By Annie Downs
On January 27, the Wall Street Journal published an open letter from sixteen scientists telling us to just chill out about global warming. They warn readers that “a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.” Science by its very nature never offers guarantees. But the Theory (with a capital T) of climate change gets us about as close to scientific consensus as we can realistically expect to come. There will always be doubters, and some of those people will be scientists and engineers. Climate deniers may be in the minority, but their opinions should be heard. However, the Wall Street Journal piece exemplifies all that is wrong with the public argument over climate change. By manipulating facts, targeting issues of semantics, and presenting the puffed up opinion of the extreme minority as truth, the editorial by Claude Allegre and fellow detractors only reinforce the idea that the great climate debate is based on propaganda.
The epic battle of semantics
Allegre and his cohort pointedly disagree with the notion that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. They write that “CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle.” They’re not wrong. But a molecule doesn’t have to be engineered in a lab to cause harm to our environment. Dust, pollen, and smoke are all considered air pollutants. Just like carbon dioxide, these are naturally occurring. Allegre seems to overlook the fact that even compounds that are beneficial at low levels can become pollutants at higher concentrations. Since low levels of fluoride have proven dental benefits, for example, many water systems add small amounts of the element to drinking water, yet excessive consumption of fluoride can damage bone tissue. The same goes for carbon dioxide. The compound is undeniably crucial to life on Earth, but with annual emissions growing by about 80 percent between 1970 and 2004, scientists are overwhelmingly in agreement that it is the anthropogenic greenhouse gas that most contributes to climate change.
The Wall Street Journal piece argues that the world isn’t getting any hotter, clear evidence that climate change is a farce. It depends who you ask (see picture above). The World Meteorological Association noted that the past decade was the hottest on record. NASA cited shrinking glaciers worldwide as evidence of climate change. While deniers would have us believe that climate change theory is based on nothing but computer modeling, instrumental records have confirmed projections. The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding is hot. There will always be doubters; the issue is how big a splash they are able to make in the minds of the public and the policy makers.
Power in numbers
Fifteen scientists added their names behind Allegre’s in the Wall Street Journal piece. Does this mean climate science is dead? Certainly, the collection of names sounds powerful. But climate change deniers are merely a very sharp thorn in the side of the scientific community. To say they represent a widely-shared opinion is ludicrous. Thirteen National Academies of Science came together to call for a significant emphasis on climate change policy in global agendas. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) consistently pushes for aggressive climate change mitigation action. With a membership of over 250,000, UCS should be able to bowl over climate change deniers. Yet the opinions of deniers and doubters are consistently elevated in the media. With more Americans than ever before saying they believe the world is warming, climate change deniers may not be able to cause quite the stir they were hoping for. But the battle is certainly not over.
Climate Policy Going Forward
Ultimately, the Wall Street Journal piece is an appeal to policy makers to stop “wasting” time and money worrying about policies that address climate change. But the wheels on the policy machine are already in motion. Not acting on climate change strategies means missing out on the rapidly growing clean energy industry, a sector that increased five percent in 2011 despite a sluggish global economy. It means reversing fuel efficiency standards that will spur innovation and save American families $1.7 trillion in fuel costs. It means ignoring the health benefits afforded to us by cleaner air. Even beyond mitigating the effects of climate change, policy makers should look to the significant co-benefits of policy action. The scientific community is firmly in the corner of climate change policy, and even those who doubt the science can’t ignore momentum. Despite the attempt of the Wall Street Journal’s 16 climate change deniers to stall climate policy, they seem to be too late to the game. The world is moving in a cleaner direction, and no matter the motivation behind policy action, the future is bright.
Established in 1995, the Georgetown Public Policy Review is the McCourt School of Public Policy’s nonpartisan, graduate student-run publication. Our mission is to provide an outlet for innovative new thinkers and established policymakers to offer perspectives on the politics and policies that shape our nation and our world.
Very interesting article. Though I am surprised by your optimistic finish. Global agreement on a reduction of green-house gases is no where on the horizon and a recent Wired piece (http://www.wired.com/magazine/2012/01/ff_solyndra/all/1) detailed significant problems in the development of clean energy technology. What makes you so sunny about the prospects of dealing with global warming?