The Director of Citizen’s Climate Lobby, reacting to feedback from 800 CCL members, who descended on Washington, DC last week for their trademark respectful and consistent dialogue with climate deniers in congress.
He’s optimistic – but we need a Climate Churchill among Republicans, and I’m not seeing it, yet.
Mark Reynolds in the Midland Daily News:
Here’s what we know about climate change: 97 percent of climate scientists are convinced, based upon the evidence, that human-caused global warming is happening.
The popular narrative in the media these days, however, is that Republicans in Congress don’t accept this fact and that the GOP is in denial about the science around climate change.
Well, I have some surprising news: Everything you think you know about Republicans and climate change is a myth that I will now explode.
Our organization, Citizens’ Climate Lobby, recently sent 800 volunteers to meet with more than 500 House and Senate offices in Washington. This was our opening in those meetings:
“We’re here to talk about a policy that can grow the economy, add jobs, increase our competitiveness with China, and make our air and water cleaner.”
That policy, our volunteers would go on to explain, is to place a gradually-rising fee on carbon and return the revenue to households. They also shared the results of a non-partisan study that found such a policy would cut CO2 emissions in half within 20 years, while adding 2.8 million jobs to the economy and saving 13,000 lives annually because of reduced air pollution.
So, what happened when our volunteers engaged Republicans in this conversation?
In most instances, there was keen interest, active listening, productive discussions and — in some cases — expressions of support for our proposal. In very few instances was there pushback from the staff or member of Congress about the science of climate change.
In meeting after meeting with Republican offices, the unspoken agreement seemed to be: “Let’s not argue about the science; let’s talk about solutions and where we might find common ground.”
But what about everything we’re hearing on TV and reading in newspapers about Republican presidential candidates pushing back on the Pope’s Encyclical? What about a certain member of Congress who tossed a snowball on the Senate floor to dispute global warming?
These are the more sensational reactions that make the news because the media thrives on conflict. No conflict. No news.
Despite the headlines, CCL has found in the past year that the propensity among congressional Republicans to dispute climate science has waned considerably. So, why has that changed and why were we ever arguing the science to begin with?
The answer, I believe, lies with the solutions being proposed, which all involved more government, more red tape and more regulations — things that are anathema to conservatives. Whether it was the 1,600 page cap-and-trade bill that failed to pass the Senate or the current Clean Power Plan to regulate carbon dioxide at electrical plants, Republicans aren’t seeing solutions to climate change they can readily embrace.
Don’t like the solutions? Don’t admit there’s a problem.
But what if there was a solution in harmony with the conservative values of less government and doing things that grow the economy, a market-friendly approach that doesn’t dictate which technologies win or how we should conduct our lives?
Such a solution exists with Carbon Fee and Dividend, the policy I described earlier. By returning all revenue from the carbon fee to households, we accomplish two things: Keep the federal government from getting bigger and add jobs by putting money into the pockets of people who will spend it.
Republicans, by and large, like the sound of that, and a funny thing is happening as our volunteers talk to more and more members of Congress. The conversation is shifting away from the so-called “debate” about climate change and toward finding suitable ways to address the problem.
The premise that Republicans can talk about solving climate change comes as no great shock when you consider the following:
• During his presidency, Theodore Roosevelt protected approximately 230,000,000 acres of public land.
• President Nixon signed the Clean Air Act in 1970.
• Under President Reagan’s leadership, the U.S. entered into the Montreal Protocol, which phased out ozone-depleting chemicals.
• Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) introduced the Climate Stewardship Act in 2003, 2005 and 2007.
• Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) was the co-sponsor of the CLEAR Act in 2009, legislation to reduce carbon emissions through a cap-and-dividend system.
So, everything you think you know about Republicans and climate change is, for the most part, wrong. The chance that Republicans will lead on this sooner rather than later has never been more obvious.
And if Republicans are looking for a dramatic moment to lead on climate change, Sept. 24 — the day Pope Francis speaks to Congress — would be the perfect time to introduce a Carbon Fee and Dividend bill.
Mark Reynolds is executive director of Citizens’ Climate Lobby.
You’d think one place in America where climate denial would be impossible would be South Florida, where sea level rise has the ocean lapping up around resident’s ankles at high tide.
Not so. For Republicans, still very subversive.
Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo says it’s “vital” that lawmakers begin working on legislation to address climate change, which he says could damage both the economy and environment of his district in South Florida.
His views diverge sharply from those of other Republican lawmakers, including the state’s two presidential aspirants in former Gov. Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio. And although Curbelo has not endorsed a policy by which to reduce carbon emissions, some observers describe his openness to the issue as a thawing moment in the seemingly frozen congressional debate over global warming.
“I have concerns about the ecological impact that climate change has on our planet, especially as it relates to rising sea-levels,” Curbelo said in a statement to ClimateWire. “It is vital Congress works in a bipartisan manner to mitigate the effects of climate change and I’m proud to be a pro-environment voice in the Republican Party.”
–Nelson Diaz, chairman of the Republican Party of Miami-Dade County, acknowledges that Curbelo’s views deviate from the Republican mainstream. Yet, he indicated that the party is willing to accept them, even as other Republicans openly reject the science behind the greenhouse effect.
“I think a lot of Republicans agree that there is some sort of climate change occurring,” Diaz said. “The big debate is the cause of it. There is lots of room in the Republican Party for varying opinions within the debate on climate change.”
Curbelo, 35, also stakes out other positions that are unusual for his party. He supports gay marriage and has endorsed the idea of eventually granting legal citizenship to many of the undocumented immigrants in the United States.
oh well how sweet, Our conservative brethren have now found Jesus on the climate and “solutions” they can accept. all this of course after committing US to a less then favorable climate future where they have done nothing other then stood in the way, So let ,me see if get this right, just because some Wonk at CCL says conservatives are aligning themselves properly we are all suppose to feel warm and fuzzy and sing Kumbaya with our less informed, less intelligent brthren? hahahahaha, LMAO, Fact is this was going to happen with or without them but their foot dragging has just made it that much more difficult: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/0702/How-America-is-quietly-becoming-a-climate-change-leader
Republicans deserve to be kicked off the island, no ifs, ands or buts, anything less is an insult to all those who have suffered under their intolerance, ignorance, and various other injustices they perpetrate daily.
I hope they can see the light, but they’re so publicly committed–and so dependent on money from the Koch Brothers–that a public about-face on the issue seems unlikely to me, at least until after they lose the 2016 election. I don’t doubt there is acceptance of climate change behind the scenes but there’s only so much they can do without taking a public stance.
It certainly isn’t “trickling down” (sorry, couldn’t resist) to the party faithful, at least not the Tea Party faithful. I was just told that the reason that “climate alarmists” have shifted from “global warming” to “climate change” is because:
“…as the evidence for actual global warming came under more scrutiny and as said evidence was found to be less than convincing, the more general term “climate change” was adopted by the advocates.”
When I said that, in my experience, people from both sides who I had spoken with had accused the other of changing the name to further bolster their side, the response was:
“I don’t think I would subscribe to that explanation.”
As I hadn’t explained anything, just reported what I’d been told, it seems that even at this level the approach is that: when the data don’t fit, distort some aspect to fit your sensibilities.
What you are seeing is motivated reasoning, which unfortunately for our species appears to be our default pattern. The benefits of motivated reasoning are significant: it allows greater peace of mind and stronger group cohesion, and as people prefer to hear what they want to hear (instead of what actually is), it also gives the individual higher status and social benefits (which can result in material benefits) to stick to that reasoning.
But motivated reasoning has little to do with actual reality. It’s a twisted lens of reality with blinders on.
This is our quandary, in that people actually DO NOT think rationally as a natural course, but think from instinct. “Truthiness” is one of our more accurate observations of the few decades.
Honestly, I don’t know how to break people out of motivated reasoning. I think segments of our population have a diminished capacity for honest and open self-criticism, and education doesn’t seem to enlarge that capacity in many cases but shrink it further. Ted Cruz is my poster boy for that example.
I will again push for all who would like to understand the phenomenon of motivated reasoning to read The Republican Brain, by Chris Mooney (subtitled “The Science of Why They Deny Science—and Reality”).
Mooney cites much research and evidence that supports “I think segments of our population have a diminished capacity for honest and open self-criticism”, and specifically addresses “…education doesn’t seem to enlarge that capacity in many cases but shrink(s) it further”—-that appears to be true among Republicans, and may indeed be the case with Teddy C.
Another topic discussed in Brain are the findings that a far higher proportion of people who are “liberal-progressive” actually DO think rationally than is true of conservatives. That may explain why a far higher proportion of scientists and academics are liberal-progressive rather than conservative.
Although, one tactic to side-step motivated reasoning is to present the case in terms that will adhere to the core beliefs behind that motivated reasoning. In the specific example of Republicans backing off climate change, the core beliefs are: keep our money out of it (especially the money in their specific pockets), America first, the free market is preferable to a regulated market, and in a large sub-group, God has it under control.
The Pope went a ways towards addressing the last point. The first three points are presented as: we won’t spend any of your money on mitigation, the cost of not addressing climate to the economy is higher than addressing it, and climate change is a national concern. In effect, appeal to selfishness.
There’s still the roadblock, though, of those who have bought the narrative that climate change isn’t real or is even a deliberate agenda. And then there is the slight problem that the ‘solutions’ presented in this case aren’t liable to have much of a meaningful effect on the complexity or size of the climate change problem.
Love the Get Silly soundtrack—-great beat.
To Linda. I for one am getting tired of the semantics of the global warming versus climate change discussion—-it only came about because of the Repug’s need to obfuscate and confuse, and the ignorant and self-deluded have seized upon it because of their motivated reasoning and need to BELIEVE.
In one sentence. “Climate change is always occurring on the planet, we should now be trending towards the cooling of an ice age, but global warming due to the greenhouse effect produced by the massive quantities of CO2 released by man”s burning of fossil fuels has reversed that trend, and the globe is warming instead”.
Then cite the evidence of rising temps, rising sea level, loss of ice, weather extremes, and all the other things that correlate. Simply tell anyone who says “I don’t think I would subscribe to that explanation” that you are sorry to hear that they do not believe in science, smile on them with pity, and move on. You are NOT going to convince them.
The Bush administration actively tried to steer away from using “global warming” as recommended by rightwing spinmeister Frank Luntz
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange
If you dig around, you can find the actual memo he wrote.
In a 2002 memo to President George W. Bush titled “The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America”, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, Luntz wrote: “The scientific debate is closing … but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science…. Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.”
CCL does some great work, and it’s encouraging to see that some progress is being perceived, although “…keen interest, active listening, productive discussions and — in SOME cases — expressions of support for our proposal…” is a long way from real progress.
Let’s hope that CCL’s actions add to the weight that seems to be tipping the scales this year, but for now Mark Reynolds may just be erring on the side of bright-sidedness and positive thinking.
The Repugnants are at present all too wrapped up in “Don’t like the solutions? Don’t admit there’s a problem”. PeterA got it right in his closing paragraph—-too little will happen, and be too late if and when it does if we don’t throw the Repugs off the island (and throw stones at their heads as they swim).
I’d say Mr. Reynolds isn’t “erring,” just reflecting political reality. The Republicans control both Houses of Congress, so no matter how bad they may be, there is no percentage–for a group that is lobbying for and hoping to secure passage of legislation–in attacking them. Simple as that.
“…there is no percentage for a group that is lobbying for and hoping to secure passage of legislation–in attacking them. Simple as that”.
That is, unfortunately, perhaps true but way too “simple”. The mistake that too many have made is in believing that Repugnants can be reasonable and be reasoned with—-BipartisanShip and all that BS. The Obama years (and even the past few decades going back to Reagan) have shown that all too many have been brightsided and engaged in wishful thinking when it comes to believing that Repugs will ever put what’s best for the country ahead of ideology.
The Repugnants have been bought and paid for by the Kochs, the plutocracy, and the corporations, and too many Democrats have been dragged along with them. The Repugs are a LONG way from voting for any type of carbon limiting measure, be it cap and trade or carbon fee and dividend. CCL needs to keep trying, but we need more groups who are willing to go to the sword and the bayonet.
Wake up and smell the skunk cabbage.
Actually, that’s an incorrect political observation. The extremes push the middle, and the middle decides our course. If one extreme is weak, or silent, it allows the opposite extreme to push the middle closer to their side.
Extremes, in other words, create the frame of reference for compromise. If one side is saying we can solve climate change with carbon taxes and reduced corporate taxes and the other side is saying climate change is a hoax, we’ll get something in the middle of that argument. If, however, one side is saying carbon taxes and reduced corporate taxes isn’t nearly good enough to solve climate change, the middle might think there are indeed other avenues to explore.
The middle always sees the extremes as nutty nutbags no matter what they say, but the extremes provide the boundaries for the discussion. Right now, unfortunately, we have a much more active and vocal conservative extreme than a liberal one. The liberals are always the first to compromise and couch their wording these days, and they wonder why things aren’t going their way.
On Congress, the dynamics change like clockwork. The surest bet is to say the Republicans won’t control both houses for long.
Well said. I’m in the middle of a great book—-“with Fire and Sword: The Battle of Bunker Hill and the Beginning of the American Revolution” by James L. Nelson, 2011. A terrific read, and one that reads like a novel in places.
Most of the book is not devoted to the actual battle (which was exciting and will make the hair stand up on the backs of anyone who has ever worn the uniform). It spends most of its time on a lively retelling of the events leading up to the war and the thinking and personalities on both sides. The description of the Boston Tea Party is particularly well done.
It is really amazing to read how very radical and extreme Adams. Hancock, Revere, Warren, and the other Patriot leaders were, and how they incited the colonists to revolution.
There is a strong parallel between what happened then and what we are seeing now. The corporatocracy-plutocracy-Repugnant Congress is doing what Parliament and George III did back then, and if we had the same patriotic fervor and resolve as they did in the 1770’s, there would already have been blood flowing in the streets. The fact that we don’t is evidence that the country is going to hell.
(And it’s interesting to think of the 2nd. Amendment here. The book speaks of the Minutemen and how they beat back the British from Concord and Lexington—they all brought their own weapons—-in many places in the colonies, citizens were required to own guns and be skilled in their use—-and not for the reasons the wing-nuts of today espouse).
Find me a moderate Republican and I’ll show you a retired, primaried out lobbyist who lost his taxpayer-funded healthcare in 2011. And the RCCC or the RSCC probably contributed to his primary challenger’s campaign as a whip matter.
A bumper-sticker for the 2016 election, inspired by Life of Brian:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0pXYsr8qYS6VW95ZzVkbHNraTg/view?usp=sharing
I prefer REPUBLICANI MANDUCARE STERCORE ET MORI, inspired by life in the USA.
That works, too!
Can Republicans climb down on Climate Change? The problem is: will the planet let them?
Planets have long memories about stuff like that. Long, in a way that seems almost inhuman…
yeah… I call bullshit.
The time these clowns has wasted will never come back. No matter how much back-paddling is deployed.
Our grand children and their descendants will feel the consequences of the GOP behaviour during the last 10 years for centuries to come.
I agree and not to take satisfaction or anything, but this isn’t an acid rain problem or an ozone problem. To the degree that some ice sheets melt from below (i.e. from overheated ocean water), we’re looking at probably 20 feet of sea level rise that is unrecallable by ANY means, including the radical surgery of geoengineering (which you just KNOW is going to be the ‘can do’ Republicans clarion call in about a decade or so when the you-know-what starts hitting the fan).
20 years ago might have been a good place for them to start. You are exactly right. Coming to the table 20 years late is just a wee-bit too late to the game.
Nevertheless, they still need to be at the table.
Of course they still NEED to be at the table.
The problem is that they won’t come unless everyone agrees to play with their deck of marked cards, and only by their rules, and lets them shuffle and deal all the time.
That’s why we need something to drastically shake things up, and 2015-2016 may bring several events that do so.
What do you think the Congressional response to the latest set of bad news will be, that we essentially have only THREE years to call a halt?
I can scarcely believe this myself.
http://theleap.thischangeseverything.org/a-hard-deadline-we-must-stop-building-new-carbon-infrastructure-by-2018/
Obvious answer? The congressional response will be the same as it has been—-denial and inaction. Even though a few more of them may be more uncomfortable in their “secret hearts”—-one can’t deny the science forever.
Why do you “scarcely believe this yourself”? It’s not new news—-every recent discussion of the carbon budget speaks of how it looks like we are going to blow through the 2 degree C warming ceiling, and has mentioned similar things about how we are locking in emissions for decades to come. This study has perhaps just gone a step further and calculated the zero date a bit more closely. Three years, five years, ten years?—-who knows?—-it’s just more “projections”, but it IS clear that time is running out.
A good link, and anyone who wants to fully understand the interface between climate change, fossil fuels, economics, and politics needs to read Naomi Klein’s This Changes Everything—-a terrific book.
I’m a little skeptical here. About 15 years ago, I made the rounds to Congressional offices trying to engage Congressmen and Senators about the problems with timber industry subsidies. Rarely did they or their staffers disagree with my points. They tend to tell people what they want to hear. Unfortunately, when it’s time to cast a vote, they listen to McConnell, Boehner, and their campaign contributors.
The bottom line is, what are Members of Congress hearing from their constituents? The challenge of Climate Change/Global Warming will not be taken up by our elected representatives until We the People send a clear message that we’ve had enough of political rhetoric and demand action! Organizations like CCL can provide the data and possible solutions, but unless and until the People speak up, the battle will be lost and our planet left to struggle against the unbridled squandering of resources and the resulting pollution of our air and water – driven by the Gods of Profitability and Greed.