Politicians, climate policy and cognitive dissonance

I think I've made it pretty clear where I stand on the subject of climate change denial, but to a certain extent, I've grown to admire the commitment of deniers to their ignorance. Despite having been consistently shown to be fools lacking basic scientific knowledge or human empathy, deniers tend to show an awful lot of resilience. Either they've simply given up on rational thought, or they've realised that if they cave now they'd have to own up to being massive tools. Whatever it is, like a stubborn stain in a toilet bowl, they won't disappear easily.

What is perhaps more pressing, at least in a political sense, is the stance of those who have accepted the facts of global warming but have so far failed to act with anything like the speed required. Obviously, certain aspects of climate policy are notoriously difficult to articulate because of uncertainties, but the urgency with which we must proceed is not in doubt. Action and clear targets need to be enforced now. Investment and commitment is a must.

I recently read an interview with Jon Huntsman in which he perfectly articulated everything I find distasteful about this wishy-washy approach to climate questions, so I thought I would use this opportunity to make a few points. For those of you who do not know him, Huntsman is seemingly one of the few rational human beings still part of the Republican Party in the US. Prior to his decision to run for the GOP nomination, a rather doomed enterprise considering his rather centrist views, Huntsman had accepted the qualified opinion of the scientific community on the question of anthropogenic climate change to the extent that he famously tweeted towards the start of the race: "To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy."

Sadly, the initial optimism surrounding Huntsman's faith in science was dashed last December when he parroted the denialist line that "the scientific community owes us more in terms of a better description or explanation." Because of this, he continued, there is simply "not enough info right now to be able to formulate policies."

Obviously, Huntsman was always going to be playing to a hostile crowd on the subject of environmentalism, but it was nonetheless disheartening to be confronted with a GOP race in which none of the candidates were prepared to act on decades of qualified research.

When asked recently by Grist about his apparent volte-face Huntsman maintained his position, arguing that "there is confusion in the minds of a lot of Americans about where the science is because the debate is still going on in the scientific community." Without "consistent and scientifically backed data," he insists, "you can't get good public policy." 

This could be taken straight out of a denialist handbook. Right from the get-go climate scientists have been adamant about the absolute necessity of curbing CO2 emissions. For more than two decades now, the IPCC has insisted on the vital importance of acting sooner rather than later. Lyndon Johnson even addressed congress on the subject back in 1965. There is still confusion in the science, but only in the particulars. By calling for further research, delay, and 'clarity,' you are simply inviting catastrophe. The solid facts of man-made global warming have been known about for a very long time, and Huntsman's failure to acknowledge this speaks volumes about his priorities.

These priorities become more clear later in the interview when Huntsman notes that "the problem [of climate change] has become eclipsed by the jobs deficit right now...There ain't a whole lot of bandwidth for anything else." Climate change is simply "taking a backseat to some of these other more urgent issues that are economics related. I'm not following the issue like I was several years ago." Most tellingly, he claims, "people aren't going to hear out the scientific community until such time as the economy rebounds."

Personally I find it hard to conceive of anything more urgent that combating the greatest environmental threat that mankind has ever faced, but Huntsman's rhetoric is simply indicative of the position of many politicians on both sides of the barricade. A fallacy has emerged, suggesting that we have to make a choice between economic recovery and jobs or a clean energy future. Not only does this position eschew the reality of job creation in the low carbon sector, it fails to account for the absolutely enormous potential of a switch to green energy. Not just in jobs, but in terms of growth as well. Technological innovation through research and development could well spark the industries of the future, and there are clear indications that renewables are growing ever more competitive on an economic level. The furore over the British government's decision to cut solar FITs is, in this respect, something of a promising development. In addition, failure to act now could result in gigantic costs further down the line. Economic transformation is simply not something that might happen, it's something that has to happen unless we want to embrace economic ruin in the long term.

Which neatly points us to another wholly distasteful element of modern politics that is totally at odds with climate reality: ferociously aggressive short-termism. When GDP is all that matters, and political careers rest on its fluctuations, it becomes incredibly difficult to persuade public figures of the necessity of revolutionising entire economies. When the immediate consequences of emissions are hidden by lags, moreover, this task becomes ever more challenging.

Although not a problem of Huntsman's making, short-termism is an issue which we need to deal with and one which politicians needs to discuss openly. There are signs that this conversation is beginning. In the UK, for example, Rupert Read has suggested the creation of a third house of 'Guardians' that would monitor and vet legislation to ensure that it does not adversely affect the generations that will come after us. Cross-party agreement on long-term goals and policy is, in my opinion, a necessity, unless we want to continue to see our interest in the environment vary along with the stock market.

Moreover, the most frustrating element of Huntsman's position is his apparent unwillingness to account for market failure. Pure and simple, environmental decimation brought about through man-made warming is the unseen or ignored consequence of industrialised capitalism. Had environmental factors been costed properly in the first place, it seems highly unlikely that we would find ourselves in such a precarious position. To continue to ignore this market failure, and prioritise fossil fuels in the immediate future, is sheer lunacy. It is the decision to abandon the real world for a fantasy universe in which the laws of physics do not apply. Markets must be logically bound by the parameters of the world in which they exist, so to suggest that the environment can take a backseat to economic development is frankly absurd. Economic development should not and can not be divorced from environmental well-being. Reality has to frame economic development, not the other way around, and until politicians realise this the real world will continue to suffer.