The complex politics of global warming

TERRE HAUTE — Are elected officials just shills for the oil companies? Or are they waffling, poll-driven, self-interested, political opportunists? A bit of both? Anyone think maybe neither? The politics of global warming suggests neither.

On June 9, 2010, Dr. Jon Krosnick, a professor of communication and political psychology at Stanford University, released findings from a National Science Foundation funded survey of Americans on their beliefs and policy preferences surrounding climate change. The release of the findings was coupled with his New York Times op-ed. The op-ed is worth reading if for no other reason than Dr. Krosnick’s insights into how the press treats poll results and for a primer on how media-driven poll questions too often miss the mark of what is really important (www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/opinion/09krosnick.html?page
wanted=1&_r=2&ref=opinion).

Dr. Krosnick’s survey is of a high-quality and representative sample and his survey is more carefully crafted than most media sponsored polls. The survey shows significant majorities of Americans believe that the earth is gradually warming (74 percent), that human activities contribute to that warming (75 percent), and that large majorities favor government action to address the problem (76 percent). (The reason that a larger percentage believe human activities contribute to warming and favor government action than believe the earth is gradually warming is because those who indicated they did not believe the earth is gradually warming were asked to assume that it was for the other questions. “Assuming the earth is gradually warming …”)

Based on these findings, Dr. Krosnick concludes, “Even as we are told that Americans are about equally divided into red and blue, a huge majority shares a common vision of climate change. This creates a unique opportunity for elected representatives to satisfy a lot of voters.” Dr. Krosnick apparently thinks or hopes that the majority of politicians are waffling, poll-driven, self-interested political opportunists.

I am convinced by the evidence that the earth is warming. I also am convinced by the evidence that industrial processes, especially the generation of power by burning hydro-carbons, wood, and other carbon-rich sources, is contributing to that warming. And while I, too, think that the government must lead in responding to this problem, I am in the minority in what the general outline of those policies should be.

The Stanford survey showed a clear preference for supply-side (read passive, volunteer) policies in contrast to demand-side (read active, required) policies. Super majorities reject taxes on gasoline (71 percent) and electricity (78 percent) that would raise prices on consumers which in turn would affect their behavior. Eighty-four percent favor tax breaks for companies that produce electricity from renewable sources. Fifty percent or better support tax breaks for producers of cars that get better gas mileage, companies that produce electricity from alternative, renewable sources; and for homes and offices that use less energy. Twenty percent are true libertarians who favor no government action in these areas whatsoever.

Americans believe in convenience, technology (not so much science), and the market. A technology that is cheap, energy efficient, but most important, doesn’t cause “me” to change (or at least not in ways that appear to be inconvenient) is what people will adopt with or without any government action. Producer-side policies, however, don’t yield the results that the demand-side policies do. The market has produced a voracious appetite for energy. When consumers demand 40 MPG cars the producers will produce them. But, either gas has to return to over $4 a gallon or the government has to make 40 MPG the law or tax gas to achieve $4. I think our politicians know that, but those policies, despite their success, would be politically costly.

The elected officials who don’t jump to satisfy the tantalizing super majority of voters who support what seems like a straight-forward policy aren’t necessarily in the hip pocket of the big energy companies, nor are they necessarily poll-driven opportunists. If they followed these poll results, they could give voters what they want and big tax breaks to big business. Woo-hoo, everyone is happy. So, why don’t they do it? Maybe because those policies won’t work.

Maybe our elected officials have a more complex understanding of policy and its interplay with Americans’ behavior than what this or any high-quality survey suggests. Understanding people’s beliefs and values are probably more important than relying on poll results. Indeed, poll results have to be interpreted in light of a deeper understanding of the society in which the respondents live.

Global warming: does the cause really matter that much?

I've been reading the Scietific Assessment report recently released by the White House (4 years late) on global warming and its effects on the US and North America.

And then there is this. an army scientist claims that global warming is due to the sun.

While I understand that there are implications whether "man" did it or "god" did it, what is NOT IN DISPUTE is that the atmosphere is warming and the effects are already evident.

So, as far as adaptation is concerned, does it matter? Even those who agree that humans are a significant factor in global warming, our ability to turn the process around, like we did with the ozone hole and banning CFCs, is much reduced, both for reasons of physics and geopolitics.

But squabbling over the human component of all this reduces our focus on identifying future changes and beginning to adapt/mitigate now. The outcomes are pretty predictable, whether it be due to industrialization or to s sun cycle.

Warming has occured before and humans adapated, and some didn't. But we have the ability to foresee the future on this one. Why ignore it?

Post-modern Conservatives

I always thought that post-modernism was a failing of the left, but i guess the romantics are also found on the right wing, too. Over at Newsbusters, they are crowing about a petition to be unveiled tomorrow at the National Press Club of over 31000 people with science degrees who say that anthropogenic climate warming is wrong.

Just because you can find people who are misinformed doesn't change scientific fact. The petition is the work of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. According to their website this is what the OISM is about:

Research in the Institute's laboratories includes work in protein biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine, and aging. The Institute also carries out work on the improvement of basic education and emergency preparedness.

Yup, climate science all the way.

Now, there is another group of folks, the American Association for the Advancement of Science who issued a report in December of 2006, even ahead of the IPCC report. Here is the first paragraph:

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate
change caused by human activities
is occurring now, and it is a growing
threat to society. Accumulating data from
across the globe reveal a wide array of
effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization
of major ice sheets, increases in
extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts
in species ranges, and more. The pace of
change and the evidence of harm have
increased markedly over the last five
years. The time to control greenhouse
gas emissions is now.

Why is the right wing so worried about taking responsibility for altering the environment? What are they afraid of? Buy trees, sell carbon sequestration units. Make money.

By the way, there is a difference between the science and what "scientists" say.