The steady drip of skeptic commentary has turned into a veritable deluge of late. There was no doubting that an Obama victory would spark a rightwing backlash, similar to the one seen during the first months of the Clinton administration, but even I have been slightly taken aback (and that's saying a lot) by its volume and ferocity. Aside from the president-elect's economic agenda, few issues have aroused more ire than his proposed climate and energy policies.
Against my better judgment, I spent part of the weekend looking up and reading as many conservative op-ed pieces and policy briefs -- from the likes of the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the American Petroleum Institute -- to reacquaint myself with some of their talking points.
The gist, as far as I could tell from my limited reading (I could only take so much), boiled down to this: Implementing a carbon cap-and-trade program and investing in renewable energy technologies would be far too expensive and would risk destroying our economy (OK, maybe I'm exaggerating a little, but really not by much).
Given the country's mood, it was only a matter of time before the right latched onto the deteriorating economy as its new favored cudgel to bash Obama's plans. Report after report has been released in recent weeks by a gaggle of think tanks warning that tighter regulations could push the country further into a deep crisis. Though several seem at least somewhat willing to consider investments in green technology, all have come out strongly against any form of cap-and-trade system.
While many oppose it on the grounds that it would impose more unnecessary regulation on industry (which sounds rich coming from the same people who were championing financial "innovation" not too long ago), some argue that it would actually do very little in practice to moderate the impacts of climate change. In making this argument, they gleefully point to the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) as proof that any government effort to control greenhouse gas levels is doomed from the start.
And though it's true that its first stab at cap-and-trade was a wash (the market for carbon permits basically cratered), what the skeptics won't tell you is that the Europeans actually anticipated that this might happen. Indeed, because EU officials plainly expected that such a large, complex system might hit some bumps along the way, they designated the first phase of the EU-ETS, which ran from 2005 through 2007, as a "trial and error" period. European officials have clearly learned some valuable lessons from their first botched attempt; though the second phase of the scheme won't be any easier to roll out, it will be a more transparent, improved system.
To say that a cap-and-trade program is unworkable in the U.S., as some have argued, is simply not true. (For one thing, we practically invented the concept during the early 1990s when we set up an extremely effective emissions trading system for sulfur dioxide under the aegis of the Clean Air Act.)
Mustering the political will necessary to enact the legislation won't be easy, as the downfall of the Lieberman-Warner bill proved earlier this year, but, with strengthened Democratic majorities in the Senate and House (and a formidable ally in Henry Waxman, who took over as chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee from John Dingell), the president-elect should have a fighting chance. Moreover, thanks to the Europeans' experience, we will be able to avoid many of the mistakes that sunk the first cap-and-trade system. But don't just take it from me: Read Peter Orszag's blog (yes, the head of the CBO -- soon-to-be head of the OMB -- has a blog) to get a much more informative, non-biased opinion.
The rightwingers' other favorite whipping horse appears to be Obama's ambitious green jobs program. While there is legitimate room for debate about the extent of its job creation impact, there is reason to believe that a program modeled after FDR's Works Progress Administration (which put millions of Americans to work building new infrastructure) would provide a jolt to our economy and put us on a path toward a greener future.
Conservative think tanks like the AEI and the Heritage Foundation have assailed it as a potent job-killer. Their arguments can be summarized in two main points: An Obama administration would actually destroy jobs by increasing energy prices; and, while they may sound appealing, those vaunted clean energy technologies are still decades away -- making the prospect of immediate job creation moot.
Aside from glossing over the public's evident interest in such a program -- and the $150 billion Obama has pledged to invest in it -- they take him to task for risking the elimination of millions of well-paying jobs in the fossil fuel industry. Now I'm no economist or policy analyst, but it seems to me that since the fossil fuel industry will eventually go belly up anyways (see: peak oil), it's probably a good idea that we start making the necessary investments now to ensure that we don't fall behind other countries (many of which are already far ahead of us in terms of green technology deployment).
Besides, it's not as if the Obama administration would be forcing companies to embrace renewable energy against their will; major corporations like Wal-Mart and GE are already on board, and a growing number of start-ups in Silicon Valley and around the country are pushing the boundaries of innovation. (I'm not sure where they find their numbers, but we are most certainly not decades away from the next major breakthroughs.) Finally, I know these organizations aren't worried about climate change but, for those of us who live in the reality-based community and actually listen to scientists' pronouncements, the threats are real and they need to be addressed immediately.
Though the initial signs are good for new climate legislation, liberals and environmentalists should not delude themselves into thinking that the right won't put up a fight. Despite their fall from grace, conservatives still wield a lot of influence -- and, more important, cash -- and are expert strategists; you can bet they're already hard at work plotting their next ten moves. (If you think things are already bad now, just wait until January.)
Unless we are ready to fight back, the Obama administration could lose a historic opportunity to finally start turning the corner on climate change.
Follow Jeremy Jacquot on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jejacquot
Loading comments…
Global Warming Sceptic/Denier = Right Wing
Blah blah blah
I'm sick of this debate being politicised. If you read the papers/reports, look at the facts and are still not convinced of Global Warming then you are obviously a fascist.
This is a scientific argument. I fear that people are matching scientific theories to fit their own political views.
People on the centre and the left (whatever the hell that means anyway) are not allowed to question this scientific argument in fear of being labelled right-wing.
Adding politics to this argument further blurs the science.
Well done Jeremy.
What you miss that water vapor, despite it is also greenhouse gas, in reality cool the Earth.
Look what happen close to sea, ocean, river, lake-temperature of air is lower. It is because of evaporation. Look at cloud level, when heat of vapor go back it is on 3-5 miles close to space from ground level and more ease go to space. Otherwise drops of rain will boil everything on the Earth.
Pay less attention on politic, more on mistake of Al Gore that carbon dioxide is only one player in Nature.
More:
www.ductworkin
Actually, the "public support" waxes and wanes, depending how the question is asked.
If you were to ask people whether they support a cleaner environment, the answer will overwhelmingly be yes. But if you were to ask if people would like to pay five dollars per gallon for gas, you will get the contrary result.
So in order to ram Global Warming Legislation through, it is imperative that you continue to pretend that a cap and trade system with have a measurable effect on the climate, and deny that it's going take more money out of the family budgets.
No one has to deny that implementing some cap and trade system will take money from the family budget, although costs and benefits will have to be addressed. The real crimp to the family budget will be to do nothing about energy costs and then to see how energy prices soar in the future. Also, there is a large cost to society wih the greater increase of natural disasters. By the way, scientists do link the severe weather patterns to climate change.
The real hoax has been perpetrated by various "skeptics" and "think-tanks". They have convinced approximately 60% of the U.S. population that significant disagreement still exists in the scientific community on global climate change and its causes (according to numerous polls I have seen). If this can be finally discredited, the majority of our citizenry will fully support taking the steps necessary to deal with this issue.
Trying to convert die-hard skeptics is a waste of time and energy. They made up their minds a long time ago and are unwilling to question their position. Focusing our efforts on those who have been mislead about the consensus on this issue is the best way to achieve real change.
On the other hand, if by "skeptic" you mean to doubt the economic feasibility of drastic emission cuts:
"Japan, like the European Union, hasn't let its failure so far to meet Kyoto emissions-reductions targets stop it from setting even more ambitious goals, like a 50% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050. But how to do that? If getting within shouting distance of Kyoto's targets could cost Japan $500 billion, how much would it cost to cut emissions twelve-fold more?" --Keith Johnson, WSJ, 19 March 2008
"I know of no realistic person who thinks carbon dioxide emissions are going to do anything but grow. Most European countries are not meeting their emissions goals, and of the ones that have, it's because their economies are collapsing. In the United States, this notion that we're going to reduce our emissions by 80 percent is pure fantasy." --Pete Geddes, Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, 2 April 2008
From: http://scienceand
“During the past 5 years, global emissions of CO2 from human activity have
increased at an average rate of 3.5%/yr, with China alone contributing nearly
2/3rds of the new emissions (Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency,
2008). This means that the annual increase of global CO2 emissions is several
times greater than the total emissions from most of the individual 50 states.”
“Putting an even finer point on it, were the entire U.S. to close down its economy
completely and revert to the Stone Age, without even the ability to light fires, the
growth in emissions from China alone would replace its entire emissions in a
little less than a decade. In this context, mere emissions restrictions enacted by
any locality, state, or multi-state region would be extravagantly pointless.”
“In fact, even if the entirety of the EU-27 nations were to completely and forever
cease all CO2 emissions from this day forward, it would have an insignificant
impact on the course of the world’s future climate (Table 2). In 50 years, the
global temperature “savings” produced by an immediate cessation of all EU-27
CO2 emissions is estimated to be less than one-tenth of a degree Celsius, and
increasing to just a bit more than a tenth of a degree by centuries end. The
impacts of future sea level would be equally miniscule.”
Ferguson ran the "Center for Science and Public Policy."
According to ExxonSecrets, "Ferguson set up the Center for Science and Public Policy in early 2003, after receiving a $100,000 grant from ExxonMobil in 2002. Exxon has continued to fund the Center each year since then, to the tune of at least $50,000 a year." "
http://www.desmogblog.com/the-endocrinologist-the-viscount-of-brenchley-and-the-dc-think-tank
You guys on the right should be more skeptical about what you read!
The short span of a few hundred years of climactic history is useless for making predictions of temperature trends, but the fact is that over the last decade, average temperatures have actually decreased as carbon dioxide emissions have increased. The earth's history, as manifested through geology, is a much better tool for predicting climate change and it tells a different story. We are nearing the end of a warm interglacial period, and the glaciers that once covered most of North America are likely to return relatively soon (in geologic time). Human-caused global warming is not based on science. If we did have this power, I would suggest that we use it to prevent our backyards from becoming a frozen wasteland.
I call this hoax well-intentioned because the reduction of all kinds of emissions that pollute our air is obviously a good thing. I just don't like being told a lie to get me to do the right thing.
Or do you still think that cigarette smoke doesn't cause cancer either?