One Reason Climate Policy is a Mess
March 1st, 2009Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
In today’s NY Times Elisabeth Rosenthal has an overview of the changes in the U.S. position on international climate policy. In it is an important explanation for why climate policy is so messed up (emphasis added):
Kyoto was shaped largely by climate scientists and environment ministers, not the higher-level officials now laying the groundwork. And even many who participated in the earlier accord now say they see it as weak and naïve about political and economic realities. Of the countries that signed, more than half are not on track to meet their targets according to 2008 United Nations data, including Germany, Ireland and Canada.
Climate policies that are “weak and naive about political and economic realities” will inevitably be doomed to fail, no matter what the skeptics say or how loudly scientists call for action.
March 1st, 2009 at 9:39 pm
I remember a Reading Univerisity meteorologist back in 1995 at the 5th IPCC session in Madrid saying that while the scientists produced the draft report, the policymakers then went through it line by line to change the way it was presented, essentially giving the policymakers the final say in what went into the scientist’s report. After the second assessment came out in 1996, Nature had an editorial that commented that changes in Chapter 8, such as Santer’s insertion of a discernable human influence on climate, were designed not to reflect the opinions of the scientists but to conform to the politically derived Summary of Policymakers. Then,the Second COP in 1997 met in Geneva and adopted a declaration presented by Tim Wirth accepting the “scientific findings” on climate change proffered by the IPCC in its second assessment. Kyoto wasn’t shaped largely by climate scientists. It was a political meeting orchestrated by the Clinton White House. They may have been “weak and naive about political and economic realities” but it wasn’t because scientists and environment ministers shaped the document.
March 1st, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Even if the scientists weren’t responsible, they look like the perfect scapegoats from what I’ve seen. The few who seem to have sufficient media exposure and recognition by the general public to successfully counter anything attributed to themselves and their colleagues, fairly or otherwise, are the ones who have been sounding the most shrill alarms and pushing for the most radical policies.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:21 am
Now that I’ve gotten a chance to read the full article, I have to say that the following is probably the most disturbing thing I have ever read:
Climate experts added that the United States did not need to have in place national legislation to limit greenhouse gasses, a process that could take months, to negotiate in Copenhagen. “It’s not just about analyzing a piece of legislation,” Mr. Ashton said. “It’s about the feeling you get if you’re a leader sitting in Beijing. It’s like love; you know it when you feel it.”
March 9th, 2009 at 3:45 am
Roger, yes, Kyoto was self-evidently “weak and naïve about political and economic realities,” so why not help us by pointing to the relevant “political and economic realities” that explain why climate policy is so “messed up”?
Kyoto has been ineffective in reducing GHG emissions largely because the countries who signed on saw little to their advantage in incurring larger costs as long as the US was not going to pull it own weight (and if the US wasn’t also going to assist int he effort of then getting China and India to join). But the infrastructure put in place by Kyoto may very well be useful when the US decides to get serious, and has likely contributed to the diplomocy of getting China aboard.
The failure of the US to join, of course, had nothing to do with whether Kyoto was drafted “by climate scientists and environment ministers” – as there was plenty of senior level political review and input – but with political realities at home that left Al Gore signing a treaty in a form that it was already clear that the US Senate would not approve (and that Clinton wpuld never submit to the Senate).
China’s unwillingness to undertake any commitments to make GHG emission reductions is easily understood, as they had done little to contribute to prior emissions, and emissions per capita are still far behind the West.
And the US’s unwilling to join Europr in Japan in taking an initial bite at the bullet, and then to persuade China? Well, this is also perfectly obvious – while all of society would bear some of the pain of Kyoto in the form of higher costs, the effect of any efforts to slow and reduce emissions would necessarily – given the complete unaffordability/unscalability of CCS and geoengineering measures – reduce the use of fossil fuels (particularly coal) and would reduce the profitability of power generators, etc.
Given our irresponsible “pay it forward” political culture and the out-sized political influence of the fossil fuel industries, our politicians have been unwilling either to explain the costs to citizens (even though the costs could be greatly softened by recycling the revenues) or tell a powerful monied class that the global atmosphere would no longer be “free” to use, while costs and risks are shifted to all.
Instead, we collectively told the rest of the world and our children to go take a flying leap. Of course the fossil fuel industry was happy to help ensure this result by stuffing money into the pockets of Republicans (and Dems in oil and coal producing states), and Republicans were happy to keep their hands on the level of power by overplaying uncertainty (which actually cuts the other way) and by mongering the fear of “envirofacists” (along with the fear of ragheads – very useful for trillion-dollar wars beneficial to Republican supporting defense interests – and fear of gays – the better ot keep a grip on the “heartland”).
Perhaps we’ll move ahead, driven by another set of wealthy insiders who have long funded the enviros, and who are supported by a wide range of industrial leaders (including Tillerson of Exxon) who think that the prospects of escalating deferred pain justify action now.
This might still involve some payoff to coal, such as funding CCS, which type of large expenditures were not feasible for the Republicans, who would have been caught out on the party line that there is no climate problem.
Nice to see that, in this post at least, you don’t blame the lack of progress on scientists calling loudly for action, but it’s easy to document that the fossil fuel industry very carefully funded, cultivated, organized and even scripted a wide range of skeptics (but not all of them certainly, as climate concerns don’t dictate all policies, and many have obviouslt been simply caught up in the culture wars).
March 9th, 2009 at 5:40 am
TokyoTom, I agree completely.
Only the actions of the USA, and those actions the results of only a few members of one of the political parties here, are responsible for the complete failure of Kyoto.
This being the true case, and this is indeed most excellent news, does mean that a few simple actions, one of which has already taken place, will ensure complete success of the next attempt.
I’m looking forward to seeing reductions in CO2 emissions in very short order.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:20 am
Tom
Could you define a “wide range”? Could you also define “skeptics” so we know which types of believes are the funded ones?
To help me understand both the breadth of the range, the belief set, the level of funding , and the level of influence achieved by the organized campaing, could you give examples 100 skeptics who have been cultivated, organized, funded and scripted by the fossil fuel industry? Could you tell us how much funding each received to push the agenda forward and explain the method by which the groups efforts were organized? Maybe give some examples of how the new voices in skepticism were cultivated?
The few times I’ve read anyone backing these claims, they’ve resorted to naming poorly funded, rarely read organizations, that seem to be vestigial hold-overs from now dead political movements. Often, the arguments then allude to cigarette manufacturers, who seem unlikely funding agencies for climate skepticism.
Industries do advertise and they do lobby. But the notion that what skepticism exist is the result of any coherent, funded, organized campaign seems like some sort of odd conspiracy theory embraced by people who are frustrated because they are unable to win 100% of the world over to their views. Maybe if you gave specific examples to bolster this often heard claim, you could open people’s eyes.
Your comment says it’s easy to document. If so, why hasn’t anyone done a halfway decent job?
March 9th, 2009 at 7:00 am
What lucia said !!