The new school year has started, and with that, the inevitable slowdown of posts on this blog. However, with a little bit of time scraped together in the past couple of days, I wanted to talk about a broad subject that I’ve thought about for years, reflecting on my own anecdotal observations. This will be a story of my experience with Republican resistance to the idea of anthropogenic climate change and why I think it was so strong.
I finished college in 2007, and, within a couple of weeks, had a job with the Japanese equivalent of the National Science Foundation, the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, or, much more simply, NEDO. The organization had several offices around the world that were set up to monitor policy developments in several fields in the host country, and staffed with NEDO employees, locals (like me), and workers from the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI). My job was to follow developments in energy and climate policy in the US and Canada, sending back daily to Tokyo news updates, occasional topic reports on things like renewable energy tax policy, and records of events I attended at NGOs, think-tanks, embassies, and on Capitol Hill. I also managed contractors writing reports on things like California’s climate and energy policy. It was an amazing job, where I had the freedom to largely determine which events and issues deserved my attention. I spent my days learning all I could about renewable energy, climate change, and mitigation strategies. In meetings or at events where most attendees had some kind of agenda reflected by the industry or organization they represented, I was there as an observer, just to record what happened and occasionally ask questions. My time in the job coincided with some fascinating developments, too. When I started, the Bush Administration was fully denying climate change by doing things such as refusing to acknowledge EPA’s ability to determine whether CO2 is a pollutant, but they were having to contend with a Democratic Congress. Then, the Obama Administration took over in 2009, and the feeling was pervasive inside the Beltway that a government in total control of the Democrats would certainly pass legislation that would place a price on carbon emissions. However, it was also an era in which Republican opposition to such policies was not yet uniform. Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, for example, were sponsors of bills that would seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by pricing them. But, the denial of climate change that we see in spades today among Republicans was beginning to blossom in Congress, too. In some cases, this was understandable. Whenever I attended House Energy and Commerce Committee hearings, Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) would bring out a poster-sized photo of coal miners in his district whose jobs he said had been killed by the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. He would not be a party to further legislation that would hurt the coal industry in his district, he would say. But other officials, like Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), denied climate change even though they were from districts with little or no fossil fuel extraction. I remember Rep. Blackburn mocking the idea of anthropogenic climate change and proclaiming that surely any temperature changes were the result of variations in solar activity. I was taken aback at this seemingly nonsensical (though perhaps now typical) hostility to something that seemed so obvious: climate change is real and caused by humans. In order to avoid widespread damage and economic harm -- even in Republican districts! – serious emission control policies would have to be put in place. Indeed, in 2000, then-candidate George W. Bush suggested that carbon dioxide emissions from power plants be curbed. Perhaps some of this newfound resistance could be explained simply by lobbying contributions from the fossil fuel industries. But I think it also went deeper than that, as evidenced by the fact that opposition to any sort of climate policy among the GOP at the federal level has hardened greatly over the past decade. At the core of this is, I think, an understanding on the right that any method of seriously controlling greenhouse gas emissions opens the door to massive state intervention in the economy, and that is unacceptable to many people. When the sincere belief that the government inevitably makes a mess of things whenever it gets involved in the economy comes against the notion that with a problem like climate change, such involvement is necessary, the skepticism of government wins out. Additionally, I believe it was clear to conservatives by the time I came along that pricing carbon would lead to other kinds of government involvement that they so disliked. In order for climate policy to be successful, it must make fossil fuel energy more expensive so that people will use less of it. People, naturally, do not like spending more on energy, and so there were calls even during the climate bill debates, to include measures like energy assistance for the poor and subsidies for research into renewable energy and electric vehicle technology (and that famous, stalled champion of the Bush Administration, hydrogen fuel-cell powered cars). Conservatives came to see climate change as an excuse by the left to grow government and enhance redistributive programs, and this probably explained some of the enthusiasm that the left had for the issue. But I saw practically no recognition of this dynamic in the writings of flummoxed liberals at the time. Instead, there were calls for education on the issue, which were misplaced. That assumed the opposition was born of honest ignorance rather than severe cognitive dissonance. Conservatives refused to believe in human-caused climate change because it would ruin their worldview to do so. Today, that has morphed into a question of identity; many rank-and-file conservatives seem to deny climate change because it is part of their identity as those opposing the arrogant and corrupt coastal elite. This explains such terrible practices as rolling coal. It seemed then to me that one point of agreement across the parties is that strong action against climate change would lead to a society that is both more sustainable and more equitable, and I believe this is still the case. However, for one group, such a society would be an utter tragedy, as it would mean a far more active role for government in the economy than they are comfortable with. And such cognitive dissonance in the area of climate change served to pave the way for the post-truth politics we face today.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorEconomist. Professor. Environmentalist. Archives
July 2017
Categories |