mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Will Obama Moderate His Green Initiatives?


The Economist‘s ‘Democracy in America’ blog has an excellent post titled “Climate Change: A Cooling Consensus” that’s well worth your time this weekend. It’s a very well-written essay encapsulating more or less what we’ve been saying all along here at Via Meadia. It also notes some important ways in which the debate has shifted. A taste:

As a rule, climate scientists were previously very confident that the planet would be warmer than it is by now, and no one knows for sure why it isn’t. This isn’t a crisis for climate science. This is just the way science goes. But it is a crisis for climate-policy advocates who based their arguments on the authority of scientific consensus.

Mr [Nate] Cohn [of the New Republic] eventually gets around to admitting that “in the end, the so-called scientific consensus on global warming doesn’t look like much like consensus when scientists are struggling to explain the intricacies of the earth’s climate system, or uttering the word ‘uncertainty’ with striking regularity.” But his attempt to minimise the political relevance of this is unconvincing. He writes, “The recent wave of news and magazine articles about scientists struggling to explain the warming slowdown could prolong or deepen the public’s skepticism. But the ‘consensus’ never extended to the intricacies of the climate system, just the core belief that additional greenhouse gas emissions would warm the planet.”

If this is true, then the public has been systematically deceived. As it has been presented to the public, the scientific consensus extended precisely to that which is now seems to be in question: the sensitivity of global temperature to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Indeed, if the consensus had been only that greenhouse gases have some warming effect, there would have been no obvious policy implications at all.

Definitely read the whole thing.

As we noted earlier today, it will be interesting to see how (and if) President Obama’s planned climate speech takes account of these changes in tone and substance of climate discussion.

We’re hoping he uses this opportunity to move to some common sense ideas: accelerate the switch from coal to natural gas by developing sensible fracking regulations that allow us to move ahead as quickly as we prudently can; switch alternative energy funding from costly and ineffective subsidies to research that can develop technologies that actually work well enough to succeed in markets on their own; promote telework and generally promote the emergence of a low-footprint information society that increasingly shifts from the movement of stuff to the transmission of ideas; continue research into energy efficiency.

We don’t think all government intervention on environmental issues is bad. Requirements for more efficient cars, for example, have helped to reduce all kinds of air pollution in American cities and kept consumer gas bills lower than they would have been. Though there are some misfires (like the lightbulb fiasco), pushing manufacturers toward more energy-efficient appliances and housing contractors toward more energy-efficient homes can be reasonable policies if done sensibly and in moderation. We’ve long thought a revenue-neutral carbon tax that reduced payroll taxes would both make for a fairer tax system and promote the economy’s shift toward information rather than energy intensive production. But such measures should be carefully shaped and have modest goals. Green policy has a history of unexpected byproducts and unforeseen costs.

There are so many dogmatic green crusaders in the administration that the President’s list is likely to contain some pretty poor ideas. Some of these he can impose through executive orders; others require Congressional approval. When the list is out we’ll give our analysis, but for now we hope that the recent return to sanity in the media discussion of climate change has helped the more realistic people in the administration to keep the wilder greens in check.

[President Obama photo courtesy Getty Images.]

Features Icon
show comments
  • Andrew Allison

    Let’s cut to the chase: the data have demolished the “settled science”, US emissions are at 20-year lows and, given what’s happening in the rest of the world, it’s time to stop wasting money futile efforts to slow the growth of atmospheric CO2 and start think about how to live with climate change.

  • Corlyss

    Surely you jest. Whenever he runs into resistance, he doubles down. His announced regulatory agenda will be every draconian measure he couldn’t get thru the Congress while the Republicans are too feeble to pull the funding on any of it.

    • Nick Bidler

      You brought this on yourself:
      “I am serious, and don’t call me Shirley.”

      • Corlyss

        LOL I get that a lot.

    • ojfl

      The problem of Republican opposition is that they have to embrace the disdain Corlyss. How many times a week do you hear or read in the news the term “extremism” associated with the Republicans? That is the reason they are cautious but they should have been convinced by now they will never have the approval of this media.

  • Kavanna

    There was never “settled science” on “climate change” — it was always a manufactured consensus driven by mostly extra-scientific motives.

    What’s left? There’s no such thing as the “temperature of the Earth” — there are many (an infiinity of) temperatures. The “temperature average” usually trotted out has no physical meaning.

    Temperature trends over the globe have, for the last 15 years, been mainly flat to down.

    The big supposed “smoking gun,” the “hockey stick,” was not only wrong, but a fraud. Redone with correct methodology, nothing appears but the multi-century trend already in place: nothing unusual about the last 60 years.

    The core of the warming case, the key things that should be happening, steeper temperature lapse rate by altitude and warming at the poles, are not happening. Antarctica is the same or colder every year since the late 1970s.

    From the start, this has been a corrupt, greedy crusade of the power-hungry and cynical. The skepticism domestically has grown enormously in the last decade, while the pushback from elsewhere has gone from almost nothing to dominating the international politics.

    What is left?

  • ojfl

    The president will not moderate. That is not in him. Besides he needs a distraction and a fight to paint the opposition as not caring.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service