The Economist explains: Why scientists are (almost) certain that climate...
The Economist explains
Thoughts and opinions on America’s kinetic brand of politics. The blog is named after Alexis de Tocqueville’s study of American politics and society
Advertisement
The Economist explains: Why scientists are (almost) certain that climate...
The Economist explains
US mid-terms interactive: The battle for the Senate
Graphic detail
Private spaceflight: Down to Earth
Science and technology
Ebola in graphics: The toll of a tragedy
Graphic detail
Interactive Ebola map: The journey of a virus
Graphic detail
Japan's quantitative easing: A bigger bazooka
Banyan
Orthodox Christianity in China: A comb worth fighting for
Erasmus
Advertisement
Have you listened to The Economist Radio on Facebook?
The Economist Radio is an on-demand social listening platform that allows you to listen, share and recommend The Economist audio content
Test your EQ
Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines
In Other Words
Try our new audio app and website, providing reporting and analysis from our correspondents around the world every weekday
Want more from The Economist?
Visit The Economist e-store and you’ll find a range of carefully selected products for business and pleasure, Economist books and diaries, and much more
Advertisement
Readers' comments
Reader comments are listed below. Comments are currently closed and new comments are no longer being accepted.
Sort:
Good post, as reader Pascover calls it, but far too diplomatic. The essence of American refusal to deal seriously with global warming is, all too obviously, based on most Americans' severe anxiety about their own personal economic and financial situation. The economic and financial events of the last five years have persuaded a majority of Americans that this is, for them personally, no time for global generosity. They see the global warming issue as a threat to their own personal wallets, and, since most Americans today do not belong to the lucky classes, they feel deeply threatened by any measures that would require a contribution on their part, directly or indirectly. Their elected representatives, state and federal, are fully aware of this concern and are highly hesitant to endorse measures that would in any way appear to call for greater contributions from their constituents. You can, of course, interview or talk only with the more enlightened (i.e., the wealthier) and receive, also of course, a different point of view. That will do nothing at all to change the political realities in the U.S.A. A sincere and effective American participation in the effort to end global warming will come only, and I do mean only, if at all, after threatened Americans have been reassured by a five or ten year period of consistent prosperity which they can feel personally in their own lives. This may be inconvenient or unhappy for those who believe global warming requires an earlier world-wide attack. Unfortunately for them, however, the majority of U.S. citizens will not participate, or authorize participation on their behalf, until they are convinced that their own economic present and future is no longer threatened.
It seems to me that belief in creationism or Intelligent Design must effect the attitudes of many Americans to science in general. If you grow up being told by your parents that what you're taught in school about evolution is wrong, or a deliberate lie, then it's hardly surprising that you'd be quick to discount other uncomfortable scientific evidence. If your science teacher is already part of one liberal conspiracy, then why not two?
I would add to the list these 3 additional points:
1. American Exceptionalism. This notion has moved front and center and has mutated from "love of country" to a belief that America is the best. In the past, the idea was that America could improve but this modern "exceptionalist" view denies the possibility that America needs improvement, except of course in the need to adhere better to the founding principles that make us the greatest nation ever conceived on earth. Any failings are due to our lack of faith in what makes America exceptional and we manifest that lack of faith through misguided liberal programs designed to mess with the natural scheme. Dealing with other nations about climate change denigrates our basic principles and amounts to a surrender of sovereignty. Our principles are special because they were handed down by God through the Founders to us today in the sacred document of the Constitution. If we agree to restrictions imposed because of other countries, then we deny the Constitution and thus deny God.
2. Coupled to exceptionalism is the "natural systems" idea which dominates so much of conservative ideology now. Government is intrusive because it must interfere with the natural order of free markets. If there is a problem with the environment, the market will fix it because that is the way it is intended to be. If we move away from that belief, we are being untrue to our principles and are thus destroying America in the name of "do-gooderism."
3. The final peg is the extension of "natural systems" and "exceptionalism" to theology: we can't be harming the environment because we are meant to exploit it. God gave us this land and its resources. The Gulf oil spill for example wouldn't have happened if government hadn't made it more difficult to extract oil on land and closer to land. And look at how fast the oil has disappeared! That is a sign!
I'm not sure I can do anything about global warming, or if it even exists. I do know that there are too many days in Denver when we are encouraged to avoid outdoor activity owing to air quality. And, I know that if I do go for a jog anyway it causes wheezing. That's not a good thing.
The problem with global warming is it seems distant, complicated, and therefor easy to deny. It's like worrying about a nuclear war while driving. The calamity is big but there are more immediate dangers.
It seems to me that it doesn't matter that much if people believe in global warming, as there are plenty of related reasons to conserve or even convert: air quality, limitations on oil, fuel efficiency, vehicle weight and road wear and tear, environmental damage from fossil fuels...
The thing is, that the same people who deny global warming seem to argue that air quality isn't a problem, the environment doesn't matter, vehicles should be big. When it comes down to it, I'm not sure if it even matters. People just want their cars and trucks. $10.00 gas will take care of that though.
We also have a large segment of the population who don't believe in evolution and think that Republicans are fiscal conservatives! And that Obama is a Muslim from Kenya who is some kind of Manchurian candidate who will implement Sharia law.
Logic need not apply here.
@bamps
If the basis for your opposition to the anti-AGW crowd is based simply on a lack of accuracy, you should go back to the research. More recent data has shown warming trends that have outpaced previous estimates, raising the floor of the expected impact in addition to the average. Now the only question is whether the effect of climate change will be "serious, but not so much that we need to do anything drastic" to "catastrophic."
If you're looking for 100% certainty in the exact costs to the economy (a complex system) from climate (an even more complex system) change, you're never going to find it. Averages will have to suffice. Without godlike foresight, all we can do is create our best estimates and react accordingly. That holds true for all public policies, not just this one.
On the other hand, whenever I talk to Europeans about my engineering research, I find they invariably assume right away that my purpose is to battle climate change! Although that is not the main point at all, and any implications for greenhouse gases would be indirect and ambiguous.
So I find that many (most?) Europeans have internalized an idea that all new technology is or should be about being green. Perhaps this cultural obsession is a good or useful thing, but it is still a little nutty in that it goes beyond what is strictly logical.
Perhaps because no one ought to be expected to "believe in" scientific accuracy. When models predict a range of outcomes from negligible to catastrophic, it is quite clear that saying "the science is settled" is absurd. It is not legitimate to average the results of different models; we have no basis for weighting them.
Warming is likely. The question is whether it is a dire problem requiring drastic solutions. The honest answer is that we do not know. Moreover, environmentalists have the self-created obstacle of having claimed for decades that all of their concerns are cataclysmic. Obviously, their mothers never read them The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
"And renewable energy doesn't have the political or epistemological baggage of climate change."
As much as I wish that statement were true, I can't really emphasize how false it is, particularly in environmental/resource circles. The phrases "indirect land use change" and "food versus fuel" (and their respective public battles) are the evidence. The first, ILUC, has been a political issue ever since it was secretly inserted into omnibus legislation and unwittingly passed by its opponents. It played a major role in the ultimate defeat of the 2009 cap-and-trade bill in the form of the Peterson Amendment. Meanwhile, "food versus fuel" sparked a major debate over renewable energy policy in 2008 that we may see again in the near future (given the current increase in food prices).
The last time politicians said that renewable energy was the answer to climate change, environmental lawyers attacked it as making climate change worse (and causing mass famine in the developing world, to boot). Given that the lawyers won that particular publicity battle, I think you'll find that many people make the wrong association if you begin talking again about "renewable energy" and "climate change."
Another possible line is to concentrate on adaption to climate change rather than mitigation of it. Since most skeptics believe in the change (so far anyway) but not the human origin of it this speaks to a larger community anyway. And adaptation is cheaper than mitigation.
You might look at the UK government's report on this (commissioned from the Royal Academy of Engineering and a consortium of Engineering institutions), published today (interest declaration:- I am a part-author), available free at:-
www.raeng.org.uk/adaptation
Hold on, Typing Monkey, can you justify that first paragraph? An awful lot of important innovation happens and has happened between the coasts. I've known an awful lot of smart Iowans, Georgians, Hoosiers, etc. And I once saw an idiot in Manhattan, although I was just passing through and hadn't realized the store window was reflective.
Basically, the answer is culture. America is culturally bifurcated to a degree difficult for even a Belgian to understand. And all the good American scientific and technological stuff mentioned in the article came from one half of America. Blue America. Democratic, intellectual, elitist, saltwater, liberal, urban, coastal America.
On the other hand, "red" America isn't just incurious, it is actively anti-science. Look at evolution. To believe in evolution, one must reject another large chunk of the Bible. Obviously, red America is not prepared to publicly do so. Now science comes up with another big theory, and red America knows just what to do with it.
The irrationality is so pervasive that if science were to declare that carbon emissions were actually cooling the planet, Republican senators would be lining up to sit on Fox TV and tell you just how hot things were getting. Then they would quietly tell their hedge fund manager to buy heating oil futures.
I'll suggest another alternative, culture. Climate change means using less oil, the one area of life where real substitutes are hard to see, especially for low income people, is in oil use for automobiles for personal transportation. For almost every other sector, it doesn't take much brainstorming to think of a way using current technology that could substitute for oil at some real but not crippling cost.
It's hard to see someone in the lower half of the income distribution being able to continue to afford to commute far for a job if gas prices triple, however. Better off people can bear the cost or get an electric vehicle, poorer people won't have this option.
This is problematic because we associate cars with freedom and individual identity in a way I've never seen with any other culture. Even in Canada, where oil use for autos is actually a bit higher (or at least was a bit higher when I lived there according to charts in some newspapers which enjoyed making a stink about it), this association is vastly weaker and people are far more accepting of buses and transit than Americans are. There also isn't as much socioeconomic stigma.
So here, cultural elements make the idea of price rises to combat global warming have a resonance with fears of downward mobility and infringements on personal liberty that simply don't exist elsewhere, even where car use is high. This even shows up in car commercials, where hammering on the freedom of the road is a big sell. Global warming means more to Americans then simply goods costing 5 % to 10% more as shipping and production costs marginally increase, it means threatening part of our cultural identity, especially among people that are already feeling pressured by socioeconomic changes. It's much harder to deal with a threat to culture than it is a threat to simple economic well being.
Good post, but I both agree and am maddened by the idea that addressing climate change constructively requires handing out money to the right somebodies. Is this still a ladder out if we add a tax somewhere to pay for the extra renewable energy research or cut Medicare by a like amount?
I'd add a category: Defensive modeling. Given a choice between costly evidence and profitable fantasy, more and more of us choose to rely on the former. See also: Keynesian policymaking, the war on drugs, the war on terror.
I suppose it is a little bit glorious to live in a country and a moment where drinking your own bathwater is only slowly fatal.