Summary: Republicans have adopted a purely negative platform for dealing with climate change, a difficult to explain policy that puts them in opposition to most scientists. This post describes an alternative platform, one that is consistent with their principles, easy to explain, appealing to undecided voters, and cuts through the chaff of factional bickering. It’s the kind of policy that helps create coalitions that win elections.
“… a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus, but a molder of consensus.”
— Martin Luther King’s speech “Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution“, at the Episcopal National Cathedral in Washington on 31 March 1968.
Contents
- GOP weakness on climate change
- An agenda for the 21st century.
- Conclusions.
- Other posts in this series.
- For more information.
(1) The Republicans’ weak stance on climate change
The Republicans have ceded the politics of climate change to the Democrats. The only mention of it in the 2012 Republican platform is trivial…
“Finally, the strategy subordinates our national security interests to environmental, energy, and international health issues, and elevates “climate change” to the level of a “severe threat” equivalent to foreign aggression.”
So far the GOP’s 2016 presidential candidates have little to say about it. I see no policy statements about climate change on the issues pages of campaign websites for Rick Santorum, Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul.
Carly Fiorina says that the solution to climate change is “innovation not regulation”, without many details (her website points to video clip here, and here). She also says — logically — that California should have prepared better for the drought — although her specific recommendations are illogical: more dams and water infrastructure (ineffective and too expensive to cope with multi-year droughts) and massive destruction of California’s ecology (e.g., damage to key species such as the delta smelt — calling it unimportant because it’s a “small fish”).
When questioned, Republican candidates tend to respond with evasions and half-understood techno-babble (even if they understood it, the public would not) — or just deny the problem (see responses at the CNN debate). There is a better way, one consistent with their commitment to a strong defense and a sound infrastructure for America.
(2) A better way: policies that can gain wide support
“We don’t even plan for the past.”
— Steven Mosher (member of Berkeley Earth; bio here), a comment posted at Climate Etc.
Clear communication requires a simple but powerful plan. Here’s one such for climate change. Start with beliefs that have wide support.
- Climate always changes. It has both built and wrecked civilizations throughout history.
- The world has been warming during the past two centuries.
- The IPCC’s AR5 tells us about the past: “more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.”
- Forecasting future climate remains an uncertain science.
- The world has seen much extreme weather during the past two centuries, which will reoccur — sometimes with horrific consequences.
- Studying past weather and climate patterns can help us prepare for the future. It has a high cost/benefit ratio.
These provide the foundation for two sets of public policy recommendations. First, prepare for the extreme weather of the past that we know will come again. Second, use proven methods to strengthen our climate science institutions so they provide reliable insights for policy-makers.
(a) Prepare for the past to repeat
While we bicker about how to preparing for possible futures we ignore a more certain threat: the almost inevitable repeat of past extreme weather events — even if we don’t know their timing or magnitude. A major east coast city will get hit by a large hurricane. Long hard droughts are normal for the southwest. Massive snow storms will hit the north and northeast regions. We’re better prepared for Russia to invade us than for these events.
This means spending on infrastructure to protect cities and stronger regulation of building in sensitive areas (or pass stronger laws preventing such structures from getting disaster relief). Since we have limited funds, an agency should be given the lead responsibility to assess the risks, allocate funds, and monitor performance of these projects.
(b) Climate scientists are our eyes, an essential resource
In response to a request for supporting data, Philip Jones, a prominent researcher {U of East Anglia} said “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
– From the testimony of Stephen McIntyre before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (the July 2006 hearings which produced the Wegman Report).
We are utterly dependent on scientists for advice about the future of climate change. In this respect their social role is more like those studying health care than those studying anthropology or astrophysics. The scientific method applies to all of these, but the human terrain differs where the political and financial stakes are large and immediate. Purely academic fields have less potential for — and cost from — sensationalism, crying “wolf”, and allying with political factions that have unrelated goals (e.g., religious, political, or economic change).
Experience in other fields shows how to deal with these conflicts of interest. Since we cannot easily or even reliably train or test for ethical behavior of individuals, we ensure institutions have an acceptable minimum of ethics by relying on well-proven tools. Doctors and stockbrokers have licensing requirements and regulatory machinery because people are fallible, even when well-intended. Even institutions manned by people of high character can fail from inadequate regulatory machinery (e.g., the horrible but pervasive history of child abuse in the Catholic Church). Some recommendations for climate science…
- Disclosures of conflicts of interest.
- Transparency by publication of methods and publicly-funded data.
- Review of studies by a multidisciplinary team of unaffiliated experts.
- Clear lines of responsibility for work and supervision.
The first two are obvious, but poorly done in the climate sciences (although with slow but substantial improvement during the past two decades).
The third is essential, but almost unknown (peer review is inadequate for such high-stakes research). For example, review of climate models would require substantial funding. The 2006 North report by the National Research Council was only a shadow of what’s needed to produce assurance on a subject of such importance.
The fourth is essential, yet not even discussed. We’re told the world is at stake. Who is responsible in the Federal government for coordinating the response? NOAA is the obvious lead agency, although today much of the work flows through NASA and the National Science Foundation (NSF). This makes no sense.
Create a team to prepare a plan for research to determine the threat from climate change, Re-focus NASA on space exploration. The business-as-usual academic processes of the NSF, universities, and science journals are inappropriate means to respond to a global threat. The IPCC is largely a sales organization, collecting research to prove a pre-determined goal.
These reforms, plus adequate funding, can create research that Americans can rely upon — and act upon. If we had done this in 1990 we’d have reliable answers now.
(3) Conclusions
“You can’t beat something with nothing.”
Of course, not everybody will support these proposals. Nobody likes external supervision and review. Some institutions will lose funding and visibility, and will fight for their self-interest over ours. Some people use climate change as a stalking horse for their own goals. But these are small factions, most of whom are politically weak when pushed off the political high ground by a strong alternative.
I believe most Americans will see these as a cost-effective way to help America prepare for the 21st century.
(4) Other posts in this series
These posts sum up my 330 posts about climate change.
- How we broke the climate change debates. Lessons learned for the future.
- Today: How the GOP can own the climate change debate.
- How climate scientists can re-start the public policy debate about climate change.
(5) For More Information
Please like us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and post your comments — because we value your participation. For more information about this vital issue see The keys to understanding climate change and My posts about climate change. Especially see these key posts…
- The hidden but important IPCC foundation for Obama’s Clean Power Plan.
- The 97% consensus of climate scientists is only 47%.
- Politifact tells us about American politics and science. We should listen.
- What’s the consensus of climate scientists? Why do we care?
Also see these posts about forecasts about climate change…
- Looking into the past for guidance about warnings of future climate apocalypses.
- Checking up on past forecasts about climate change, a guide to the future.
- Will we see the end of snow? More importantly, when will we learn to see the world clearly?
- Is our certain fate a coal-burning climate apocalypse? No!
- Six headlines from 2009 telling us important news about 2015’s climate — Deadlines to save the Earth.
- Ten years after Katrina: let’s learn from those predictions of more & bigger hurricanes.
- The easy solution to the looming monster methane apocalypse.