During his recent testimony to the House of Representatives' House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee, former Vice President Al Gore provided a view point of how the science of global warming, which has become a major political flash point in the past few years. There is evidence from various different sources, such as the League of Conservation Voters and the Pew organization, that the science and politics of global warming (and the proposed legislation to deal with it) has become an issue with a clear partisan split of understanding between Democratic and Republican legislators and voters.
Al Gore presents in his opening remarks that the passage of the legislation by first presenting the ever-growing body of science on the causes together with the environmental and human impacts of global warming, presenting the names of the organizations and journals in which the findings were published - prestigious ones all - before presenting those scientific study's results . This was followed by his social justifications for acting by promoting the shift away from carbon-based energy systems as a opportunity to upgrade infrastructure systems, fund R&D opportunities, and find new "green jobs" for coal miners. He continues by increasing the scope of his statements by including the context to that of a global one by stating that the United States should not have to continue spending money and effort sending troops (an action that is becoming ever-more publicly unpopular) and should be one of the first countries to do serious action on the topic of global warming to once again become a leader - moral and scientific - of the world (a topic that is becoming more popular). He finishes by once again tipping his hat toward funding of a science-justified bill by asking for bipartisan support for the legislation.
Former senator John Warner's (R-Virginia) opening statement also made an interesting framing of science within the global warming debate. Other than making a tangential comment about a news story in the New York Times from April 24, 2009 by Andrew Revkin, which talked about the obfuscation by companies that were major polluters of scientific studies fourteen years ago that spoke to the validity of the impacts of global warming , he left the "facts" to Al Gore. Instead, Warner's points spoke more to the problems of how innovative infrastructure presents new problems, such as water usage requirements for California solar power and land acquisition for installing the next generation "smart grid". He spoke of climate change, energy, and national security were all tied closely together, and that the Congress needs to build any legislation that incorporates all three. He then continued to discuss the linkage between climate change and national security.
In that portion of his testimony, Warner quoted General Gordon Sullivan - the former Chief of Staff of the Army - saying that this message was a critical point of view to understand that climate change/national security link:
"The Cold War was a specter, but climate change in inevitable. If we keep on with business as usual, we will reach a point when some of the word effects are inevitable. Back then, the challenge was to stop a particular action, now the challenge is to inspire a particular action. We have to act if we are to avoid the worst of the effects."Warner states that there is a lot of fear associated with the issue of climate change. He makes the point that some people are asking the question of whether now - with a major financial crisis and troops fighting overseas - is the right time to address this issue, especially if it is going to cost a lot of money and require national sacrifices. He cites that continued delay of action will only increase the inevitable costs of taking action, and Warner also quoted Admiral Joseph Lopez's statement, "You have a very real change in natural systems that are most likely to happen in regions of the world that are already fertile ground for extremism." To the question of whether now is the right time, he stated simply, "Yes, it is the time."
One could say that Al Gore and John Warner present two different facets of approaching the issue of global warming. Al Gore starts off with his big-guns of science; how the ever-mounting evidence of science should make it more and more obvious that action needs to be taken on this topic. On the other side, John Warner calls upon the long-term national security interests of the country to justify the investment in climate change legislation. Both of these two strands of evidence have historically been used successfully to garner funding from the Congress. However, before the joint testimony of John Warner and Al Gore - two respected former politicians from different parties - the connection between climate change science and national security investments were not placed in such a close testimonial juxtaposition. Indeed, Mr. Warner asked the Subcommittee to bring in members from the defense sector, intelligence community and private sector dealing with defense infrastructure, recognizing the benefit of bringing these other points of view that are critical in having to deal with a future in which climate change is a reality.
Senator Warner made an allusion to the 1990 passage of the amendments to the Clean Air Act in the Senate. He recalled that during that period of time, there was a lot of worry and controversy in the public regarding the possible future of manufacturing in this country as well as the costs of implementing the legislation. He recalled how it was the concerned actions of the committee chairman - calling up each member of the Senate who was wavering - to get that amendment passed. He noted that the passage of the bill forced industry to innovate, and ultimately they survived. This framing plays to the point of view of the policy-science link being kind of evolutionary in nature: new policy creates new "selection pressure" in the private sector, causing an "evolution" of (in this case) scientific innovation to optimize the industry to the new selective pressure; the image of scientific innovation being a linear process.
However, when attacking the science of global warming, most of the attacks came from the Republican party members and were directed at Al Gore. The types of attacks took several forms, including using the "there is no scientific consensus" frame (e.g., Representative Scalise R-LA , Representative Barton R-TX ), stating predictions as "theory" (as opposed to "fact") , stating that science can prove whatever end a politician wants (e.g., Representative Burgess, R-TX), citing the science as alarmist (e.g., Representative Radanovich, R-CA), or trying to directly discredit Al Gore, through claims in his film An Inconvenient Truth (e.g., Representative Barton - TX), and through Mr. Gore's apparent conflict of interests with regard to climate change legislation (e.g. Representative Scalise R-LA , Representative Blackburn R-TN).
The questions from the congress tended to focus on possible impacts of the bill to their local constituencies, whereas the comments that Mr. Gore and Mr. Warner made tended to be national and international in scope. In my opinion, these differences in scope were not sufficiently addressed by either Mr. Gore or Mr. Warner in many of the cases.
Mr. Gore made a statement during his testimony that touched a topic that seems to have a strong resonance with many Americans - their children's and grandchildren's generation. He posited the scenario of what our children and grandchildren would think when, twenty to fifty years down the line, they look at the world they inherit and ask why we - the people of today - chose to listen to the questionable science coming out of corporations and political groups who benefit from the current business-as-usual instead of listening to the global scientific consensus on the science and expected impacts of global warming. In my opinion, this argument suffers from a few problems. First, it falls into the framework of "trust the science", which is - itself - a value that doesn't resonate with those people who have been witness to what is portrayed as a "flip-flopping" of scientific findings in the media or somehow a sinister plot by a global cabal of scientists to change life as we know it. Second, it is a form of Pascal's Wager that seems to swap out "science" for "God" and "future generations" (i.e., our biological eternity) with "eternity." If taken the same conclusion as Pascal's Wager, it can be used as an argument for inaction along a specific line of policy than action along the lines of the given policy. Third, it continues to play into the frame of a "scientific priesthood" that can divine the future. While one might argue that playing this frame when it gets you the desired outcome is what really matters, the argument falls apart quickly when science is shown to not be as great a seer as its proponents claim. Fourth, it portrays an unlikely future scenario of complete non-action vis-à-vis climate change, which is a problem opposite to that of the "scientific priesthood" problem. The assumption of a future with no action - although an effective rhetorical tool - again presents a duality that can easily be refuted after the fact to make ad hominem attacks against the user as being too simplistic or even reactionary. Of course, if people are going to ignore your warnings or voice criticism against you no matter what you say, then I suppose worrying over these points is not necessary or productive.
When asked about whether Mr. Gore supported the bill, even though it did not live up to the science, he stated that he supported the bill, regardless of the shortfalls because it would catalyze future cuts that would be more in line with the science, but did not specify how he envisions this. This statement, though, plays into a linear-type model of how science affects the policy-making process in that it assumes that in the end, "the science will out." If, like in the case with Michigan's Groundwater Conservation Advisory Council, there is a formalized legal mechanism by which the decision-points are reviewed based on the updates to the science, then I think this idea bears merit. However, if not, then it is merely playing to the concept of incremental change, but one that might not be able to change national laws quickly enough to meet the future environmental challenges.
No comments:
Post a Comment