinterpreted his screed over the “skeptics industry” (the Dave Roberts/Gristmill post on Nuremberg trials) as referring to ALL who oppose climate change action.
December 6th, 2006 at 7:45 am
Dan, I`m not sure I understand the relevance of the 1997 sense of the Senate resolution, but aren`t you leaving out something important? The resolution didn`t say no to Kyoto, which hadn`t been finalized yet, it said that the Senate would oppose IF the accord did not contain binding commitments by China and India as well. US presidents have simply shown no leadership in negotiating a treaty that would be acceptable to the Senate; this does not imply any inconsistency on the parts of Rockefeller and Snowe.
December 6th, 2006 at 7:52 am
Tom -
The fundamentalists are among the alarmists as well. There are basically two groups. One is the classic “You don’t get it” and the other is of those lined up at the global warming feedwagon. Further, the second group is again divided into those overtly egging the first group on and those who aren’t (overtly, that is).
December 6th, 2006 at 8:02 am
Tom- Thanks for your comment. Please do note that you have invented my views on Dave Roberts, as I said no such thing.
December 6th, 2006 at 8:41 am
Well Tokyo let’s see.
So far as I know no Senator has attempted to raise awareness of the ‘Global Warming’ problem, either in public or in the Senate. Point me to a speech in which any candidate mentioned the K-word before the 2006 elections. Point me to any speech by any House/Senate office holder or candidate made since July 1997 in which the K-word is uttered. In 1997 they said, basically, ‘The Senate thinks that we (the USA) are not the problem.” In 2006 they have basically threatened ExxonMobile and other private companies and said, ‘You are the problem. Fix it or you will incur the full force of the Senate.’
Members of the US House and Senate have simply shown no leadership in supporting programs that address the ‘Global Warming’ problem.
Maybe it’s not inconsistency, maybe it’s projection and/or denial of personal responsibility.
December 6th, 2006 at 11:39 pm
Roger, it looks like my memory was not serving me correctly. After looking back, I can see that it was only Benny who was arguing that Roberts and Monbiot, in castigating the “denial industry”, were also targeting scientists and others who simply disagreed. Thanks for the correction.
December 6th, 2006 at 11:47 pm
Steve, as I noted I agree that the phenomenon affects both sides.
With respect to the “global warming feedwagon”, I am quite aware that there are indistrial groups that will make money from investing in and selling more efficient and lower-carbon technologies that support climate change regulation. Yes, that’s rent-seeking. But they have been waiting in vain for many decades now.
Don’t forget to shed your light on what groups have actually been pigging out at the public trough during the past few years of special interest orgy at public expense. And don’t forget that failing to fix a commons problem is essentially a subsidy to present consumption, and that those who are favored by present consumption have engaged in very sophisticated political strategies to protect that subsidy.
Regards,
Tom
December 7th, 2006 at 1:28 am
Dan:
“So far as I know no Senator has attempted to raise awareness of the ‘Global Warming’ problem, either in public or in the Senate. Point me to a speech in which any candidate mentioned the K-word before the 2006 elections. Point me to any speech by any House/Senate office holder or candidate made since July 1997 in which the K-word is uttered. In 1997 they said, basically, ‘The Senate thinks that we (the USA) are not the problem.”
Members of the US House and Senate have simply shown no leadership in supporting programs that address the ‘Global Warming’ problem.”
Dan, the problem is that you are remarkably uninformed and want others to do your homework for you.
- Don’t you remember that many of the candidates in 2000 made promises to control climate change – Bush included, and that McCain and Lieberman have been pushing for climate change policies since before that time?
- Don’t you recall that in 2003, despite heavy pressure from the Administration, the US Senate brought to a vote and strongly supported (43 to 55) the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act, which would have capped carbon dioxide emissions from industries and created an emissions-trading system?
- Aren’t you aware that last year the US Senate approved (54-43 ) a Sense of the Senate resolution (sponsored by Bingaman and co-sponsored by Domenici, Specter, Alexander, Cantwell, Lieberman, Lautenberg, McCain, Jeffords, Kerry, Snowe, Collins and Boxer) calling for a mandatory GHG control program (again, despite heavy pressure from the Administration)? http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=234715&Month=6&Year=2005&Party=0
- Didn’t you know that the House Appropriations Committee approved an identical resoultion this year? http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=234960&Month=5&Year=2006&Party=0
- Weren’t you aware that the Senate has held hearing specifically targetted towards designing GHG control legislation? The written testimony and hearing transcripts include detailed commentary from a wide section of US industry and make fascinating reading. Summaries are avialbel here:
Summary of hearings (June 22nd, 2006):
http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=235005&Month=6&Year=2006&Party=1
April 4, 2006 Climate Conference submissions:
http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Conferences.Detail&Event_id=4&Month=4&Year=2006
Panel speakers and agenda:
http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=234922&Month=4&Year=2006&Party=0
Hearings transcript:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_senate_hearings&docid=f:28095.wais
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_senate_hearings&docid=f:28095.pdf
- Were you aware that the US remains a party to the UNFCCC and that Congress has enacted a number of statutory provisions targeted at climate change, including the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, which establish a national carbon dioxide monitoring system, authorize the DOE to collect,
analyze and report information on climate change, and create a Director of Climate Change?
I wouldn’t say that the Congress has shown much leadership on any issue over the past decade or so, but clearly that have expressed a desire to move ahead on climate change, despite opposition during the Bush administration.
I hope the above information helps you to get a more accurate view of where the Congress stood on climate change issues prior to the mid-term elections.
December 7th, 2006 at 5:23 am
Tom -
You still miss my point. As Al Gore admitted to George Stephanopolous, “they just don’t know”
Just because they’ve been “waiting in vain” doesn’t mean we should short circuit the science. You have yet to show it’s a “commons problem.”
December 7th, 2006 at 8:07 am
Now here’s a great idea: Why don’t we offer members of the denial industry and airline executives a humane last will: you can choose between death by hanging after Nuremberg-style trials or drowning by Monbiot without a trial. Not that we wish to intimidate anyone…