April 18, 2006
Congressional Opinions on Climate Science and Policy
[Also posted on Prometheus blog]
Thanks to Chris Weaver who posted a link yesterday in the comments to a very interesting recent poll (here in PDF) from the National Journal on views of members of Congress on climate science and policy. The poll provides some empirical evidence to support a number of arguments made here on Prometheus. Here is my interpretation of the significance of the poll:
1) The poll asks, “Do you think it’s been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made pollution?” The replies are interesting with 98% of Democrats saying “Yes” and only 23% of Republicans saying “Yes.” Presumably, “beyond a reasonable doubt” means with greater than 95% certainty, so the question requests a level of certainty greater than that expressed by the 2001 IPCC which expressed a 64%-90% certainty on the same question. So members of both parties need to go beyond the most recent IPCC to answer this question. They could be steeped in the most recent science, but I’d guess there is more than a small ideological element at play here, on both sides. I haven’t seen the most recent drafts of the 2007 IPCC, but I assume that it will come out much more consistent with what the Democrats believe. Nonetheless, an important observation here is that, as has been found in many areas, the views of members of Congress are more ideologically determined than those of their party membership among the general population. In opinion polls of the public asking the same question, Democrats do not show such unanimity of opinion, and Republican views are not so consolidated. I chalk this down to the effects of gerrymandering of Congressional districts which has often been pointed to as a key factor in a legislature far more ideological than the people who they actually represent.
2). But what should not be overlooked, is that even with the party divisions, a clear majority of members of both the House and Senate believe that global warming is real and caused by humans. If the poll numbers accurately reflect Congressional perspectives, then 55 members of the Senate and 251 members of the House (!!) believe that “it’s been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made pollution.” This seems to be inescapable evidence that there is exceedingly little value left in continuing to argue the science of this particular question. Clearly, there are other factors at play here beyond “skepticism” which shapes how decision makers act on climate change. Efforts to educate Congress on the reality of climate change are in my view completely wasted on a majority of the convinced.
3) The poll asks a second question, “Which of these actions to reduce pollution could you possibly support?” and the answers included five options, Mandatory limits on carbon dioxide emissions, Increased spending on alternative fuels, Greater reliance on nuclear energy, Higher fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles, and a Higher gasoline tax. For each of these issues, except a gasoline tax which is not favored by members of either party, there is far more agreement than was displayed on the question of science. And in each case there is evidence of enough support to suggest that agreement across parties might be found on particular policy options. The devil is of course always in the details, but what this poll shows is that debate on climate policy show be taking place in terms of policy options, and not science. There is ample evidence that there is room for compromise across partisan boundaries, without the need to turn Republicans into Democrats or vice versa.
Bottom line: The nation awaits politically creative policy options that can navigate the complicated set of interests of 535 members of Congress to start taking effective action on climate policy. All of the precursors for such action are in place, minus of course the politically creative options. Efforts to debate the science are simply misplaced in such a context. Die hard partisans will no doubt come up with a range of excuses why they cannot compromise, and will gravitate back to the science as a comfortable home for maintaining the present debate. Such partisans typically point the finger of blame at their political opponents, though they should be looking in the mirror. The evidence from this poll suggests very strongly that such reactions are grounded more in a desire to maintain the present gridlock, rather than to move the issue of climate policy forward.
Posted by ami at 09:12 AM | Comments (0)