Why Climate Deniers May Be RINOs

Here’s what makes me suspicious of the politics of climate denialists.

Whether or not you believe the evidence turned out by that part of the scientific community that is convinced climate change is taking place, there is a compelling logic behind following the precautionary approach.

For our purposes here, I’ll define “the precautionary approach” according to the terms used in Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration, i.e., “when there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” [emphasis mine] 

Think of it this way. Even if climate change is not taking place, or if whatever change that is taking place is entirely unrelated to human activity, does it not make sense to take better care of the planet, burn fewer dead dinosaurs, and live a more sustainable life, particularly when those measures do not impose an undue burden on individuals or the government? 

This approach is neither liberal nor radical. It is rooted in the values that many of us cherish and that we have inherited from the generations that have come before us: frugality, manifested by an aversion to needless waste; an abiding respect for the land rooted in our agrarian heritage; and an aversion to becoming dependent on foreign nations, our government, or big business.

The appropriate Republican approach to climate change is, therefore, neither outright acceptance nor denial, but precautionary wisdom.

Was Superstorm Sandy the Result of Climate Change?

Hurricane Sandy 2012
Hurricane Sandy 2012 (Photo credit: charliekwalker)

“Superstorm Sandy triggers climate blame game
David Shukman
BBC News
13 December 2012

As the East Coast continues its painful recovery from the wrath of Sandy, some commentators have used the opportunity to put forth their pet theories about climate change. Along those lines, I found BBC Science Editor David Shukman’s commentary on the link between global warming and Sandy to be a refreshng break from shouting on both sides of the issue.

Shukman, whom I would not put into the “denialist” camp on climate change, says that we are all still learning about the link between changes in surface temperature and tropical storms, and as such we need to keep the discussion fact-based. Responding to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg‘s comments on the storm, he noted:

The question is one of risk, not of certainty – the risk that the continuing rise in greenhouse gases from human activities may exacerbate extreme weather.

To go further, as many environmental campaigners would like to – to suggest that the violence of Hurricane Sandy is the result of global warming – is to strain what scientists themselves are able to conclude.

When we have debates about climate change and man’s relationship to it, the two concepts we have to focus on are a) what are the scientifically provable (or likely) facts; and b) what are the realistic and worst-case risks we face? Based on rational, science-based answers to those questions (as opposed to wishful thinking or science fiction), we can craft the policies most likely to mitigate the risks.

I am not yet ready to buy the most gloomy predictions of impending doom (and I’m still buying coastal property), but I have always believed in using the precautionary principle when it comes to matters of national security: give the guy with the scary story the benefit of the doubt and make reasonable, extendable, cost-effective preparations for the worst case.

If, for example, we decide that there is a risk that our dependency on fossil fuels is causing global warming, do we as a nation lose anything by directing university research at the development of alternatives (which, by the way, need a lot of development? Are there not compelling economic and national security reasons for reducing our dependence on a non-renewable resource?

And are there not sufficient public health benefits to reduced fossil-fuel emissions to provide us an incentive to pursue that policy? What about the economic benefits of raising the energy efficiency of businesses, buildings, and households? Can we honestly say that growing more green plants, even if ostensibly to “lock up” carbon, has no other benefits to mankind?

We need to driven by wisdom in this debate, not by fear, nor by greed, nor by inertia. Shukman injects the debate with some wisdom.

Jerry and the Climate Deniers

Jerry Brown 5
Jerry Brown (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Jerry Brown rails against climate deniers during summer of record heat
Philip Bump
Grist

Governor Jerry Brown has just launched a new web page, “Climate change: Just the facts,” on which he notes:

“After decades of pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, humanity is getting dangerously close to the point of no return,” Brown said in a statement. “Those who still deny global warming’s existence should wake up and honestly face the facts.”

After all these years, I remain unconvinced about the causal link between fossil fuels and global warming. The case is circumstantial at best, and I am suspicious of the self-interests arrayed on both sides of the argument.

Nonetheless, I am no scientist, and I am thus in no position to judge the validity of the research either way. But if there is even a 50% possibility that the link is real, it behooves us as a society and a polity to behave as such.

What is more, the negative effects of our quest for and use of fossil fuels should be apparent to all. The future of the world cannot be build on coal and oil, and we will be generations cleaning up the environmental and political damage that the crescendo of our dependency has wrought.

Despite utopian claims from the left, however, we cannot shift everything off of fossil fuels all at once. There is simply nothing that delivers the energy in BTUs for the money invested better than coal, oil, and natural gas.

Nonetheless, we must begin the process of shifting to more sustainable practices whenever and wherever we can. The sooner all of us as individuals begin that shift, the faster sustainable energy reaches economies of scale, and the less government will have to make blind bets on individual companies just to get sustainable products and services to market.

If we Republicans believe in the value of individual action over government fiat, we have to begin to act. It does not make us leftists to start living our lives more sustainably. It makes us intelligent. And for those areas that are beyond our ability as individuals to affect, we have to recognize – as Teddy Roosevelt and Ike Eisenhower did – that the government has a role to play in moving America forward.