A Few Comments on Today’s Climate Hearing
July 21st, 2005Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
This morning the Senate Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing on “Climate Change Science and Economics“. I have read through the testimonies of Panel 1 and there is little surprising or new to be found. I do have a 3 more or less random comments below.
1. Nobel laureate Mario Molina states, “Recent estimates indicate that stabilizing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at the equivalent of twice the pre-industrial value of 280 ppm carbon dioxide provides only a 10-20 per cent chance of limiting global average temperature rise to 4 degrees Fahrenheit. Put another way, this means that the odds that average global temperatures will rise above 4 degrees is 80 to 90 percent. Unless society starts taking some aggressive actions now, we are well on our way to reaching perhaps even a tripling of pre-industrial carbon dioxide levels with far greater adverse economic and environmental consequences. The risks to human society and ecosystems grow significantly if the average global surface temperature increases 5 degrees Fahrenheit or more. Such a large temperature increase might entail, for example, substantial agricultural losses, widespread adverse health impacts and greatly increased risks of water shortages. Furthermore, a very high proportion of the world’s coral reefs would be imperiled and many terrestrial ecosystems could suffer irreversible damage. The risk of runaway or abrupt climate change also increases rapidly if the average temperature increases above about 5 degrees Fahrenheit. It is possible, for example, that the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets will melt, raising sea levels more than ten meters over the period of a few centuries. It is also possible that the ocean circulation will change abruptly, perhaps shutting down the Gulf Stream.”
Comments such as this suggest to me that the international climate policy community is living a lie. Specifically,
Article 2 of the Climate Convention calls for, “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.”
If 4 degrees is set to occur at 80-90% likelihood, then 5 degrees, which Molina clearly views as “dangerous” cannot be far behind. Prevention, simply put is not in the cards. This does not mean that we throw up our hands and do nothing, but it does mean that if we are serious about action that we should start by reopening the objective of the Climate Convention for renegotiation. This observation has been made before. In 1995, Pekka E. Kauppi wrote presciently in Science that the goal of the Framework Convention on Climate Change was either “unattainable or irrelevant If GCM projections are right, the climate will change, there will be dangerous effects and the Convention objective will be unattainable” (Science, 220:1454). It is time to stop living the lie and reconsider Article 2.
2. NCAR’s Jim Hurrell observes, “… it should be recognized that mitigation actions taken now mainly have benefits 50 years and beyond now.”
This point would seem to be generally appreciated by experts in climate science and policy but is generally lost in the more general debate. Why does this matter? The asymmetry in the timing of costs and benefits makes it incredibly hard to justify action on mitigation – my tongue-in-cheek characterization of this approach to mitigation is “Please bear these costs but you personally will never see any benefits, other than the psychological benefits of aiding future generations.” Such arguments don’t work for social security and they won’t work here. In addition, the reality of the time-lag of benefits illustrates the futility of using current climate events to justify mitigation action. Even if people take action, there can be no scientifically valid argument that such actions will lead to a better climate in their lifetime (warning tongue-in-cheek comment coming) – “Want fewer hurricanes in 2007? Drive a Prius!” Actually, not so-tongue-in-cheek, this exact strategy was tried by Scientists and Engineers for Change and Environment2004.org leading up to the 2004 elections and we all know how Florida turned out. It was a misuse of science to suggest that the 2004 election had any impact on future hurricane frequency. It is similarly a misuse to suggest that climate mitigation should be viewed as an effective policy option for issues such as malaria and disasters.
Again, the point here is not to throw up our hands and do nothing. But the asymmetry is costs and benefits suggest that we might think about different strategies, particular ones that have more of symmetry between the timing of costs and benefits. We’ve discussed such options frequently here as “no regrets” on both adaptation and mitigation – see these posts (here, here, here. I doubt that much action (i.e., actual emissions reductions, not aspirations) will happen on mitigation until action on decarbonization is framed in terms of its short term costs and benefits.
3. Sir John Houghton, former chairman of the IPCC, states the following, “Data from insurance companies show an increase in economic losses in weather related disasters of a factor of 10 in real terms between the 1950s and the 1990s. Some of this can be attributed to an increase in vulnerability to such disasters. However, a significant part of the trend has also arisen from increased storminess especially in the 1980s and 1990s.”
This is simply scientifically incorrect and politically irresponsible. No part of the trend in economic losses related to weather since the 1950s can be attributed to increased storminess (though we’d welcome learning of any research to the contrary). We discussed this in some depth here and here, and even the 2001 IPCC says as much.
If climate scientists want to be believed when they discuss science in highly politicized contexts, then a good place to start would be to be accurate when making scientific claims. It would also be a good idea for scientists to call their colleagues on statements that are unjustified by the scientific literature, even when those colleagues are advocating policies that they themselves may happen to favor. This was the message of Hans von Storch when he visited Boulder a few weeks ago (see this Der Speigel essay). In the long run both science and policy will be better served through candor and community-established norms of scientific rigor, even if there may be short-term political benefits in playing fast and loose with science.
July 21st, 2005 at 10:43 pm
Some perspective: “Just three senators — David Vitter, R-Louisiana, Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey, and Ted Stevens, R-Alaska — were at the hearing.”
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/07/21/global.warming.ap/index.html
July 22nd, 2005 at 9:46 am
Roger,
For what’s its worth, well done and well said.
Regards,
Bob
July 22nd, 2005 at 11:21 am
Roger, doesn’t it seem inconsistent to you that Houghton should appear before the Senate Committee on behalf of IPCC and that Pachauri should concurrently purport to be upset (with Nature on his side) that the House Committee has sent questions to the IPCC? There are a lot of reasons why the IPCC should answer the House questions; Houghton’s appearance in the Senate is one more. Regards, Steve McIntyre
July 22nd, 2005 at 12:36 pm
Steve- Thanks. For simplicity, lets just assume that the Barton’s questions about the IPCC process are legitimate and worth asking, and focus here on the US legislative oversight process.
Witnesses are invited to hearings to present views that establish a public record. Rarely subpoenas are used to compel testimony (for a recent example, think of the baseball/steroids hearings). But generally there is no obligation to attend a hearing. It is an opportunity, and for most issues there are many substitutable people that can present similar views. As such John Houghton’s national origins are considerably less important (irrelevant I’d say) than his scientific standing based on his history with the IPCC.
Similar to a hearing, Mr. Barton’s letter to the IPCC should be considered an invitation to respond. Barton’s committee has no standing to compel a response from Dr. Pachauri. This approach would suggest to me that the letter was not a real effort to get information, but a PR and political tactic. Barton has been in office for >20 years, and so obviously knows the mechanics of the legislative process very well. If he really wants to compel a response from the IPCC on its procedures, then he has numerous tools at his disposal to do so. For example, the IPCC’s Working Group 1 Technical Support unit is supported by NOAA at UCAR, and the current co-chair of IPCC is a NOAA employee. The US Climate Change Science Program is headed up by a NOAA official. NOAA sits in the Department of Commerce and Mr. Barton is Chairman of the Committee on Energy and **Commerce**. While there are some jurisdictional issues that would have to be worked out with House Science, I am sure that a serious inquiry into the IPCC could be worked out.
Barton’s approach suggests to me that he is not interested in such a serious inquiry. As such, if I were advising Dr. Pachauri, I’d probably recommend declining the invitation to respond. If I were advising those in the community who may be supporting Barton’s efforts, I’d encourage them to press Barton and his staff for such a serious inquiry, because under Barton’s current approach, these folks may wind up looking like (or actually becoming) pawns in a larger political battle that has nothing to do with the fidelity of the IPCC or climate science.
July 22nd, 2005 at 2:22 pm
Also, FWIW, three committee hearings in the three science committees in two weeks on climate change.
The Commerce, Science, Transportation hearing that Stevens, Vitter and Lautenberg attended was Wednesday. Yesterday there was a hearing in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee with Cicerone the only common witness. And next week EPW has a hearing scheduled on “Kyoto Protocol: assessing the status of efforts to reduce greenhouse gases.” I can’t find a witness list on that, but makes me wonder if Inhofe is scheduling it so closely to the ENR and CST hearings in order to get his anti- view out.
Aren’t they supposed to be on summer recess?
July 22nd, 2005 at 8:34 pm
Vetter and Stevens attending is interesting
July 23rd, 2005 at 12:01 am
Roger, I think that you’re too cynical here. A reasonable person interested in IPCC processes could very plausibly send a letter to the chairman of the IPCC, rather than to someone who has the equivalent of a middle management role in the institution. In fact, one could reasonably argue that the seniot person is the appropriate person to approach first. Regards, Steve McIntyre
July 23rd, 2005 at 7:47 am
Steve- Thanks. Perhaps your are right, cynicism sometimes goes with the policy wonk profession! Though experience does not give much reason to suggest that a reasonable request will motivate a reasonable reply — consider Chris Landsea’s unsuccessful efforts to engage IPCC officials on the substance of the IPCC process, see
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html
I doubt we’ll hear more from Dr. Pachauri on Rep. Barton’s letter, so Rep. Barton’s next steps will be interesting to see.
July 23rd, 2005 at 9:50 am
Dear Dr. Pielke,
This comment is not directly germane to this thread. However, given the hearings that are taking place, it might be indirectly. Contrary to popular belief, the best reason for enacting Kyoto is the economic benefits, especially given the growing world, and more importantly, American shortages of energy relative to demand. Personally, in terms of AGW threat, I don’t see much need for Kyoto, but I would sure like to see us sign on for the other benefits.
Re: your responses #36 and 38 at “The Scientists respond to Barton” thread on Realclimate
It is very interesting to me that Climate people, both AGW supporters and skeptics alike, seem to accept the results of Economic Models without question. This may be understandable for the supporters, because they have great faith in Climate Models. However I find it surprising for the skeptics.
As you note Nordhaus is the father of the high cost of Kyoto myth. I think his first modeling was done about 1993. Then WEFA came out with their results in 1998, and heavily influenced Congress through testimony at committee hearings. I thing most of the other models you provided links for were later than these two. Back in 1998 I exchanged some e-mails with one of the principle WEFA modelers and also encountered a Harvard grad. who claimed to have worked under Nordhaus. From their inputs, at least these 2 models left out many key factors, some consciously, some unconsciously. The ones I recall include: any possibility of energy efficiencies reducing CO2 (economists assume that possible efficiencies are already effected, which is far from true); further reductions in energy per unit of GDP; scarcity of fossil fuels driving up prices and driving down consumption; changes in the supply mix between domestic and imports, with the resulting economic impact on the balance of payments; non-internalized environmental costs of burning fossil fuels; legislation that would favor efficiency or renewables and result in job creation; the possibility of economic sequestration, eg CO2 reinjection for tertiary recovery of oil. I suspect that later models suffer most of the same failings, and are therefore meaningless.
Lynn’s observation from the same thread (below) is apt. You had proposed moving the discussion to Prometheus, so I thought I would just send this along. By the way, I have considerable knowledge and experience in economically realizing energy efficiencies in both industry and household opportunities. Amory Lovins is right. Another factor that is usually overlooked is the benefit of renewables. Using primary energy in fossil fuels to generate electricity is about 30% efficient on average. Generating primary energy directly as electricity by wind or solar is 3 times as efficient. Combining economically attractive efficiencies, non burdensome conservation, and renewables, the US economy could run on something near 1/4th the energy now used, with only economic benefits in the forms of job creation and reduced negative payments balance, to say nothing of the security and environmental benefits. Murray Duffin
snip #35, the best economic argument can be found in the work of Amory Lovins, who figures the U.S. could reduce its fossil fuel consumption by at least 3/4 cost-effectively & without lowering productivity, given current technology. He has examples of some businesses reducing even 90%, without lowering productivity, by “tunneling through.” Even if he’s overly optimistic, a 50% reduction still sounds very good! See http://www.natcap.org and http://www.rmi.org
Now why do we need Kyoto, if we can reduce so drastically in a money-saving manner without lowering productivity. The answer comes from some research I did preparing a “business & environment” course. For instance, 3M started 3P (Pollution Prevention Pays) after they told their all their workers, from assembly line to engineers, to start finding ways to reduce pollution to meet future regs in ways that wouldn’t cost them too much. Their workers found plenty of ways to reduce in ways that save money – I think over $1 billion to date. When they asked the engineers why they hadn’t come up with those money-savers before, they replied that it wasn’t put to them that way. Dow has its similar WRAP (Waste Reduction Always Pays), and I read that Dow would have continued to reduce pollution/waste cost-effectively, if the head & impetus of that program had not retired. Another example was a plating company in Mass. that was polluting the river & knew it had to reduce to meet tougher future regs. They tried reducing their water, but still couldn’t meet regs, until they developed a “closed-loop” system – separating out the pollutants (which were valuable resources) & recycling the water, reducing their pollution to almost nothing. They figured the system would pay for itself in a couple of years, except that the water main for the city broke for three days a few months later & they were able to keep up production, saving them $150,000, nearly paying for the system right then.
The fact is that regs & Kyoto are ultimately great for business – it gets them to think outside the box, & more often than not come up with solutions that are even better than their earlier business-as-usual. I have some archaeological examples, as well. The principle is that some barrier, natural or artificial, leads to great break-throughs. Refusing Kyoto, as the U.S. has done, is tantamount to stifling economic progress, even if GW is totally false & later disproved. It is tantamount to destroying the economy, if GW is real, because (I’ll state it again) the environment is fundamental, the economy contingent. It surprises me (and angers me as a tax-payer funding public education) that it takes so much smarts to figure that one out.
Comment by Lynn Vincentnathan — 20 Jul 2005 @ 10:32 pm
July 23rd, 2005 at 11:18 am
Murray- Thanks for these thoughtful comments. If improving the economy is indeed the best rationale for Kyoto, then why not justify it that way? (Not you, but in the larger public debate, which decidely does not.) There are real issues of accountability here. Shouldn’t policies be appropriately justified? I discussed this here:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/energy_policy/000436cart_or_horse.html
and here
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000437more_cart_and_horse.html
And Dan Sarewitz and I disucssed this in some depth here:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resourse-69-2000.18.pdf
July 23rd, 2005 at 8:11 pm
It strikes me that Prof. Pielke assumes that no one has read the literature. Significant opportunities for cost savings (and even negative cost) associated with Kyoto and climate change mitigation have been long discussed. As Murray Duffin points out positive costs implied by economic models depend strongly on the discount rate and the suffleing off to Buffalo of several factors. As an example, let me quote from the go to source on climate mitigation (at least until the FAR is published) the WGIII TAR Summary for Policy Makers, page 9
12. Some sources of greenhouse gas emissions can be limited at no or negative net social cost to the extent that policies can exploit no regrets opportunities (Sections 7.3.4, 9.2.1):
Market imperfections. Reduction of existing market or institutional failures and other barriers that impede adoption of cost-effective emission reduction measures, can lower private costs compared to current practice. This can also reduce private costs overall.
Ancillary benefits. Climate change mitigation measures will have effects on other societal issues. example, reducing carbon emissions in many cases will result in the simultaneous reduction in local regional air pollution. It is likely that mitigation strategies will also affect transportation, agriculture, landuse practices and waste management and will have impact on other issues of social concern, such employment, and energy security. However, not all the effects will be positive; careful policy selection design can better ensure positive effects and minimize negative impacts. In some cases, the magnitude ancillary benefits of mitigation may be comparable the costs of the mitigating measures, adding to the regrets potential, although estimates are difficult make and vary widely (Sections 7.3.3, 8.2.4, 9.2.2- 9.2.8, 9.2.10).
Double dividend. Instruments (such as taxes or auctioned permits) provide revenues to the government. used to finance reductions in existing distortionary taxes (“revenue recycling”), these revenues reduce economic cost of achieving greenhouse gas reductions. The magnitude of this offset depends on the existing tax structure, type of tax cuts, labour market conditions, and method of recycling. Under some circumstances, is possible that the economic benefits may exceed costs of mitigation (Sections 7.3.3, 8.2.2, 9.2.1).
————————————————————-
I would encourage everyone to read the entire SPM, but will only quote one further point
19. The effectiveness of climate change mitigation can be enhanced when climate policies are integrated with the nonclimate objectives of national and sectorial policy development and be turned into broad transition strategies to achieve the long-term social and technological changes required by both sustainable development and climate change mitigation. Just as climate policies can yield ancillary benefits that improve wellbeing, non-climate policies may produce climate benefits. It may be possible to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions by pursuing climate objectives through general socioeconomic policies.
————————————————————————
July 24th, 2005 at 8:25 am
Eli ealier -
“Vitter [LA] and Stevens [AK] attending is interesting”
I will probably write more on this at some point, but both AK senators have been making noises on climate change for a few years now, with Murkowski in the last Congress trying to get some money into the $300+B transportation bill for studying the effect of warming on AK’s transportation infrastructure (Inhofe tried to shoot her down, but the dems voted with her; this was during an EPW committee markup). When the chairmanship of CST changed from McCain to Stevens this year some wondered if the frequency of climate change hearings would drop off, but so far Stevens has shown that he’ll continue to engage the issue. And how can the AK Senators not? There is no other place in the US seeing such obvious change.
July 25th, 2005 at 10:56 am
Roger Pielke Jr. writes, “If 4 degrees is set to occur at 80-90% likelihood, then 5 degrees, which Molina clearly views as “dangerous” cannot be far behind. Prevention, simply put is not in the cards.”
I don’t agree that such a conclusion follows logically from what Mario Molina said. Dr. Molina wrote that a doubling of CO2 (from the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm) would result in a 4 degree Fahrenheit (2.2 degree Celsius) temperature rise.
So, in other words, it’s a concentration of 560 ppm (CO2 equivalent) that will produce the 4 degree Fahrenheit rise. We’re currently at about 380 ppm of CO2. (But throw in methane and CFCs, and most people put the CO2 equivalent level at about 450 ppm.)
So we’re anywhere from 180 ppm to 110 ppm below the value that will produce the increase of 4 degrees Fahrenheit, according to Molina. Since levels are increasing at about 1.7 ppm per year, it will take approximately 65 to 105 years to reach the magical 560 ppm CO2 value.
That’s where Molina’s advice comes in. He’s saying that we should make some serious changes to make sure we don’t hit that 560 ppm value.
July 25th, 2005 at 2:27 pm
Re: Your question” Why not justify Kyoto on the basis of economics”? The one thing I know is that the American Petroleum Institute paid for the WEFA study, and from then on everyone just accepted the output of the economic models, without. Murray
July 26th, 2005 at 11:36 pm
Sorry I’ve turned up a little late to this party, but:
Dear Roger,
If you “doubt that much action … will happen on mitigation until action on decarbonization is framed in terms of its short term costs and benefits” then I conclude that you may, sadly, have never lived the American dream yourself. Never sold a set of encyclopedia to anyone, for instance, because the short term cost was the crucial factor and nobody could convince the householder that the books were, most importantly, an investment in their and their children’s future?
The notion that in sales and marketing reality there’s a conceptual problem with selling things that will only affect the world of the customer years into the future is refuted by such everyday matters as: saving for our retirement; planting a tree for our newborn children; investing in almost anything, anywhere, that you care to nominate; or for that matter having our children at all. All of these things are costs for us today, which we happily bear for the sake of their fruits a long time in the future. Yet somehow an investment in environmental futures is different in kind to any of these other investments? I think not. We ought to be able to sell to our neighbors and friends the notion that they might plan for a retirement that not only will provide them income to live well enough upon, and no doubt occasionally travel too, but may also allow them to enjoy on their travels a world that still has coral reefs (which take hundreds of years at least to become beautiful for the tourists), has good snow skiing in accessible locations, has not flooded low lying Pacific islands and their inhabitants out of existence, is not afflicted by increasing numbers of severe storms (the shape of the statistical distribution of cyclone energies will not really change shape dramatically as the frequency of cyclones increase, will it?), heatwaves, and so on.
An historically rapid change in climate will guarantee us a world where mainly weeds and rugged survivors thrive in the place of the complex and beautiful things that fill presently stable ecological niches. Anyone willing to invest in their children and their own future will be willing to pay something today for the sake of the environment tomorrow so, I conclude, if on the whole we end up failing to sell that idea to them then we’ll reap in maybe 50 years time, maybe much less, something like poetic justice for a species that’s had its blinkers on and been in a mad rush to go … nowhere worth getting to.
July 27th, 2005 at 8:10 am
An interesting news story covering the hearing:
http://www.medillnewsdc.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=22&t=000365
Here is an excerpt:
“Sir John Houghton, lead scientist of London’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a lightening rod for conservative ire, said that the U.S. should be a leader in the field and aim for a zero-carbon-emission society within a generation.
Several senators scoffed at this idea and demanded more information about how an end to carbon emissions could be achieved so quickly.
Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, pointedly asked the scientists whether nuclear energy should be part of the solution.
The scientists agreed that all options – including nuclear power – should be on the table, but that hydrogen, solar, biomass and other renewable energy should be part of any solution. Sir John said he was concerned about the proliferation of nuclear material associated with increased nuclear energy and referred to research that suggested that 25 percent of U.S. energy could come from renewable biomass energy by 2025.
Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., jumped on Sir John’s remarks, saying, “If you believe that, I don’t believe what you said earlier about global warming.”
Alexander said he didn’t see “any way in the world” to get a zero-emission society in one generation without using nuclear power, which he said accounts for 70 percent of non-emission power in the U.S. and 20 percent of total power.
He said that the pending energy bill was trying to address the problem with funding for nuclear power, natural gas and clean coal technology. He also said the scientific community would be more persuasive if it came out in support of a realistic strategy.
“When we say, ‘What do we do about it?’ you are all over the map,” Alexander said. “We are not going to put a few solar panels on and build a few windmills and solve the problem.””
July 27th, 2005 at 10:28 am
“Alexander said he didn’t see “any way in the world” to get a zero-emission society in one generation without using nuclear power, which he said accounts for 70 percent of non-emission power in the U.S. and 20 percent of total power.”
Actually, the problem of getting to a “zero emissions economy” in “a generation” is much more difficult than Lamar Alexander’s figures indicate.
Lamar Alexander’s figures refer to to *electrical power* only, i.e., nuclear produces approximately 20 percent of the U.S.’s *electrical* power. So that doesn’t include transportation energy usage (gasoline and diesel fuel) or natural gas used for residential and commercial heating, or oil and coal used for industrial processes.
In terms of total energy (not just energy for electrical power), nuclear contributes only 8-10 percent of the U.S. consumption/production:
http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/energy/stats_ctry/Stat1.html
It’s really surprising that anyone who wants to have any credibility as an analyst of the situation would say that the U.S. should aim for a “zero-carbon-emission society within a generation.” It’s completely unrealistic.
And if my analyses are essentially correct (and I pretty sure they are, because environmental analyses are what I do for a living) going to “zero-carbon-emission society within a generation” would have virtually NO effect on global temperatures, as compared to the “business as usual” case of worldwide carbon emissions rising to 1.5 times the 1990 values in 2030, and declining to 0.7 times the 1990 value in 2100).
By my calculations, if the *world* went to a “zero-carbon-emission society within a generation,” the warming by 2100 would be about 0.9 degrees Celsius, versus 1.2 degrees Celsius for “business as usual.” (“Business as usual” as I’VE correctly assessed it, and summarized above; not the “business as usual” nonsense in the IPCC Third Assessment Report.)
July 27th, 2005 at 2:07 pm
Roger, I carefully read the 2000 article you linked to in your response to Murray above, and wanted to correct what appears to me to be a major misimpression you may still be laboring under five years later. You wrote (top of page 4) “(a) broad array of environmental groups and think thanks, including the Environmental Defense Fund, the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the World Resources Institute, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, made reductions in carbon-dioxide emissions central to their agendas.” The impression left is that the broad environmental movement had already made a meaningful priority out of the global warming issue, and that the effect of this had been less than salutory relative to getting meaningful action. It was not then and it is not now the case that such a priority exists within the broad movement. I don’t blame you for thinking that it might be based on a) all the global warming talk in the relevant publications and b) the effort by the think tank end of the environmental movement (NRDC, EDF, UCS etc.) to leave the impression that where they have gone the grassroots part of the movement has followed. The largest relevant grassroots organization, the Sierra Club, is just now considering whether to make global warming a major organizational priority; the prospect of doing so wasn’t even on the table in 2000. In any case, as of right now, in real terms (staff, money, volunteer time) the environmental movement is barely engaged. I believe that is in the process of changing, and I would add that the politicized scientists you deplore have been a big help in that regard.
July 27th, 2005 at 3:34 pm
Steve- Thanks much for this comment (and other thoughtful comments on our blog). I appreciate your perspective. Clearly many of these organizations have played a prominent role in the issue for a long time, e.g., here is a Sierra Club statement on global warming from 2000
http://lists.sierraclub.org/SCRIPTS/WA.EXE?A2=ind0011&L=ce-scnews-releases&P=R664&D=1&H=1&O=D&T=0
Others have come to similar conclusions about the role of the environmental commuinity in the global warming debate. See for example the widely-circulated “Death of Environmentalism” essay:
http://www.thebreakthrough.org/images/Death_of_Environmentalism.pdf
But I hope that you are right, because it suggests that there is still an opportunity for positions to evolve in ways amenable to policy action and away from the pathologies we described in our 2000 paper.
July 27th, 2005 at 7:22 pm
Interesting article thanks Roger.
For the medium term future, at least, realistic proposals to mitigate greenhouse warming surely must involve nuclear power along with renewable energy technologies. With the Cold War behind us we could safely deploy new, improved nuclear designs on a large scale, without running an unacceptable risk of weapons proliferation or nasty accidents, if not for the fact that we sadly can’t trust the current leaders of the free world to get even little things right (things like chasing down and prosecuting those actually guilty of heinous crimes rather than settling for blowing up other people that we really don’t like, because we can, and lying about it before, during and after).
With decent leadership lots of wonderful things become conceivable; while waiting for that leadership to appear we can be addressing the less rational aspects of the by now widespread fear of nuclear power. Of course there are also good reasons to be very careful while increasing our reliance on nuclear power. The sooner we can put the irrational fears behind us – whether fears of a different, demonized, civilization that’s out to git us, or overblown fears of the perils of peaceable nuclear power generation – the better we can get to grips with the really big and serious issue of our times: the damage we’re doing to our own backyard.
July 29th, 2005 at 12:57 pm
Thanks for your response, Roger, and for keeping this thought-provoking site going. I’ve learned a lot here. One additional thought I should add to this discussion is that a reason the Club at least (which I assume you know is far and away the largest broad-based grassroots environmental group in the country, with a membership of 800,000 and hundreds of active local subdivisions) has been reticent about making a major commitment is because global warming is a poor fit for national party politics; i.e., it won’t be very helpful as a means of rallying the troops to the Democratic Party every two and four years if it becomes apparent that the Dems aren’t much better than the Reps in terms of taking substantial action on global warming. This is a big part of the reason for the Club’s emphasis on the weak step of raising CAFE standards. Finally, this new CA poll result (appended below) is interesting in a variety of ways, one of which is the high esteem in which scientists are held.
Public Policy Institute of California Poll on the Environment – July
2005:
Publication link at:
http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=623
From the Press Release:
Special Survey On The Environment: Whose World Is It Anyway?
Californians Say State Should Take Lead On Global Warming
Concern Over Air Pollution Trumps Economic, Financial Considerations
Little Support for Schwarzenegger, Bush on Environmental Issues
SAN FRANCISCO, California, July 21, 2005 – Driven by concerns about how
global warming will degrade their quality of life and by a profound lack
of confidence in the environmental and energy tilt of the federal
government, Californians want the state to act on its own to address the
problem, according to a new survey released today by the Public Policy
Institute of California (PPIC) with funding from the William and Flora
Hewlett Foundation.
For most Californians, global warming is a real or looming phenomenon:
86 percent believe it will affect current or future generations, and 57
percent believe the effects are already being felt. Three in four (75%)
say the effects of global warming on the state’s economy and quality of
life will be very or somewhat serious. And large majorities of state
residents say they are at least somewhat concerned about the possible
impacts of global warming, including increased air pollution (86%), more
severe droughts (78%), greater coastal erosion (67%), and increased
flooding (60%).
Of those who believe global warming will affect current or future
generations, 62 percent identify human activities as the primary cause;
only 22 percent say naturally occurring increases in temperature are
responsible. So what do Californians want to do about it? A majority
(54%) express a preference for their state government to develop its own
policies, apart from the federal government, to address the issue of
global warming. Some current state efforts get broad public support:
77 percent favor the state law requiring automakers to further reduce
the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars in California, beginning
in 2009. Support for this measure has remained steady since June 2002.
69 percent support the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission targets recently
established by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, which aim to reduce GHG
emissions from cars, power plants, and industry by more than 80 percent
over the next 50 years.
Why are Californians more inclined to see the state, rather than the
federal government, as a potential problem-solver? “It’s a question of
trust,” says PPIC statewide survey director Mark Baldassare.
“Californians do not have much faith in government in general, but when
it comes to environmental and energy issues, they clearly see the state
as more adequately representing their interests.”
Indeed, more residents trust the state government (52%) than the federal
government (43%) to provide correct information about the condition of
the environment – although both receive considerably less public trust
than do scientists and researchers at universities (78%) and
environmental organizations (64%). The state is also favored over the
federal government when it comes to protecting the quality of the
environment; however, only about one in three Californians trusts the
state government (37%) or the federal government (32%) to do what is
right just about always or most of the time.
Bush, Schwarzenegger Feel the Heat
On a range of environmental and energy issues, state residents are at
odds with the Bush administration and federal priorities. This
disconnect has done little to help performance ratings for President
George W. Bush: Overall, four in 10 California adults (38%) say they
approve of President Bush’s performance in office. Fewer state residents
approve of his handling of environmental (32%) and energy (29%) issues,
and majorities disapprove of his performance in both areas (54%
environment, 53% energy). The differences between the energy priorities
of the federal government (oil drilling and nuclear power) and those of
state residents (fuel efficiency) are illuminating:
A majority of state residents (56%) oppose new oil drilling in
federally-protected areas such as the Alaskan wilderness. On a related
note, Californians (53%) also remain opposed to allowing more oil
drilling off the California coast.
Most Californians (59%) oppose constructing new nuclear power plants in
order to expand U.S. energy sources. While 33 percent of Californians
support building more nuclear power plants, only 20 percent would still
support the plan if a plant were built within 50 miles of their home.
Similarly, although 48 percent of state residents favor the construction
of liquefied natural gas terminals, only 29 percent would still support
the plan if a facility were located within 50 miles of their home.
83 percent of Californians favor requiring automakers to significantly
improve the fuel efficiency of cars – and 73 percent support the policy
even if it increases the cost of buying a new car.
Unlike President Bush, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has been quick to
show that he is close to the hearts and minds of Californians when it
comes to environmental and energy issues. A solid majority of residents
(55%) approve of his plan to encourage the development of hydrogen fuel
cell technology and most (76%) endorse his effort to provide incentives
for the use of solar energy in homes and businesses.
Have these efforts paid off for the governor? Overall, his approval
rating is at a low point (34%), down from 40 percent in May. And
Californians are divided when it comes to his handling of environmental
issues, with 32 percent of residents saying they approve and 35 percent
saying they disapprove. “Schwarzenegger’s problem is more global and has
little to do with his environmental record,” says Baldassare. In the
broader context, 51 percent of Californians say the state is headed in
the wrong direction and 54 percent oppose holding a special election in
November.
Lots of Interest, Less Involvement Among Blacks, Latinos
Most Californians (86%) – including strong majorities of whites,
Latinos, blacks, and Asians – say they are interested in news and
information about environmental issues. However, whites are more likely
to be personally involved in environmental organizations or related
activities than are other racial/ethnic groups, particularly Latinos and
blacks. For example, 14 percent of whites say they have volunteered
their time in the past year to work on an environmental issue, compared
to 8 percent of Latinos and blacks.
Media Gets Low Marks
When residents are asked to assess the trustworthiness of five entities
in providing correct information about the environment, scientists and
researchers at universities (78%) receive the most trust, while the news
media get the least (39%).