Matt Nisbet has published a provocative new paper:
A good article on this at western wire. Excerpts:
The study analyzed $556.7 million in “behind-the-scenes” grants distributed by 19 major environmental foundations from 2011-2015 in the immediate aftermath of the failure to pass cap-and-trade legislation in 2010.
4. Roger’s particular sin was questioning claims that natural disaster trends could be attributed to AGW, which undermined longstanding efforts by advocates to raise the political salience of the issue, a strategy that dates to the mid-90’s use of TV weathermen to advocate Kyoto
5. There was never any particularly compelling evidence that strategy worked. As early as 2000, research by the Frameworks Institute suggested it was more likely to backfire. But it served a range of other discursive needs so climate advocates remain deeply committed to it.
6. For similar reasons, challenging green policy orthodoxy has been treated as more than a simple policy dispute. From very early on, advocates conflated climate science with green policy formula of international treaty + regulate emissions + soft energy
7. Questioning the agenda was treated as defacto climate denial. Any alternative framing of problem or solution had to be squashed, And while it hasn’t made the politics any easier, it achieved other goals, as Matt Nisbet’s report has demonstrated.
8. The constant ad hominem, guilt by association, and misrepresentation wears you down and changes you. Without naming names, some of us handled that better than others and that is the case across the political spectrum. Being demonized in these ways often radicalizes people.
9. And it has also radicalized the climate debate. Catastrophism on the Left and know-nothingism on Right beget one another. As @atrembath and I wrote in Foreign Affairs last year, the benefits of doing so accrue primarily to opponents of action.
10. Can we put the polarization genie back in the bottle, on climate or anything else? I really don’t know. But I do wonder how those advocating further radicalization of climate advocacy imagine any of this ends.
11. Making ever more radical demands might be a fine strategy were there someone to negotiate with. But by the reckoning of most prominent climate hawks, there isn’t.
12. Nor does it appear that a more inclusive climate coalition is likely to bring larger congressional majorities. Any Democrat-only climate strategy has to be predicated on not only winning but holding purple/red districts over multiple elections.
13. These are precisely the districts that radicalized climate rhetoric alienates culturally and the green policy agenda punishes economically. Since the failure of cap and trade in 2010, climate activists have taken rhetoric to 11, and what it got them was Trump.
14. I don’t imagine I am going to convince many proponents of these strategies. But I do hope we might figure out how to have a more civil conversation about our differences.
15. In my view, that starts with how we talk about science. Is/Ought distinction matters. Climate scientists are also engaged citizens. And they bring important expert judgement that deserves consideration. But that is not the same thing as science, much less consensus science.
16. Climate activists, similarly, have every right to be alarmed about potential for catastrophic climate impacts. But that is not consensus science. There is no consensus science inconsistent with lukewarmist views. They are legitimate and should be engaged respectfully.
17. Finally, mitigation is hard not easy, and brings trade-offs for real people, not just the Koch brothers and other corporate demons. No one knows feasibility various sociotechnological pathways. More humility about solutions would serve climate mitigation efforts well. END
JC reflections: Well, there are certainly some sane voices out there. One can only hope that the extremists on both sides would stop demonizing them an actually listen to them.