Does climate change divide or unite us?

It's unfortunate that climate change has become a divisive, partisan issue in our country, but it's understandable why some view it as such. Communities and local economies have been built on fossil fuel extraction and refinement, and accepting the science that climate change is real and predominantly human induced means confronting the difficult realities laid out in Bill McKibben's writings on the math of climate change: if we're serious about avoiding the worst consequences of climate change, we can burn only a small fraction of known fossil-fuel reserves. Since fossil fuels currently provide for the majority of humanity’s energy needs, we’re going to need to find alternative energy sources.

Transitioning to a carbon-neutral society necessarily means the fossil-fuel industry needs to shrink and eventually die, and this means the end of many people’s current jobs. What makes this harder is that the swifter the transition, the more likely we are to avoid more serious consequences. Sadly, some environmentalists have been guilty at times of using this reality as a pretext to demonize an entire industry of people working in fossil fuels, blanketing blame on everyone in the industry for continued emissions and hence worsening climate change. But this can be overly simplistic if taken out of context and could contribute to a divisive us-vs.-them "otherization,“ perhaps serving no other purpose than trying to find someone for the environmentally conscientious to blame in their quest for a clear conscience. What’s worse, it encourages those working in the fossil-fuel industry to retrench and employ equally simplistic responses and justifications for their work, furthering division rather than unity. In my work as a management consultant, I spent over a year working directly with fossil-fuel-based energy and utility companies. My firsthand experience in the industry exposed me to a cadre of intelligent, hard-working, and practical people who occupied positions ranging from field workers to middle and upper-middle management. To describe any of them as plotters of societal destruction would be laughable.

However, there are people in the fossil-fuel industry and in government who bear an outsized responsibility for the perpetuation of the fossil-fuel status quo, but these are typically a few people at the top - those with a large financial interest who then influence those with a political interest to maintain the status quo. In the example of #ExxonKnew, we’re talking about senior management - those responsible for the strategic direction of the company. If we’re not careful about what we read into that hashtag, we might assume every person at the company was in on a grand conspiracy - but this is almost certainly not the case. This does not diminish the need to stand up to business and government leaders to demand change, but it underscores that we can stand together rather than apart.

The reality is we all, environmentalist and oil rig operator alike, share responsibility for fossil fuel emissions on some level every time we buy or do anything or go anywhere; in fact, we depend on fossil fuels and the people who produce them for most of the material comforts we enjoy (which of us would be ready to go without electricity; clean, running water; abundant, nutritious food; transportation; or heat?). So it’s hypocritical for those of us concerned about the environment to categorically condemn a large, heterogenous group of people for producing the energy we all demand through our consumption and lifestyles, and we should be careful to avoid such sweeping, polarizing polemics. 

But the mathematical reality of climate change remains: we need to act collectively and make a series of tradeoffs to avoid catastrophe. Those tradeoffs start with trading in fossil-fuel energy for renewable energy. Consequently, that means trading in jobs producing fossil fuels for jobs producing renewable energy. And unless robots can soon provide for all the needs of those working in fossil fuels, this means fossil-fuel industry workers will need to find other employment. These are real job losses affecting real, good people, our compatriots. Any transition plan for a carbon-neutral society needs to include viable alternatives for those working in the fossil-fuel industry.

Fortunately, the transition to a carbon-neutral society also means lots of new opportunities in the renewable-energy industry. Many of the specialized skills and much of the same knowledge that have served people well in producing fossil fuels (construction, engineering, equipment maintenance, finance, project management, sales, marketing, human resources, etc.) are largely transferable to producing renewable energy. As one industry needs to ramp down, another needs to ramp up. Many of the same people whose jobs will be eliminated in producing fossil fuels can redeploy in the rapidly expanding renewable-energy sector.

It’s true that producing energy from fossil fuels and from renewable sources are not exactly the same thing. There will need to be some re-education and training to enable people to make the transition. Fortunately, estimates suggest the costs of such training will not be prohibitive. And given my experience with people working in the fossil-fuel industry, I’m confident in their ability to reapply their intelligence and skills in contexts outside fossil fuels.

It's scary to think about change, particularly on such a large scale. But it's also scary to think about the alternative: leaving a world that is unrecognizably degraded to the next generation and causing greater human suffering to our materially less fortunate brothers and sisters living now around the world. The math dictates a major change in course to avoid serious consequences, a course change that will require everyone working together. So let's team up and work together, rather than against each other, toward a cleaner, brighter future.

Florida's climate change word crimes

The Washington Post (e.g., see here, here, and here) and the Miami Herald, among others, have recently reported on Florida Governor Rick Scott's administration's unwritten policy of forbidding the state's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) employees from using the words "climate change" and "global warming" in any official documents, studies, or reports.

Governor Scott denies any wrongdoing, pointing instead to his administration's record on the environment. "I’m into solutions, and that’s what we’re going to continue to do."

While the Herald's report contains multiple sources all describing similar pressure and instructions from administration officials, proving the existence of a policy of censorship may be difficult as administration officials seem unwilling to discuss the specifics of the issue or to communicate about it in writing. As such, the only available evidence as of yet appears to be hearsay.

Regardless of whether Scott's administration is pressuring DEP employees to avoid usage and discussion of certain terms, as the Washington Post points out, this is hardly the first time a Republican-led administration has interfered with scientific communication. The Post goes so far as to call this a play "straight out of the Bush playbook," referring the Bush 43's administration's "edit[ing] scientific reports to minimize the link between human activity and climate change." 

In the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, University of Miami professor Harold Wanless finds the practice of censoring DEP officials unconscionable, perhaps worse: "It’s beyond ludicrous to deny using the term climate change. It’s criminal at this point."

Professor Wanless raises a point worthy of further exploration: assuming the Scott administration does have an unwritten policy censoring scientific reports, in what ways would this policy be "criminal?" Would it be a violation of DEP employees' first amendment rights? Would it also make the administration guilty of gross negligence, given the overwhelming scientific evidence linking human activities to serious global climatic changes? And finally, would it be evidence of corruption, suggesting the administration has been captured by private interests benefitting from the status quo of limited or no action to mitigate and adapt to climate change?

Governor Scott, along with other prominent Republicans, has adopted the "I'm not a scientist" mantra in an attempt to exonerate himself of responsibility for any negative effects his state and its citizens might suffer from climate change. Governor Scott should not be faulted for not being a climate scientist. A healthy society needs elected officials with a variety of backgrounds. But not trusting input from experts, and even going so far as to attempt to silence them, is indeed inexcusable. It might even be criminal.

The Soon Affair: research funding, academic freedom, and peer review

Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon, a researcher at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, has long been a vocal critic of the consensus of the scientific community that climate change is largely a manmade phenomenon. It should come as no surprise then that, when news broke late last week that Soon's ties to the fossil fuel industry were stronger than previously known, environmentalists cried foul.

Criticism of Soon is warranted, but it's important to be clear on why. Soon's wrongdoing was not in accepting money from the fossil-fuel industry to conduct research. There is nothing inherently wrong with accepting funding for scientific research from private interests. Society has benefitted greatly from research funded or directly conducted by the private sector. Cars, iPhones, TVs, biomedical devices, prescription drugs – none of these would exist without private sector-funded research.

In fact, at least some of Soon's colleagues—even those who might refute his conclusions—have been careful to defend his right to academic freedom, to ask and seek answers to the questions he chooses. According to The New York Times, Dr. Charles Alcock, director of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center (with which Soon is affiliated), "acknowledged on Friday that Dr. Soon had violated the disclosure standards of some journals," but "said that, aside from the disclosure issue, he thought it was important to protect Dr. Soon’s academic freedom, even if most of his colleagues disagreed with his findings."

But why would Soon's "boss" (if he could be called that) come to his defense, even when the conclusions of his research stand at odds with the majority of those of the scientific community? Christine Pulliam, a spokeswoman for the Center for Astrophysics, explained to the Guardian:

“Academic freedom is critically important. The Smithsonian stands by the process by which the research results of all of its scholars are peer reviewed and vetted by other scientists. This is the way that the scientific process works. The funding entities, regardless of their affiliation, have no influence on the research.”

So it would seem that it is neither the source of Soon's funding nor the conclusions of his research that were cause for concern. And while it's true that who funds research often determines which questions get asked and answered, the scientific method should produce verifiable, repeatable results regardless of the topic of exploration. So in theory, who funds the research shouldn't affect the research's outcome, and the peer-review process should catch any problems with the science before the research goes to press. "What's the big deal, then?" one might ask. "Shouldn't the science speak for itself?" According to The New York Times, Soon put it this way:

“I write proposals; I let them decide whether to fund me or not,” he said at an event in Madison, Wis., in 2013. “If they choose to fund me, I’m happy to receive it.” A moment later, he added, “I would never be motivated by money for anything.”

Soon also told the Boston Globe in 2013:

“No amount of money can influence what I have to say and write, especially on my scientific quest to understand how climate works, all by itself.’’

One may doubt Soon's integrity, but the implication of his statements is clear: the science should speak for itself. And this is the point Alcock and Pulliam made, as cited above. This is also why they were clear to defend his academic freedom: essentially, if there is a problem with the science, criticize the science. (Soon's colleagues in academia, for their part, have roundly criticized his work on its merits.)

So why does it matter that Soon didn't disclose his funding sources?

Soon's misdeed was in failing to disclose his financial ties to the fossil-fuel industry when the journals where he published required it. Academic journals often rely on researchers to self-report funding sources and any potential conflicts of interest. By failing to do so, Soon undermined the credibility of his own findings. But he also violated the trust of the public.

In addition, disclosing research funding helps identify where additional, disinterested, third-party research might be warranted to verify the findings of the original research. For the general public, who are likely unable to test the validity of the findings of scientific research, following the money provides a heuristic for reliability. The findings of research funded by an institution with a potential conflict of interest should be held in lower regard than the results of a similar study conducted by a disinterested third party.

For example, the public should rightly be skeptical of the findings of studies conducted by a private party with a significant financial interest in the results of the research coming out one way as opposed to another. The safety of a product or practice is a great example. Is fracking safe? The best group to ask isn't the American Petroleum Institute. Is a new drug safe? It's probably better to ask someone besides the company developing it.

From the public's perspective, Soon deserves criticism not for accepting money from the fossil-fuel industry nor for coming to conclusions different from his colleagues'; rather, Soon deserves criticism for failing to disclose the extent of his ties to the fossil-fuel industry when there is an obvious conflict of interest between fossil-fuel industry profits and the conclusion of the scientific community—based on an overwhelming preponderance of empirical observation—that the burning of fossil fuels is a significant factor driving climate change.

U.S. Senate votes on climate change

On January 21, 2015, the U.S. Senate voted 98-1 to pass an amendment to S. 1, its Keystone XL Pipeline bill, stating that "climate change is real and not a hoax." A further amendment, stating that "it is the sense of the Congress that--(1) climate change is real; and (2) human activity significantly contributes to climate change" and citing the scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Research Council, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), failed by a vote of 50-49. 

It is worth noting a few points regarding these votes. First, it is historic that a Republican controlled Senate would agree that "climate change is real and is not a hoax." This is a far cry from the rhetoric many Republican senators employed during the election cycle, where many of them either flatly denied climate change is occurring or made statements such as "I'm not a scientist" as if to suggest they shouldn't be asked such questions. That said, this vote shows the evolving position of congressional Republicans on the issue.

Second, this amendment was clearly a political calculation aimed at securing the necessary Democratic support for the Keystone XL Pipeline bill to pass a vote. As Republicans do not currently benefit from a supermajority in the Senate, getting any legislation through a vote requires at least some bipartisan support.

Third, the language of the amendment that passed is the minimum language required to secure Democratic support.

Fourth, and perhaps most significantly, in rejecting the second proposed amendment, nearly half the members of the U.S. Senate voted to reject a statement consistent with overwhelming empirical observation and that reflects the prevailing opinions of experts across multiple scientific disciplines. 

In the first place, it is curious that the Senate would take any position on a matter of empirical observation. It is not as if, simply by voting, the Senate can change reality, creating a world where humans are not "extremely likely" (borrowing a phrase from the IPCC) to be significantly responsible for observed changes in our climate since the industrial revolution.

What would it hurt the Senate to agree with the overwhelming consensus of observation? As the Senator (Brian Schatz, D-HI) who proposed the rejected amendment pointed out in his testimony on the floor of the Senate, "The purpose of this amendment is simply to acknowledge and restate a set of observable facts. It is not intended to place a value judgment on those facts or to suggest a specific course of action in response to those facts. It is just a set of facts derived from decades of careful study of our land, air, and water."

The Senate's rejection of Senator Schatz's amendment provides cause for concern with our political system: if our elected officials aren't basing decisions affecting our nation and our planet on empirical observation, on what are they basing their decisions?

President Obama's G20 remarks and the Keystone XL Pipeline

US President Barack Obama at the G20 summit in Australia on Saturday built on the momentum of a recent surprise announcement of a deal between China and the US to work together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. News outlets (e.g., see here, here, and here) report that President Obama brought the issue of climate change back to the fore, despite the efforts of host nation Australia's Prime Minister Tony Abbott to leave climate change out of the summit altogether. As the Guardian reports:

...in a one-two manoeuvre that caught Australia off guard, Obama upstaged Abbott and made certain it was the talk of the conference anyway. First came the joint US/China post-2020 greenhouse emission reduction targets announced in Beijing on the eve of the summit and then the $3bn Green Climate Fund pledge made in a keynote speech as Abbott was greeting other world leaders across town.

It will be interesting to see what effect, if any, President Obama's recent outspokenness on climate change might have on his decision on whether to approve TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, which would be used to ship bituminous crude oil from Alberta's burgeoning tar sands developments to refineries along the US Gulf Coast. On the one hand, the US agreement with China, along with President Obama's remarks in Australia, have been praised by the president's environmentalist supporters. These efforts might grant the president leeway to approve the pipeline without entirely losing their support. On the other hand, environmentalists might accuse the president of only paying lip service to climate change mitigation efforts while failing to take a stand when given a "real" opportunity.

How "real" an opportunity to take a stand rejecting the pipeline would be is a subject of debate among industry supporters, environmentalists, the US Department of State, and the White House. Industry supporters back the pipeline and point to the jobs it will create and the reduced dependence on foreign oil it will enable. Environmentalists contend the pipeline will lock in the full development of Alberta's tar sands, for which energy-intensive production methods are required to produce crude oil. The US Department of State, for its part, has claimed in its environmental impact assessments that building the pipeline will have a negligible effect on climate change since Alberta's tar sands are likely to be fully developed anyway. And the White House has hinted recently that President Obama might veto the pipeline even if the House of Representatives and Senate both approve of constructing it. Moreover, the White House has contended in the past that approving the pipeline is the president's decision alone to make since the proposed route crosses an international border.

The failure of the recent Keystone XL Pipeline bill to pass a Senate vote is likely only a temporary reprieve for the White House. When Republicans take control of the Senate in January, President Obama is likely to see another bill pass in both houses of congress. The question is, what will the president decide: to reject the pipeline proposal and appease his environmentalist backers, or to approve it in exchange with congressional Republicans for concessions on other aspects of his policy agenda? Only time will tell. Whatever the president decides, environmentalists can already claim a small victory: delays in the approval process have nearly doubled the cost of the pipeline, raising overall project costs and making Alberta tar sands oil less competitive with alternative and renewable energy sources.