More Nonsense about Climate "Centrism"

grist.org

"This wind is extremist!"

Andy Revkin has been doing such great stuff on his Dot Earth climate blog, I wanted to ignore the story he published yesterday in the NYT: "Challenges to Both Left and Right on Global Warming." Pretend it never happened.

But I can't. It's just ... awful.

The preposterous claim at the center of the piece is that Newt Gingrich, Bjorn Lomborg, and Shellenberger & Nordhaus represent the "pragmatic center on climate and energy" -- they are the "moderates," or if you prefer, the "environmental centrists."

Yes, really. That's what it says.

We've been through this before. A while back, Revkin published a similarly awful piece called "Middle Stance Emerging in Debate Over Climate." He received a tsunami of justified criticism in response, but of course, it's in the nature of these wanky "I'm the reasonable middle" pieces that any criticism can be interpreted as attacks from "the extremes." It's self-insulating, and if the career of David Broder is any indication, a pundit can stay cozy in there for a long, long time. I hope Revkin does not aspire to be the climate Broder.

I wrote a response to his previous piece called "High Broderism reaches the global warming debate," and everything I said there applies just as well to this piece. To review:

The alleged "centrists" do not share a common assessment of the severity of the problem. Gingrich thinks it's a real problem, but we can get by with targeted tax credits and tax breaks here and there. Lomborg thinks it's a mild problem that may or may not become a severe problem, one that doesn't merit constraining our fossil fuel use or making economic sacrifices.

S&N think global warming is an existential threat, a generational challenge that requires a societal mobilization along the lines of the Apollo Project. In this they reflect the mainstream climate policy position, as represented in the IPCC, that climate change is already costing millions and killing thousands and that urgent action to slow the rise of emissions is both possible and warranted.

The alleged "centrists" do not share a common policy prescription. All of them favor greater investment in energy R&D, but then, so does everyone. That is the mainstream position.

On the subject of regulation, either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system, Gingrich and Lomborg push the conservative party line: regulations hurt the economy and don't help the climate. S&N, despite their rhetorical focus, favor regulation of carbon.

The mainstream climate policy view is that a price on carbon is the crucial first step in constraining emissions. S&N are within that mainstream, along with every green advocacy group; Gingrich and Lomborg are outside it, on a fringe largely populated by movement conservatives and right-wing political operatives.

So if people in the alleged "pragmatic center on climate and energy" share neither an assessment of the problem nor a proposed solution, what do they share? What lumps S&N in with Gingrich and Lomborg in the "middle," with everyone else at the "extremes"?

The answer is twofold:

They criticize their own side. If you want national media attention, bash your allies. It's practically a Law of Media Physics. Nothing gets the national press tumescent like fratricide. Lomborg and Gingrich take Republicans to task for denying the reality of climate change. S&N take enviros to task for being too gloomy.

Note, for one thing, that the sin of gloomy rhetoric about a problem every responsible scientist acknowledges is potentially catastrophic is hardly parallel to the sin of refusing to believe settled mainstream science on the basis of crazed conspiracy theories and political ideology. These are hardly equivalent charges.

Note also that greens are not, in fact, monochromatically gloomy, certainly not these days, and regardless, they've been pushing for increased energy R&D for decades. So while Gingrich and Lomborg's critique of the right is correct, and devastating, S&N's is both shallow and incorrect.

They loudly disavow "extremism," where "extreme" means impassioned and urgent, and lay claim to the mantle of "reasonable," where "reasonable" means soothing and calm.

This has nothing to do with the content of anyone's views -- most everyone agrees climate change is a big problem and we need to get started addressing it immediately. It's about tone. If criticizing one's own is media crack, being "shrill" is media repellant. Caring too much, showing genuine anger or frustration, demanding action beyond what's currently politically possible -- these are the actions of extremists or [shudder] "the bloggers." Self-appointed Reasonable People define themselves in opposition to ranting and raving Dirty Hippie strawmen. "We're not like them. We don't raise our voices."

Anyway, sorry for such a long post, but I want to make it crystal clear that the "centrism" here is entirely about gesture, tone, and affect. It's got nothing to do with substance. S&N's policy views are banal and simplistic. Gingrich and Lomborg's are on the conservative fringe.

All they have in common is a talent for self-promotion, a skill in using the "pox on both their houses" dog whistle to attract media hounds. They drop all the right buzzwords, strike all the right poses, sprinkle the spice of centrism on policy dog food, and fool reporters like Revkin into eating it over and over again.

Follow David Roberts on Twitter: www.twitter.com/david_h_roberts

Comments

[leftcoastindy]

virtually ALL climate scientists say we have a problem. The centrist point of view would be the middle of what to do to fix it.

Gingrich (doesn't have a clue...Wilson has been discredited,etc) is the clueless right, Gore should be the centrist or middle, and the Siearra club (treehugge­rs/environ­mental activists/people who believe saving the planet is more important than getting rich and driving a big truck) is the left.

Simple

[Boadicea]

HuffPo, could we PLEASE have this blog in one of the featured spots at the top of the page?

Why can't we have a responsible global warming post feataured on the blog every single day???

Thanks for writing.

[Guitarsandmore]

We’re long past tax and research. It is time to call out the army and have them start bolting the solar panels on everyone’s rooftop.

We’ve been doing research for 35 years. Time to act.

Look what research and taxes have done to the tobacco companies: “Not a thing”. The tobacco companies have survived lawsuits with guilty verdicts, decades of cancer research, and they just keep poisoning the population. Cancer is still one of the most common ways to die. Tax and research is not enough.

You want to pass a tax but you don’t say what to do with the money. A small neglected detail that makes all of the difference. The money goes to buy the solar panels for every home and the Toyota Prius for every driver. Any other use for the tax dollars is a waste of money.

You have to do more than make polluters pay a tax. You have to end the pollution – NOW!

We already know how to clean up the environment. We’re just not doing it.

Public transportation can be electric trolley cars powered by centralized solar power.
Factories and offices can all be solar and wind powered from rooftop stand alone systems.

Policy is an empty gesture if there is no follow through action.

[chappelforpres]

Isn't it always the damn extremists who demand universal healthcare, an end to pollution and chemical pesticides, the abolition of mercenary armies, better education, a Palestinian-Israeli peace accord and revitalization of our decaying infrastructure.

The moderates of course are more sensible; wanting war, private insurance, corporate self-governance, lower taxes for the wealthy and faith-based social programs.

[jdm58]

What worries me is that the Dem Pres Candidates don't seem too well versed on climate change. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of substance beyond "global warming is a problem- lets tax it". Until there is dialog akin to what we are hearing about Iraq exit strategies, I'm afraid we are in a "best guess scenario" with any of them.

[David Roberts - Huffpost Blogger]

Dchavern, I'd love to start with a carbon tax as the "consensus" "center" of a new policy. But guess what? That policy is too extreme for *either* party right now.

Maybe we could start with a cap-and-trade, with all permits auctioned, which would be the equivalent of a tax? But guess what? The Dem presidential candidates support that, but none of the Republicans do, and neither do Lomborg or Gingrich.

The point is: don't be fooled by tone. Don't give out gold stars to people who do nothing more than acknowledge we have a problem. What matters is policy, and on policy, the only politicians advocating anything even *close* to a realistic solution come from one side of the aisle.

I would be overjoyed of Republicans got serious about climate change. But that's their problem, not the Dems' problem.

[Libsrule]

I couldn't agree more David.

There is no such thing as centrism about the Global climate change we are undergoing. It's either got to be dealt with or we lose. To claim we must find some middle ground to have further discussions on the matter is utter and sheer nonsense. We only have ONE choice and that is fighting it as best as possible in order to preserve life as we know it on Earth.

The Pentagon's report going into serious concern about water wars was jarring beyond belief. The Pentagon believes it is a problem that will raise it's ugly head within a generation.

GW centrism is akin to if not outright the same as those on the right who want democrats to become more centrist and moderate.

You know what a moderate democrat is?

A republican.

I read the NYT piece and my mind was boggled. It reminded me of the idiocy by the scientist who said we should welcome GW because it will turn most of the Earth into a tropical paradise with more crops growing and more food produced and ughh I just can't go on with that crud.

As for the idiocy by the person who joined to make another anti GW comment using junk science I won't even lower myself to respond to the use of junk science that tries to dismiss the problems we are facing as a planet and a people.

Total hogwash.

[dchavern]

I think the bigger point is that this issue is of such importance and magnitude -- both in terms of implications and dollars involved -- that you aren't going to make progress by one side "winning" over the other. I know it is hard to take in this super-partisan environment, but we are only going to make progress if we can start by developing broadly acceptable policy alternatives. You can bash Newt, et al., but at least they are trying to explore a middle. That is a lot more likely to drive progress than demonizing anyone you disagree with.

Why don't we start with a carbon tax? Economists of all persuasions will tell you that it is infinitely more fair and efficient than a crazy cap-and-trade system that serves mainly to benefit intermediaries. Can we start there is establishing a common ground?

[Camel54]

Great post. I get particularly livid when I hear Gingrich talk about how Gore and the left has it wrong when they propose ways to deal with this problem. The notion that we should take advice for correcting a problem from people who denied its existence and mocked those who espoused it is ridiculous. That should be our candidates' and our representatives' response to the issue of Global Warming if it should ever come up in the race or otherwise. Demean the other side and refuse to allow them an ounce of credibility. God knows they would only use it to help businesses continue to skirt their responsibility.

[AndyRevkin]

David,
Trying again (i wrote a response then lost it; so I get to do the old Mark Twain trick of writing a letter, ripping it up and writing it again).

What's weird about your complaint is that you and I both come to the same conclusion. The common element in Lomborg, Gingrich, SN, and others (Middle Path) is a quest for a new tone and an end to the rhetoric of catastrophe that still permeates the fight over energy and climate policy.

That approach is still rampant on both sides, as I explained in my Dot Earth post on the books. The environmental left says the world is coming unglued without sharp quick cuts in fossil fuels and the right says the economy will crash if we do that.

As for Gingrich, jeez, the guy embraces the precautionary principle on climate. Try finding another conservative even willing to utter that phrase (at least on something other than WMD and Iraq). That, to me, is news.

As for Lomborg, I included the scientific rebuttal to his most-quoted notion that polar bears are thriving. But he, too, cannot be ignored when he calls for a carbon tax (admittedly a mild one at $2-14/ton).

Despite his history, my view is that it's important to communicate when someone like Lomborg says warming is a risk that requires a significant response.

He and his ilk have long provided an intellectual life raft for many disengaged, doubtful, or dis-informed people (who aren't reading Grist, or The Times for that matter). Putting them on the record on the reality of human-caused warming, and the need for change, takes away that comfort zone.

And we probably both should ask E.O. Wilson what inspired him to write a foreward for the Gingrich/Maple book. My guess is, it was the tone that caught his eye.

Happy to discuss. Want to do an instant-message chat or the like on these issues? We could post the resulting back-and-forth both on Gristmill/­Huffington and Dot Earth.

Andy
http://www.nytimes.com/dotearth

[Norpag]

The IPCC report tieing warming to anthropogenic CO2 is a scientific fraud comparable to the Piltdown man. Please google "Jaworowski CO2 scandal" and get educated on the realities. IPCC ignored literally thousands of measurements showing CO2 levels higher than today in the 1940s and in the 19th century.For the basic data look at the Beck 2007 article referred to in the Jaworwski report. In the meantime the earth is COOLER now than in 1998 ( See Brtains CRU data) during that time CO2 rose more than 4% - showing how tenuous the anthropogenic CO2 warming connection really is.