Cross-posted from NextGen Journal
A few years ago, climate change mitigation became a major political issue. Before 2005, governments certainly knew that human-caused climate change was a serious problem – but the public knew next to nothing about it, so there was no incentive to act. However, between 2005 and 2007, a perfect storm of events splashed the reality of climate change onto the world stage.
The Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, finally came into force in early 2005, after years of negotiation. The United States refused to sign, and Australia signed on a little late, but every other developed nation in the world agreed to emission targets. Here in Canada, the Liberal government enthusiastically pledged its support for Kyoto. My local newspaper ran editorials exploring the different ways we could meet our targets, through combinations of clean energy, green infrastructure, and efficiency standards.
The summer of 2005 was a wake-up call for the United States, as Hurricane Katrina mercilessly demonstrated the amount of damage that extreme weather can bring. It’s impossible to say, at least with our current technology, whether or not Katrina was caused or even worsened by a warming planet. However, such devastating storms will become the norm as climate change progresses. Scientists aren’t sure whether or not hurricanes will become more frequent in a warming world, but the average hurricane is expected to become stronger and more damaging, and we are already beginning to see this rise in storm intensity. Katrina gave us an example of what we can expect from climate change – even if it wasn’t a direct effect in itself – and the world was shocked by the suffering that ensued.
2006 marked the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore’s Academy Award-winning documentary about climate change. For scientists studying climate, the film was an admirable, up-to-date example of science communication, albeit with a few minor errors and oversimplifications. However, for citizens new to the issue (I particularly remember my classmates in grade 9 social studies discussing the film), An Inconvenient Truth was a disturbing reality check – scarier than any horror movie, because it was real.
The major scientific event of 2007 was a drastic, unexpected drop in Arctic summer sea ice. That season’s melt was exacerbated by coincidental weather conditions, so the next years weren’t quite as bad, but the trend was still worrying, to say the least. The research community had assumed that summer ice would stick around for at least a century, but this timescale was soon halved and quartered as ice melt exceeded even the worst projections.
By 2007, lead-up to the 2008 US presidential election was underway, and political awareness of climate change was obvious. It was no surprise that Democrat Barack Obama had ambitious plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but even the Republicans seemed to be on board. During his time in office, George W. Bush had insisted that, since climate change could be natural, any mitigating action was not worth the economic risk. Republican presidential candidates seemed to realize that continuing to adopt this attitude would be political suicide. The most extreme example, John McCain, who would eventually win the Republican presidential nomination, had emissions targets only slightly less extensive than Obama’s. As he said in 2007,
The world is already feeling the powerful effects of global warming, and far more dire consequences are predicted if we let the growing deluge of greenhouse gas emissions continue, and wreak havoc with God’s creation…The problem isn’t a Hollywood invention nor is doing something about it a vanity of Cassandra like hysterics. It is a serious and urgent economic, environmental and national security challenge.
However, McCain, once an author of a bill designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions, would soon completely change his stance. By 2010, he was asserting that cap-and-trade legislation was unnecessary and carbon dioxide posed no harm to the American people. He even went so far as to question the political motivations of science he once wholly accepted:
I think [global warming is] an inexact science, and there has been more and more questioning about some of the conclusions that were reached concerning climate change. And I believe that everybody in the world deserves correct answers whether the scientific conclusions were flawed by outside influences. There’s great questions about it that need to be resolved.
The story of John McCain isn’t too surprising. Politicians frequently base their statements on public sentiment rather than personal opinion. They say what people want to hear, rather than what they truly believe is important. This aspect of our political system is depressing, but persistent. The real question, though, regards what changed public sentiment so quickly. Why did politicians like McCain feel compelled to denounce the importance of action on this problem, or even the existence of the problem itself? What happened since 2007 that made the pendulum swing so far in the other direction?
Strike one was the economy. The global recession that began in 2008 was the largest since the Great Depression, and concern for all other problems promptly went down the drain. It’s understandable for citizens to not worry about the environment when they don’t even have the means to feed and clothe their children properly. However, for governments to not realize the long-term economic implications of allowing climate change to continue, along with the potential job-creating benefits of a new energy economy, was disappointing, even though it wasn’t surprising.
Strike two was the all-out war on climate science, spearheaded by the fossil fuel industry and the far right. This PR campaign has been underway since the early 1990s, but was kicked up a notch just over a year ago. Since public understanding of the causes and effects of global warming was growing, and the science was becoming more solid by the month, the PR tactics changed. Instead of attacking the science, they attacked the integrity of the scientists. The most extreme example occurred in November 2009, when private correspondence between top climate researchers was stolen, spread on the Internet, and spun in an attempt to cast doubt on the scientists’ motives. This event, known as “Climategate”, spurred a great deal of anger among the political right, and everything from bitter editorials to death threats against scientists ensued. Perhaps most distressingly, by the time investigations found that the scientists involved were innocent, and the reality of climate change untouched, Climategate was old news and media outlets failed to adequately follow up on the story. Citizens heard the accusations, but not the exonerations, so political will to cut greenhouse gas emissions slipped even further.
Strike three – well, there has been no strike three, and a good thing too. Strikes one and two were so bad that some are hoping the pendulum has swung as far as it can go. It’s certainly difficult to imagine how the situation could get worse. The Kyoto Protocol is set to expire next year, and the Copenhagen meetings failed to create a replacement. As it was, many developed nations failed to meet their targets, and the Canadian government backed out completely.
The possibility of federal climate legislation for the United States is laughable now that not a single Republican Senator thinks action is necessary, and most doubt the reality of the problem, choosing to believe that the entire scientific community is out to lunch and/or an agent of conspiracy. President Obama’s director of climate policy, Carol Browner, recently left her position, although none of her major goals had been met. Obama’s recent State of the Union address included lots of hopeful statements about clean energy, but absolutely no mention of climate change, as if merely acknowledging the most pressing reason for a new energy economy would be political suicide. The time-honoured tradition of saying what the public wants to hear has even reached Obama, the man who promised change.
In Canada, legislation to simply set targets for emission reduction passed the House of Commons (made of elected representatives), but the Senate (composed of appointed politicians) chose to use their newfound Conservative majority to strike down the bill with no debate whatsoever, in a blatantly undemocratic move that has not happened since the 1930s. The Canadian government is all for a new energy economy, but not one based on environmental and social responsibility. The Alberta tar sands, which are substantially more polluting and carbon-intensive than traditional oil, continue to expand, and both federal and provincial governments are worryingly enthusiastic.
From 2005 to 2007, politics was high on promises of mitigation, but low on delivery. Since then, it has been devoid of both. It’s starting to seem as if it will take a major global disaster that can be unquestionably tied to climate change for governments to get their act together.
This would all be very well if there was no lag time between cause and effect in the climate system, but it doesn’t work that way. It takes several decades for all the warming in the pipeline to show up. If we waited until climate change became unbearable, and then cut off our emissions completely, the situation would still get worse for decades before it stabilized.
The worldwide failure of governments to take action on climate change is baffling. It seems that the best they can do is occasionally promise to fix the problem, but never actually get started. If this continues for much longer, we’re all going to pay the price for their mistakes – and so will people for generations to come.
[citations needed – hurricane intensity is not rising. Please give us a peer reviewed reference. Thanks. -Kate]
Hi, Gerald. It’s unrelated to your comment (since that didn’t get through moderation), but while you’re around: we’re still waiting for you over here. Just thought I’d bring that up again.
Gerald just replied, but it didn’t pass moderation – it was basically just a personal attack on both you and Trenberth. -Kate
>Gerald just replied, but it didn’t pass moderation – it was basically just a personal attack on both you and Trenberth. -Kate
Sorry to hear that. Gerald, if you’d like to try again but keep getting caught up violating the comment policy, know that I’m still interested.
I just wanted to make clear: I am not making personal attacks on Gerald. I’m merely asking him to admit an obvious error, after having been caught in (informal, but nonetheless) plagiarism and repetition of an easily-refuted lie.
I’m also working on a more serious contribution to this particular topic, so I’ll have more to say soon. Of course, a project writeup and research hiccups are slowing me down on that front. I don’t know how you manage to stay this prolific and on-point; it’s putting my own poor writing skills in perspective.
Semi-related: I finally managed to track down the Climate Refugees video that was shown at Copenhagen. According to the director, it has had some success in resonating with both traditional social justice activists and conservatives, and he’s working on a screening plan with religious organizations, which could also spread the message to an impossibly large audience among churchgoing Americans.
I bring it up because one of the people he interviews is Newt Gingrich; he does show a conservative bias against restriction and for free-market principles but generally comes across as sympathetic for climate action. Which is odd, unless you just view him as an opportunist.
On the plus side, probably the most-interviewed voice was Stephen Schneider, to whom the film was dedicated.
I have replied three times.
And made damaging, unfounded accusations in every one of them. The comment policy is quite clear. -Kate
[citations needed – hurricane intensity is not rising. Please give us a peer reviewed reference. Thanks. -Kate]
Please read what I wrote and the article I quoted.
I was talking about ACE and the total numbers of cyclones, not intensity of hurricanes.
We already know that the impact of climate change on the frequency of hurricanes is not yet clear, as stated in the article. ACE is a measure of energy, so intensity is a reasonable way to describe it. Again, please give us a peer reviewed citation for your claims, not just an article on the web. -Kate
I can’t understand the breathtaking stupidity of the “no action necessary” crew.
Heroic efforts were made to solve the millennium bug because of the potential consequences and the potential disaster was averted. The nay-sayers are risking far worse. They have a right to expose themselves to risk but not everybody else.
If we do avert the worst that climate change may have in store, we will have to put up with those who will end up saying there never was a problem – just as some now use the millennium bug result as “evidence” that all threats warned of are just alarmists exaggerating.
Hi Kate. I have just found your site. I too, am a Canadian girl from the praires. :) I am amazed what you have done here in this space, and love your credibility spectrum, quotes and cartoon images (that is all I have read so far!). I commend you on your brilliance! I am not a scientist, just a very concerned citizen and mother. I fear for the future of my children. This post is an excellent summary of the political situation. I have commited to doing a Letters to Leaders series on my blog, and have just drafted one to Peter Kent this afternoon.
Love this, I will be subscribing!!
Thanks, Sherry. I’m glad that my message is reaching others. -Kate