The Republican position - either avowed ignorance or conspiracy theorizing - is ultimately unsustainable, but some still cling to it because they believe that accepting the premise that some climate change is occurring as a result of human action means accepting the conclusions of the most rabid left-wing climate activists. Where there is an almost universally held scientific conclusion, politicians - absent some extraordinary circumstance - should take it seriously. Now and then scientific paradigms will be radically rethought by some inventive thinker, but politicians are not to be relied upon to figure out who is a Galileo and who is a quack. But too often politicians have chosen the side of the outlier scientist whose conclusion they like instead of the widely accepted view that might challenge their own preferences. Of course, there are always a few scientists who challenge this mainstream view. There is no reason why climate change should be different. Politicians rely on engineers to help them figure out which bridges are worth building, on physicists to suggest which defense projects are most feasible, and on biologists to better understand the threat of Ebola or Swine Flu. Scientific ignorance is not an excuse for refusing to stake out a position. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, House speaker John Boehner, presidential candidates Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio, and rising star Senator Joni Ernst have all adopted the new talking point on the issue: "I'm not a scientist." This is an attempt to invoke ignorance in order to avoid embarrassment. Many more Republicans are uncomfortable making accusations of corruption and conspiracy against so much of the scientific community, but they too have struggled to sustain an untenable position. Instead, for years those conservatives with access to the biggest megaphones have announced that the science underlying global warming is somewhere between highly speculative and "the greatest hoax," to quote from the title of a book on the subject by Senator James Inhofe, a Republican with significant influence on climate matters. Liberal alarmism could be countered with arguments and with constructive policy alternatives to the administrative power grabs that the left prefers. Yet, as liberals have yelled that the sky is falling, conservatives have plugged their own ears not only to ludicrous exaggerations, but also to the available facts. The truth is that the most authoritative, mainstream scientific predictions envision some serious, undesirable changes, but hardly the dystopia of Gore's imagination. "Without immediate and decisive action, these favorable conditions on Earth could become a memory if we continue to make the climate crisis worse day after day after day." Former vice president Al Gore, a leading liberal voice on the subject, has compared global warming to "an asteroid colliding with the Earth and wreaking havoc." "Our food systems, our cities, our people and our very way of life developed within a stable range of climatic conditions on Earth," Gore has written. Liberals have seized upon outlandishly improbable climate scenarios to urge drastic and immediate action. The rest of us are ready to sail.The political debate over climate change has long resembled a contest to see which party can discredit itself more. If you’ve got a passenger on board and one lounging on the dock, here’s a thought: Go yell at the guy on the dock. While we’re in the neighborhood, let’s address the oft-repeated incantation that we must "make climate change a bipartisan issue." I’m all for making climate change a bipartisan issue, but, um … why you looking at me? Why is it that greens and progressives are targeted for these lectures? They’re the ones on board. But they can be made to hate anyone it’s their stock in trade. It’s a structural issue, not one specific to Gore. Defense of those interests is the fundamental animating principle of U.S. The fact is, a credible response to climate change threatens the financial interests of certain wealthy corporate Republican backers. But are we seriously to believe that if another figure - one with no political history - came along and tried to mobilize the public behind an aggressive policy approach that included a carbon tax, a moratorium on new coal plants, and a target of 90% CO2 reductions by 2050, that person would escape sliming? The right wing dead-ender 30% slime him, yes. As I said back here, Gore only looks divisive from inside the fishbowl of our dopey public discourse. Perhaps such leaders have not emerged because the partisanship is, as it were, baked in. To support our nonprofit environmental journalism, please consider disabling your ad-blocker to allow ads on Grist.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |