Of the all the famous names associated with climate change, there are two I would love to see headlined in a debate–against each other. Both of these individuals believe global warming presents an existential threat, both believe Big Green is part of the problem, and both offer a radically different path to decarbonization of the global economy.
Yes, the debate between Naomi Klein and James Hansen would be fascinating.
Klein, as you probably have heard, is the author of a new and much discussed book titled, “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs the Climate.” Her publisher describes it as
a brilliant explanation of why the climate crisis challenges us to abandon the core “free market” ideology of our time, restructure the global economy, and remake our political systems.
The New Statesmen, a liberal UK publication, opens its review of the book thusly:
Right-wing deniers of the robust findings of modern atmospheric science sometimes claim that the whole idea of global warming is just a front. What “warmers”, as they call them, really want is allegedly not just a sharp reduction in fossil-fuel emissions but a wholesale socioeconomic transition to tree-hugging socialism. Such cynics will be gladdened by Naomi Klein’s new book. For in it she does explicitly argue that the present “climate emergency” provides an excellent excuse for global revolution.
Before anyone starts hyperventilating, it should be noted, as Klein does in this recent interview, that she isn’t arguing for capitalism to be overthrown by some other ism:
Look, I’m not saying that markets have no role in combatting climate change. I think the right market incentives can play a huge role—we can point to all kinds of companies doing great stuff…There will have to be a strong role for the public sector, a strong role for regulations and, yes, incentives. But the idea of just leaving our collective fate to the market is madness. You wouldn’t treat any other existential crisis in that way.
Still, the larger implications of Klein’s argument will be threatening to entrenched economic interests, a political class concerned more about its fortunes than the planet’s future, and most of all, right wing conservatives who already believe that the “climate emergency” is a liberal stalking horse for a big-government, wealth-redistributive agenda.
In the United States, the response to such a perceived threat has become clear.
James Hansen, the former NASA climate scientist who more than two decades ago elevated the importance of climate science in the public mind, and who has since strongly warned about the dangers of greenhouse gas-driven climate change, believes that conservatives should be mindful of what’s in store when climate impacts really start to hit home. In an interview last year, he said:
If they [conservatives] continue to pretend that human-made climate change is a hoax, eventually you get to the point where nature makes it clear it wasn’t a hoax and then the public demands the government do something and that’s the worst nightmare for conservatives.
What happens then?
It would allow the government to take over and do things by fiat, which not in anybody’s interest in my opinion, because the government never, seldom, makes the right choices. Let the market make the choices, which is a conservative approach.
Hansen’s preferred fix is a revenue-neutral carbon tax, in which the money generated from a rising tax on fossil fuels would be given right back to the public. In a post he wrote last week for Columbia University’s Earth Institute (which received little attention), Hansen explains: Read More
I have an idealistic streak that is increasingly tempered by real world events. So on Sunday I admired the enthusiasm of the hundreds of thousands of people who marched through the streets of Manhattan to sound their concern about climate change and other environmental issues.
The blunt truth is that what China decides to do in the next decade will likely determine whether or not mankind can halt – or at least ameliorate – global warming.
Now comes word from India’s environmental minister, as reported by Coral Davenport in the New York Times:
The minister, Prakash Javadekar, said in an interview that his government’s first priority was to alleviate poverty and improve the nation’s economy, which he said would necessarily involve an increase in emissions through new coal-powered electricity and transportation. He placed responsibility for what scientists call a coming climate crisis on the United States, the world’s largest historic greenhouse gas polluter, and dismissed the idea that India would make cuts to carbon emissions.
The cold, hard reality of climate change politics (from an international perspective) is exactly as University of Colorado political scientist Roger Pielke Jr. has been saying for years:
When policies on emissions reductions collide with policies focused on economic growth, economic growth will win out every time.
UPDATE: Some helpful perspective from Brad Plumer, who asks if the “planet is cooked” if India’s carbon emissions keep rising? “Not necessarily,” he says.
I am teaching two journalism classes this semester, with climate change being a main focus these past few weeks. We had an obvious news peg in Sunday’s big climate march and the gathering of world leaders this week in NYC.
Students in both classes have received climate change 101 lessons from me–where the body of science stands, who the largest carbon emitters are, the known and projected impacts, the tricky (global) politics, the wicked nature of the problem, and so on.
It’s a lot to take in for the uninitiated, which includes nearly all my students. Additionally, they have to navigate the shouty public conversation. So imagine what happens when they come across an op-ed (in a major newspaper) headlined, “Climate Science is Not Settled.” The Wall Street Journal commentary by a respected scientist generated finger-wagging reactions and a stern rebuke from some in the climate science community. Others were more measured.
To someone who is already struggling to make sense of a complex science, the WSJ article is puzzling. At least this was the response from one of my students who emailed the class listserv yesterday: Read More
I’m betting you’ve heard or seen the big news, as reported on the front page of today’s New York Times:
The United States and allies launched airstrikes against Sunni militants in Syria early Tuesday, unleashing a torrent of cruise missiles and precision-guided bombs from the air and sea on the militants’ de facto capital of Raqqa and along the porous Iraq border.
This is a major development, especially for a war-weary American public. As the NYT says:
The strikes are a major turning point in President Obama’s war against the Islamic State and open up a risky new stage of the American military campaign. Until now, the administration had bombed Islamic State targets only in Iraq, and had suggested it would be weeks if not months before the start of a bombing campaign against Islamic State targets in Syria.
Now I’m no military planner, but I have to think that President Obama is the one who signed off on the timing of these air strikes into Syria. Coincidentally, the bombing commenced on the eve of the big climate summit in New York City. If I’m a climate activist I’m thinking, WTF, you couldn’t wait a few more days?
Naturally, the herd media instinct kicked in and whatever attention climate change was getting suddenly had to be shared with a new U.S. bombing campaign in the Middle East.
That meant images like this when President Obama flew into New York City this afternoon to deliver a widely anticipated speech on climate change. Read More
Everything you need to know about today’s climate march, in tweets.
— KQEDscience (@KQEDscience) September 21, 2014
The NYC turnout was huge.
Some historical perspective.
There were lots of colorful banners.
Will this one truly be historic?
— Jeffrey D. Sachs (@JeffDSachs) September 21, 2014
Science was also on display.
There were some famous faces in the crowd.
And celebrities, too.
The media has a vantage point.
Every movement has agenda-driven opportunists climbing aboard its bandwagon.
— Galileo Movement (@GalileoMovement) September 21, 2014
Those snickering at today’s event will themselves be mocked one day, says one journalist.
Yeah, this is something to consider.
An Eco-pragmatist wags his finger.
But I bet this was the dominant sentiment of most marchers.
There was some gloomy news, however.
predicted warming: as much as 10º F “which would likely be incompatible with human civilization in its current form” http://t.co/NtqXussGYO
— John Schwartz — NYT (@jswatz) September 21, 2014
I suppose that prospect explains why all these people showed up today.
— Nat Moss (@natmoss) September 21, 2014
When I was interviewing Robert Kennedy Jr. for my recent Washington Post magazine profile, there was one charge leveled against him that he deeply resented. “I am not anti-science,” he insisted on numerous occasions, and my suggestion a year ago that he was anti-science perturbed him more than anything.
After all, Kennedy, like many greens, embraces what science says about climate change and other pressing environmental issues. So how could he be anti-science?
Similarly, GMO opponents hold views that are often broadly characterized as “anti-science.” For example, here’s how a tweet described Jon Entine’s presentation this week to a National Academy of Science (NAS) committee on crop biotechnology.
— Genetic Literacy (@GeneticLiteracy) September 18, 2014
The tweet by Entine’s organization (Genetic Literacy Program) was referring to the numerous GMO critics who don’t accept overwhelming evidence showing genetically modified foods to be safe, and who were invited to share these views with the NAS committee at a public meeting.
But is it fair to label anti-GMO activists–and their claims–as anti-science? Like Kennedy, many of them, if not all, also hew to the scientific consensus on climate change. But if they dismiss the same scientific consensus on crop biotechnology does that automatically make them anti-science? [In fairness, nowhere in Entine’s NAS presentation–which is excellent–does he use the term “anti-science.”]
Entine, in his remarks to the NAS committee, acknowledges that
many of those who maintain that GMOs are potentially harmful, while sincere for the most part, are engaging not in science but in politics.
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is embarking on a comprehensive study of genetically engineered (GE) crops. It will examine the historic development of agricultural biotechnology, assess the “purported” benefits and negatives of GE crops, review food and environmental safety issues, and explore where the technology may be headed.
What is prompting such a deep dive into a thorny thicket? This:
Consumers in the United States and abroad get conflicting information about GE crops. Proponents tout the benefits while opponents emphasize the risks. There is a need for an independent, objective study that examines what has been learned about GE crops, assesses whether initial concerns and promises were realized since their introduction, and investigates new concerns and recent claims.
It so happens that the first public meeting for this study will be held today and tomorrow. More on this in a minute.
First, let’s review essential findings on crop biotechnology and related food safety concerns from the past decade. Read More
As regular readers know, I have done my share of kvetching about GMO media coverage. It’s easy to poke a stick at the stuff you take issue with, especially if you’re on the lookout for it. This is a form of selection bias that I need to be mindful of.
It’s not that I haven’t paused to admire examples of sterling journalism on GMO-related issues. I’ve praised Amy Harmon and Nathanael Johnson for their excellent work in the New York Times and Grist, respectively. But overall, the repeat offenders and flawed coverage (such as this latest from Reuters) seize my attention.
So I need to do a better job of spotlighting the standout work of those who are raising the bar on a consistent basis. That brings me to Tamar Haspel, whose monthly column on food and agriculture for the Washington Post is a must-read. Her most recent piece is on the comparative merits of small and large scale (industrial sized) farms. Like all of Haspel’s columns, this one is engaging, well reported, thoughtful, and nuanced. That’s no small feat.
Here’s how it starts: Read More
In 2002, the global GMO discourse chagrined anthropologist Glenn Davis Stone:
Western audiences have been bombarded with deceptive rhetoric, spin, and soundbite science portraying the wonders—or horrors—of the new technology.
He blamed both the biotech industry and anti-GMO activists for exploiting food security concerns to advance their own agendas. The article, published in the journal Current Anthropology, is a snapshot of a formative time, when dueling narratives pushed by industry and GMO opponents had taken shape. Stone’s objective was laudable:
My focus here is on the core problem of the feeding of the growing populations in the developing world. This decomposes into two issues: the potential for biotechnology to reduce hunger by boosting food output and the need to take a discriminating view of genetically modified crops (e.g., distinguishing those from the corporate and those from the public sector) rather than treating genetic modification as a monolithic project. I examine the dominant industry and green positions on these two issues, using case material from India.
At the time, as Stone noted:
The specter of the industralization of farming, privatization of germplasm, and eventual depeasantization in developing countries has proved a mighty stimulus to a range of green writers and activists.
Such concerns fueled the anti-GMO movement and, as Stone observed,
helped make an international star of Vandana Shiva, whose voluminous writings depict genetic modification as threatening an idyllic traditional agrarian culture that is ecologically stable, seed-saving, biodiverse, noncommercial, and female-oriented.
Shiva would go on to be an instrumental figure in the global anti-GMO movement over the next decade. She was (and remains) the forceful purveyor of one of the biggest GMO myths: That the “failure” of genetically modified cotton has driven more than a quarter million Indian farmers to suicide. As I wrote last year in my deconstruction of this myth, “no one has done more to promote the narrative of Monsanto’s ‘seeds of suicide’ than Vandana Shiva.” I extensively chronicled the role Shiva played in perpetuating the GMO-Indian farmer suicide narrative, which a mostly credulous media bought into.
In his 2002 journal article, Stone discusses Shiva’s worldview and GMO rhetoric as reflective of the “characteristic green position.” He writes:
The greens’ demonization of genetically modified crops has effects that are contradictory to their values. Promoting blanket disapproval of such crops helps drive public-sector genetic modification into the arms of industry. Genetic modification is expensive, and most public projects are in a constant struggle for funding. Industry provides some funds and access to genetic materials; greens provide no funding and obstruct philanthropic investment (ABC News Online 2001).
If you read the full article, you’ll see it’s clear that Stone holds the Shivas of the world responsible for inflaming the GMO discourse and for having a misguided approach to biotechnology. (As I mentioned, he also found industry just as culpable for justifying its interests with grand claims.)
Several weeks ago, the Union of Concerned Scientists posted a hard-hitting rebuttal to a famous environmentalist, someone who is normally an ally. Here’s a taste:
A new and misnamed book co-authored by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak, is filled with exactly the kinds of misrepresentations of facts and slippery slope distortions of research that sway people—often those who are most earnest about seeking information—away from the science.
The piece went on to state that research findings cited by Kennedy were “taken out of context” and that, “contrary to what the book would have us believe, children are not being exposed to dangerous levels of ethyl mercury in vaccines.”
The critique did not mince words:
As RFK Jr. should well know from his work on climate change, generating doubt by misrepresenting the science has negative consequences for the public. Because of his stature and good work on so many other issues, he has a special responsibility to get the science right.
Might the same be said for public interest organizations with prominent stature? Should they too be expected not to misrepresent science? Do they have a special responsibility to get the science right?
If so, then the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) might want to take a look in the mirror. For the same criticism they make of Kennedy has been leveled against them–on the issue of GMOs. At the organization’s website, here is one glaring example of what drives many scientists crazy about the way UCS characterizes crop biotechnology: Read More