Climate Notes: Michael, Row the Boat Ashore! (PODCAST)

In a May 13 post on TheNation.com, Eric Alterman and Reed Richardson denounced what they called “The Two Faces of Climate Change on the ‘Washington Post’ Op-Ed Page.”[1] Alterman and Richardson wrote that “a diffident, often dismissive press corps” bears partial responsibility for our failure to resolve the climate crisis:

 

“Indeed, when not ignoring the issue altogether, the establishment media—and the Beltway punditocracy in particular—has played a key role in aiding and abetting the right wing’s denialism through stilted, he-said-she-said story framing. Widespread journalistic negligence of this breadth and depth should frustrate all of us. But no single news organization’s take on climate change rises to the level of inexplicable duplicitousness quite like Washington Post op-ed page.

 

Case in point, on Monday, the Post’s editorial board unabashedly hammered Republican Sen. Marco Rubio for his shameless perpetuation of climate change skepticism. Rubio’s comments, which marked a clear step backward away from the scientific consensus, coincidentally came last Friday during an interview where the senator not-so-humbly said he was “ready to be president." The Post, not mincing words, rightly called out Rubio’s misrepresentations and said his embrace of such falsehoods made him unfit for the Presidency…”

“This rhetorical courage on the part of the Post’s editorial staff isn’t unusual. To their credit, they’ve long used the paper’s highly influential platform to champion the fight against global warming. All of which makes the Post’s willingness to host a number of climate change ditherers and outright deniers on its op-ed pages that much more puzzling.

 

“Of those, George Will sticks out as a climate change denier of the highest order, someone much more visible and voluble on spreading misinformation than Sen. Rubio or almost any other ‘hoax’-hyping Republican in Washington. Indeed, Will’s dissembling on climate change got so bad at one point in 2009, you may recall, that it prompted fellow Post columnist Eugene Robinson, the Post’s weather blog, and two reporters in the news pages to all call him and his lies out—by name.

 

“He’s by no means moved on or wised up since then. Back in February, there he was, throwing out more disingenuous talking points like ‘the climate is always changing,’ which I would note is almost the exact same phrase that Sen. Rubio used—‘our climate is always changing’—last week when the Post lambasted him. But notably missing from those series of rebukes to Will four years ago or from his column three months ago was a direct rebuttal from Fred Hiatt’s own editorial page.

 

“Unfortunately, Will is not alone. In [a recent] Washington Post column, conservative Charles Krauthammer scoffed at the notion that climate change is ‘settled science,’ without bothering to note the actual, overwhelming truth as reported by the Post. Instead, he boldly reiterated his stance as a so-called climate change agnostic, [stating]: ‘I’m not a global warming believer. I’m not a global warming denier.’ But while one can reasonably claim to be uncertain about matters of pure faith, like, say, the existence of God or a serious House Republican plan to replace Obamacare, one cannot by definition be neither a believer nor a denier of a fact.

 

“Moreover, for someone who claims not to have chosen a side on climate change, Krauthammer’s mind sounds fairly settled, since he allows no acknowledgement of the broad scientific consensus and instead cherry-picks data where the only perceivable goal is to feed climate skepticism. For example, he drolly points out that, in all of 2012, only one hurricane made US landfall and that 2013 saw the fewest Atlantic hurricanes in the past thirty years. Take that, climate Cassandras! While both of these facts are accurate, they’re also arbitrary and completely lacking in context. What he conveniently leaves out are the broader, global trends at work, like the unquestionably dramatic rise in ocean heating and the correspondingly fast disappearance of Arctic sea ice. And said post compels the Post to run an almost column-length letter-to-the-editor debunking Krauthammer, one wonders what is the point of giving his shoddy thinking the imprimatur of the paper in the first place?

 

“Alas, these climate change know-nothings on the Post op-ed page has recently been complemented by climate change do-nothing and do-littles. On Monday, for instance, so-called liberal columnist Robert Samuelson melodramatically dropped on the climate change discussion what he purported to be a big ol’ truth bomb: ‘We have no solution.’ But, as Media Matters notes, his fatalistic language, while not only false, only further serves as a self-fulfilling prophecy, one that is a) helplessly reductive and b) only gives comfort to those skeptics who don’t believe climate change merits action anyway. Bizarrely, Samuelson actually does offer up an important framework toward a solution—a [federal] carbon tax—at the end of his column.

 

“Setting aside Samuelson’s self-refuting argument, it’s notable that one month ago the Post’s editorial page was singing the exact opposite tune, calling for immediate, unequivocal action on climate change…

 

“Even those conservative columnists at the Post who aren’t ideologically opposed to the science of climate change can have an undermining effect on the debate of what to do about it. For example, Michael Gerson’s [recent] forthright column aimed at debunking the climate conspiracy theorists in his party nonetheless engages in subtle innuendo and false choices. In it, he poses a lot of “questions” about climate change that have been already answered and characterizes the necessarily hard-to-swallow medicine of science-based solutions to global warming as naïve or unrealistic…

 

“Expert scientific advocacy for a worldwide solution, heaven forfend! Maybe it’s just me, but that seems like exactly the sort of idea we should be considering in the face of a global climate crisis. After all, following the wait-and-see, take-it-slow approach Gerson advocates is exactly what got us into this dire situation, and what the Post’s own editorial page forcefully rejects.”

 

Since he started writing for the Post in 2007, Gerson, who worked as President George W. Bush’s principal speechwriter for five years, has generally taken a more rational take on the climate crisis than his colleagues Krauthammer and Will. Let’s take a look back at some of his observations over the years:

 

• In an August 15, 2007 piece entitled “Hope on Climate Change? Here's Why,” Gerson wrote:

 

“…In 1975, Los Angeles exceeded the ozone standard 192 days out of the year -- meaning the choking smog was so bad that children, the elderly and the infirm were better off avoiding the risky practice of outdoor breathing. In 2005, the ozone standard was exceeded on just 27 days. Los Angeles has had 30 years of consistent improvement in reducing smog.

 

As conservatives would expect, these gains were largely the result of technology -- the catalytic converter in automobiles and reformulated gasoline -- and not by pedaling to work or undoing the Industrial Revolution. Smog was reduced mainly by innovation, not austerity.

 

But liberals are correct about something else: This technological progress would not have taken place as a result of the free market alone. Easterbrook argues that as long as producing pollution is a free good -- without cost to the polluter -- there is little economic incentive to produce new methods to restrict it. Federal and state regulations on auto emissions and air quality created an environment in which the invention of new technologies was economically necessary.

ad_icon

 

There are lessons here in the controversy over global warming. The debate is less and less about the existence of the problem itself. A consensus has hardened and broadened that global temperatures are increasing, that humans have contributed to the rise and that this is eventually a bad thing for the planet -- views held by the environmental movement and publicly affirmed by the current president. The differences come on whether these environmental changes are likely to be gradual and manageable or swift and apocalyptic. Here, the scientific computer simulations are complex and speculative, and their conclusions are sometimes wildly overplayed.

 

Hysteria on the environment is a liberal temptation. Prudence, however, remains a conservative virtue, and it requires the issue of warming to be addressed.

 

But is it addressable? Would any politically feasible policy changes by Congress and the president make a dent in this trend? There is good reason for skepticism. American emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are only part of a global problem. China and India are quickly building new coal-fired power plants to sustain massive economic growth. According to one estimate, China surpassed the United States in the production of greenhouse gases last year. We are only at the beginning of globalization -- and right now, that process is inseparable from the burning of fossil fuels. American restrictions on greenhouse gases, in isolation, would not be decisive.

 

This is not, however, an excuse for inaction. There is another, more compelling reason to consider a cap on the production of carbon dioxide. As in the case of fighting Los Angeles smog, this type of government regulation would create economic incentives for the development of new technologies -- incentives that do not exist in the free market. Capturing and storing carbon dioxide from power plants, by all accounts, is a difficult technical challenge. But the problem is much more likely to be solved if someone has a direct economic interest in solving it.

 

There are several proposals by members of Congress -- including a bipartisan bill from Sens. Joseph Lieberman and John Warner due next month -- that take a "cap-and-trade" approach to greenhouse gases. The government mandates overall reductions in emissions and lets companies decide how to implement them. If someone produces less carbon dioxide, for example, that reduction can be sold to another producer and yield some money in the process. This kind of market-based system has been used successfully to cut coal-powered plants' emissions of sulfur dioxide, the main cause of acid rain.

 

A cap-and-trade system isn't perfect. It is open to fraud -- companies in other countries have sometimes increased their production of pollutants to get benefits for cutting them later. A cap-and-trade bill could be used by Congress to push subsidies toward pet environmental projects of questionable value.

 

But the overall argument for a cap-and-trade system is strong. The answer to global warming will eventually be technological -- the production of energy without the production of heat-trapping gases. But only the government can create the incentives for Americans to work on this problem with urgency and seriousness. And there is hope to be found in the clearer skies of Los Angeles.”[2]

 

• In a July 17, 2008 op-ed entitled “Climate change at top of the globe,” Gerson described a recent trip to the Arctic to observe the consequences of carbon pollution and concluded:

 

“Global climate, of course, has changed before. But climate conditions for the last 10,000 years have been relatively stable, to the great benefit of civilization. Current temperature increases point beyond that band of comfort and don't seem explainable by natural cycles. The one factor dramatically different from the past is the human production of greenhouse gases, particularly the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years.

 

“The challenge of replacing carbon in our economy is massive -- and many incompletely known factors, from ice dynamics to the flow of ocean currents, determine its urgency. Answers will require a politically difficult task: acting with uncertain risk.

 

“But as I stand near the top of the world on a desolate shore with whale skulls and ruins, the crude oil economy appears about as primitive and destructive as the whale oil economy now seems.”[3]

 

• In a July 1, 2009 piece entitled “Cap-and-Traitors and Global Warming,” Gerson defended those who voted in favor of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, declaring:

 

“A serious concern about global climate disruption remains the broad (not unanimous but predominant) view of the scientific community, including the National Academy of Sciences. Global warming since the 19th century is undeniable -- a trend not disproved by year-to-year variations. These changes are closely correlated with increases in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the Industrial Revolution. Climate disruption has become so rapid in some places that it is overwhelming the natural process of adjustment, reducing crop yields and leading to the extinction of species. Meanwhile, global carbon emissions are increasing faster than expected. Some scientists warn of possible "tipping points" -- the rapid disintegration of the ice sheets, the sudden release of methane from warming northern soils -- that could turn a challenge into a catastrophe of lethal heat waves and rising sea levels.

 

Is this scientific viewpoint certain or guaranteed? Not when the scientific models concern a system as complex as the Earth's climate. Neither is it guaranteed that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be used against that country's enemies. But the realistic possibility of disaster, in both cases, would recommend a serious response.

 

The range of serious responses is limited. The federal government might spend directly on new technologies that produce energy without emitting carbon. But government's record in picking technological winners and losers is poor.

 

Others propose a carbon tax -- a cost per ton emitted, with no special exemptions. This system would be simple to implement and difficult to game. But it would also disproportionately punish some energy-intensive American industries -- cement, glass, steel and paper -- that face intense international competition.

 

The final alternative is a cap-and-trade system, which sets an overall limit on carbon emissions while directing relief to specific industries through rebates and offsets. Cap-and-trade has been used with dramatic success to reduce acid rain -- but it has never been employed on the massive scale that the regulation of carbon requires.

 

Critics argue that carbon restrictions, even if fully implemented, would reduce global temperatures only by minor amounts, which is true. We are not going to regulate our way out of global climate disruption. The only eventual solution is technological -- the ability to produce affordable, clean power on a large scale.

 

But conservatives seem strangely intent on ignoring the power of markets to encourage such innovation. Right now, the emission of carbon is essentially cost-free. Putting a price on carbon would make the development of cleaner energy technologies more profitable. New technologies could be employed, not only by America, but also by China, India and the rest of the developing, polluting world. And it is an added (but not minor) benefit that American resources would no longer be transferred to Saudi princes, Russian autocrats and Venezuelan dictators.

 

It is perfectly legitimate to argue that the House cap-and-trade system is flawed beyond redemption -- so complex and confusing that it only benefits regulators and the lobbyists who outwit them -- and that Congress should start over with a carbon tax.

 

It is also legitimate to contend that, while the cap-and-trade system is flawed, it is better than inaction and necessary to spur innovation.”[4]

 

• In a January 16, 2012 piece entitled “Climate and the culture war,” Gerson writes:

 

“The resistance of many conservatives to arguments about climate disruption is magnified by class and religion. Tea Party types are predisposed to question self-important elites. Evangelicals have long been suspicious of secular science, which has traditionally been suspicious of religious influence. Among some groups, skepticism about global warming has become a symbol of social identity…

 

“But however interesting this sociology may be, it has nothing to do with the science at issue. Even if all environmentalists were socialists and secularists and insufferable and partisan to the core, it would not alter the reality of the Earth’s temperature.

 

“Since the 1950s, global temperatures have increased about nine-tenths of a degree Celsius — the recent conclusion of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project — which coincides with a large increase in greenhouse gasses produced by humans. This explanation is most consistent with the location of warming in the atmosphere. It best accounts for changing crop zones, declining species, thinning sea ice and rising sea levels. Scientists are not certain about the pace of future warming — estimates range from 2 degrees C to 5 degrees C over the next century. But warming is already proceeding faster than many plants and animals can adapt to.

 

“These facts do not dictate a specific political response. With Japan, Canada and Russia withdrawing from the Kyoto process, the construction of a global regulatory regime for carbon emissions seems unlikely and may have never been possible. The broader use of nuclear power, the preservation of carbon-consuming rain forests and the encouragement of new energy technologies are more promising.

 

“But any rational approach requires some distance between science and ideology. The extraction and burning of dead plant matter is not a moral good — or the proper cause for a culture war.”[5]

 

 

• In an October 10, 2013 piece entitled “Politics is poorly suited to address global warming”:

 

“However the IPCC report is used or abused, it represents a consensus and not a conspiracy. “Each of the last three decades,” it concludes, “has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850.” The oceans have warmed and grown more acidic. Ice sheets are losing mass. Sea ice and snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere are shrinking. Ocean levels are rising. (Compared to its report six years ago, the IPCC has raised its projection of sea-level rise during this century by about 40 percent.) All these things are plausibly related to increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases produced in vast amounts by humans. And these trends involve serious public risks.

 

The report is filled with admissions of uncertainty, which are sometimes seized on as vulnerabilities. Uncertainty is, in fact, essential to the scientific enterprise, which is designed for self-correction. The evidence for human-caused climate disruption is increasingly clear. The magnitude of future disruption is a matter of scientific debate. But when the stakes are high, uncertainty is not a good justification for complacency.”[6]

 

• And in the May 12 piece Alterman and Richardson referenced in their Nation piece—an article entitled “Americans’ aversion to science carries a high price,” Gerson writes:

 

“…Skepticism about climate change is correlated with libertarian and free-market beliefs.

 

Merely raising climate disruption in this context will cause many to bristle. Skeptics employ this issue as a prime example of motivated reasoning — politicians motivated by the prospect of confiscation, scientists motivated by securing acclaim and government contracts.

 

In its simplest, cable-television version, this charge, at least against scientists, is outrageous. The assumption that the vast majority in a scientific field is engaged in fraud or corruption is frankly conspiratorial. In this case, the conspiracy would need to encompass the national academies of more than two dozen countries, including the United States.

 

Other, more measured criticisms ring truer. Some scientists have displayed an artificial certainty on some matters that seems to cross into advocacy. Others assume that the only way to deal with greenhouse gas emissions is a strict, global regulatory regime — an economic and political judgment that has nothing to do with their actual expertise.

 

But none of these objections relates to the scientific question: Is a 40 percent increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the Industrial Revolution driving disruptive warming? And further: Can this process be slowed, allowing societies and ecosystems more time to adapt?

 

Our intuitions are useless here. The only possible answers come from science. And for non-scientists, this requires a modicum of trust in the scientific enterprise. Even adjusting for the possibility of untoward advocacy, it seems clear that higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have produced a modest amount of warming and are likely to produce more. This, in turn, is likely to produce higher sea levels, coastal flooding, shifting fisheries, ocean acidification, water shortages, lower crop yields and vanishing ecosystems. The consequences will vary by region but are likely to be more severe in poorer nations. New York City can adapt to a rising ocean better than Bangladesh.

 

This scientific consensus raises difficult political questions. Is some grand global bargain on carbon-dioxide emissions, including China and India, even a possibility? Might it be more practical to make polluters pay — perhaps with a revenue-neutral carbon tax, fully rebated to taxpayers — thereby encouraging the development of new technologies that limit future carbon emissions?”[7]

 

 

As someone who believes the answer to both of Gerson’s questions is “Hell yes!”, I have to give Gerson credit for his serious analysis of the climate crisis. I don’t agree with all of his points—but then again, I don’t agree with things I wrote five years ago. I do agree that Gerson has the potential to play a critical role in forging the bonds that will be needed to resolve the climate crisis once and for all.

 

Here’s hoping that Gerson continues to use his forum at the Washington Post to ask thoughtful questions, and point to potential answers, regarding how we can protect our climate for future generations. By urging us to think about what happens if we don’t, he’ll continue to do what George Will won’t.

---

[1] http://www.thenation.com/blog/179846/two-faces-climate-change-washington-post-op-ed-page#

[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/14/AR2007081401327.html

[3] http://www.thenation.com/blog/179846/two-faces-climate-change-washington-post-op-ed-page#

[4] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/30/AR2009063002896.html

[5] http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/climate-and-the-culture-war/2012/01/16/gIQA6qH63P_story.html

[6] http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-gerson-politics-is-poorly-suited-to-respond-to-climate-change/2013/10/10/870c1138-31d0-11e3-9c68-1cf643210300_story.html

[7] http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-gerson-americans-aversion-to-science-carries-a-high-price/2014/05/12/7800318e-d9fe-11e3-bda1-9b46b2066796_story.html