Climate Progress: An insider's view of climate science, politics, and solutions

In response to the National Journal poll on global warming, there has been an explosion of discussion to which Hell and High Water is notably relevant.

Jonathan Chait wrote an op-ed in the LA Times in which he offered an explanation for the Great Political Divide on global warming. Republicans strongly favor nuclear power as an alternative source of energy to fossil fuels combustion, in part to spite their ideological opponents (environmentalists and “lefties”).

Chris Mooney places the climate science debate into a much broader context of historical motives and methodologies used to spread a conservative message. But also notice the second comment by jbatch on his post – “If you want to know why Republicans don’t buy into global warming, read Joseph Romm’s excellent book, Hell and High Water…. Romm has it right. It’s not the problem they hate — it’s the solution.” They hate international treaties and crucial government-led efforts like carbon regulations and clean technology programs.

Conservatives have twisted their arms – and others’ – to finance and promote a campaign of denial on climate science and climate change solutions. Read Hell and High Water to explore the political issue more or take a glimpse of a chapter excerpt.

At least once or twice a week global warming is the topic of either a House or Senate hearing, whether it’s political interference with the science, exploring coal sequestration, evaluating CAFE standards, or Al Gore making an appearance.

Momentum is building for climate legislation, but as you can tell from the graph below (from John Larsen at the World Resources Institute), the difference in emissions allowed by various proposals is vast. We need to keep tabs on the legislators to guarantee long-term thinking, as well as short-term.

The latest UK Draft Climate Change Bill sets an admirable example of short-, medium-, and long-term thinking. One cumulative target is set (60% below 1990 levels by 2050) and a handful of 5-year budgeting periods are used to incrementally step emissions down.

For summaries and analyses of legislation proposed in our own Congress, there are several resources available. Check out the National Wildlife Federation’s Guide, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change’s summary of Senate cap-and-trade pieces, and bill-specific analyses by the National Resources Defence Council, in addition an assortment from Resources For the Future – including their most recent and comprehensive comparison and analysis.

At the Environment and Public Works hearing this afternoon, Sen. Inhofe (R-OK) displayed an amazing lack of understanding about energy as he tried to get Gore to make a meaningless pledge. Now the EPW Minority web page repeats the inane charge:

Former Vice President Al Gore refused to take a “Personal Energy Ethics Pledge” today to consume no more energy than the average American household.

But why should Gore take such a pledge? Gore is a champion of greenhouse gas reductions, not energy reductions. Gore explained he buys 100% renewable power and is planning to build a solar power system. Thus the electricity Gore consumes in his Tennessee home does not contribute to global warming.

It is conservatives who mistakenly argue that the only way to meet emission reduction targets is by sharply reducing energy use. Conservatives make this argument to try to scare the public into opposing action on climate change. But Gore’s whole point is that smart energy use, including renewables, can allow us to grow the economy while fighting global warming.

Inhofe then introduced another red herring:

“There are hundreds of thousands of people who adore you and would follow your example by reducing their energy usage if you did. Don’t give us the run-around on carbon offsets or the gimmicks the wealthy do.”

But directly purchasing renewables is completely different from buying carbon offsets, and such purchases are not a gimmick for the wealthy–millions already do the same. Inhofe seems completely unaware of that fact. His entire attack on Gore was both inaccurate and shrill, a sharp contrast to Gore’s statesmanlike tour-de-force, truly a “triumphant return” for the former Representative and Senator.

The webcast of Al Gore’s joint House committee testimony this morning just ended, probably so that Gore can grab something to eat before he testifies in front of the Senate EPW committee this afternoon. Gore exuded intelligence this morning — he was beyond well-versed in the diplomatic, scientific, economic, environmental, political and moral issues at hand.

After also watching the treatment of James Hansen at yesterday’s House Oversight and Reform Committee hearing, I’m still grappling with how smeared Hansen was versus how well-received Gore was.

Complaints that science should not meddle in politics and that politics should not meddle in science commonly surround the global warming predicament. But we are witnessing a rare, sensitive, and urgent overlap in which both actors are equally critical. I realize that Gore is one of the politicians’ own and has held an executive title more prestigious than theirs, but I remain confounded at the demand for sound science yet the frankly childish treatment of Hansen.

I do not mean to erode the value of Gore or his testimony. I was truly celebrating the feeling that the Members were listening or at least appreciating Gore’s recommendations. To answer one of David Roberts’ preliminary questions, his policy suggestions were bold.

Gore encouraged an immediate freeze on carbon emissions (yes, it is that serious!) and a revenue neutral tax shift to discourage pollution (and encourage work). He also recommended that we enter the global conversation again and aggressively pull forward the 2012 start-date of Kyoto’s second phase to 2010, a date tailored to our domestic political circumstances. According to Rep. Inglis (R-S.C.), we need to do the right thing “even if nobody’s watching.”

Overall, Gore suggests a comprehensive package, including higher CAFÉ standards, a cap-and-trade system on the electricity grid, and a ban on new coal plants that cannot capture and sequester carbon dioxide.

As for the economics, Gore says its time to internalize the external, meaning incorporate the environmental and other costs of pollution into its market value. Citing Amory Levins, in terms of the economic costs, we’ve got the sign (+/-) wrong. We should view this as the greatest opportunity to profitably overhaul our way of life and our economy.

As for the politics, Gore encourages us to expand what is feasible, to think outside the box, to push our known boundaries because this problem is larger than what we have known and the sky is the limit.

Can’t wait for the EPW hearing.

The National Journal asked 113 members of Congress, “Do you think it’s been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems?” 95 percent of the Democrats polled replied “Yes” and a mere 13 percent of Republicans did.

The percentages are down from the last poll, but fortunately these sad numbers only reflect 113 of the over 500 men and women of Congress.

A second detail to note is that many of the comments left do not entirely refute anthropogenic warming. One Republican “No” added that “Not beyond a reasonable doubt, but all scientific studies are leaning that way”; another that “The key phrase is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’; and yet another that “There is a possibility that man’s activity, while certainly part of the problem, is not the sole reason for global warming.” The statements indicate that the wording of the question too strictly and therefore wrongly classifies policymakers.

A second question posed to participants asked, “Which of these actions to reduce global warmign could you possibly support?” The clear winner was Increased Spending on Alternative Fuels, as it received the okay from 95 percent of the Democrats and 71 percent of the Republicans. No other policy option, including mandatory emissions limits and a carbon tax, received the same bi-partisan support.

An observation to emerge from this question also underscores how the political parties tend to differ on the next steps. 90 percent of the Republicans polled favor more reliance on nuclear energy, while only 58 percent of the Demoracts do. Conversely, 45 percent of the Republicans favor higher CAFE standards but 90 percent of Democrats do.

We know global climate change is a fact and so with that in mind, and Democrats in Congress, let’s see some higher CAFE standards.

William Broad’s critique of An Inconvenient Truth as mistake filled has far more mistakes in it than Gore’s movie. RealClimate and Grist set the record straight.