Get Energy Smart! NOW!

This guest post from Michael Conrad provides thoughts from a self-proclaimed “far from expert” perspective on how to tackle engaging with climate change denial.

The Koch Brothers’ retreat, combined with the GOP going all out to block any environmentally responsible action has done a good job of reminding progressives of urgent need for campaign finance reform. Hopefully it will also overwhelm any remaining reluctance to admit that the people funding the conservative/Tea Party movement are as serious as it gets about furthering the most depraved and destructive parts of their agenda. There is practically no limit the amount of damage they are willing to cause.  

Note: This is meant as a discussion starter. I’m far from an expert on environmental issues; familiar but not notably well versed, especially compared to others who contribute here. So this post focuses mainly on the politics of the issue. Please feel free to add your take in the comments.

It would be nice to think that conservatives could be reasoned into accepting the reality of climate change science. Bjorn Lomborg, who used to be the poster boy for the libertarian “skeptics” was recently forced to back off his position. But the timing suggested Lomborg was mainly interested in trying to position himself and retain the facade of credibility in the face of incontrovertible proof that his original assessment was way off mark. Former Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC), who lost in the GOP primary after criticizing Glenn Beck, gave a good speech on his way out, reminding his colleagues that they are “on the record” and their children and grandchildren will know what they said and did. Aside from one or two exceptions, the GOP has moved steadily, and seemingly irrevocably, into the climate change science denial camp.

Conservative think tanks and their assorted mouthpieces have convinced virtually the entire Republican Party that acknowledging a scientific reality makes you a closet Commie. Nevermind that Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, and other potential GOP presidential nominees used to take a much more realistic approach. As the evidence mounted that the problem is even more severe than originally thought, conservatives adopted a militantly ignorant defiance of the science of our time. It’s as if they’re allergic to evidence; like they take great pride in the amount of distance between their position and reality.

Cap and trade is actually a Republican idea. But much like GOP opposition to “Obamacare,” the health insurance legislation that has a lot in common with the plans of Bob Dole and Mitt Romney, the opposition to “Cap and Tax” as they’re now calling it is about something deeper and much more visceral than the substance of the legislation or its intellectual history.

Side note: When Democrats incorporate far less than optimal or bad Republican ideas (there isn’t any other kind at the moment) into their proposal to fix a problem, they get zero credit for it. The GOP either denies the problem exists or declares their own previously held position to be intolerably liberal.

The conservative movement has not been reasoned into its rejection of climate change, and it’s not going to be reasoned out of it. For conservatives, rejecting climate change — as well as science, environmentalism and everything they despise that goes along with it — is an article of faith. For some of them, it’s literally an act of faith. Just ask the growing “God Will Deal With Climate Change” Caucus.

Some elected Republicans know that climate change is very real, but they’re unwilling to give voice to this reality and draw a Tea Party primary challenge. At some point in the not too distant future, a sizeable contingent of conservatives will be forced to acknowledge the reality of climate change by the events around them. Others will come up with a conspiracy theory outlandish enough to make Jesse Ventura blush in order to explain it all away. Most will deflect the blame. But by the time the severity of climate change is evident to even the “What about the snow in the winter?Heeeeenggghhhh?” crowd, the die will have already been cast and we’ll be locked in to a near-worst case scenario.

What should the progressive response to this look like? How do people who grasp the seriousness of the problem create the momentum for policy that can deal with the problem in a meaningful way?

Here’s a few thoughts.

Write Them Off, Organize Against Them

Anti-science conservative dead-enders as Cheney/Palin.

Busy people who are aware of the climate change but honestly don’t know who is telling the truth about its cause and severity are obviously a main audience for progressive efforts. Politically engaged Republicans of the Tea Party/conservative/libertarian variety (that’s pretty much all of them) are lost causes. However, their unique blend of dishonesty, ignorance, determination and just plain crazy should motivate the non-chalkboard based community to get active.

The Koch Brothers are clearly useful in rallying progressives, and it’s not hard to see why. The Koch-topus feeds the conservative infrastructure (read: right-wing lie machine) that fuels climate change science denial. The future is being stolen from us by ultra skeevy Randians whose plan is to pollute and poison, cash in, live it up, then check out. If that makes rank and file Democrats angry and boosts activism, good. It should. The Koch Brothers are villains.

Master of the obvious here, but progressives should be aggressive and evidence-based when it comes to calling attention to what Koch front groups like American For Prosperity are up to. If something is proven to work or stands a good chance of working, use it. Team Reality literally doesn’t have time for excessive qualms about “demonizing” these groups. Andrew Breitbart and his gang of half-witted persecution fantasy-riddled gasbags are going to accuse progressives of “demonizing” them no matter what. There’s nothing that will send high-profile conservatives into freak out mode faster than telling the truth about one of their prized professional liars.

An Appropriate Fear

Though it’s often discussed in isolation, climate change will have a tremendous impact on foreign and economic policy much sooner than most people are prepared for. I strongly believe progressives should reexamine their aversion to playing to legitimate fears, and climate change is Exhibit A. Remember, we’re not spewing some repulsive lie about “death panels” or immigrants beheading people in Arizona or Marines’ legs falling off upon repeal of a discriminatory policy. All fear is not equal.

Jobs vs. Burning The Future

Talking to people who are hurting economically in a relevant way.

Attempts to get economically struggling people to prioritize the environment seem destined to fail. The “sacrifice” line isn’t going to appeal to people who are already stretched to the max. If someone don’t have a job, or health care, or they’re being foreclosed on, they’re understandably going to be focused on meeting those immediate needs. Anything that appears to be an added strain will not get a very receptive hearing.

Progressives should stress that meeting climate change head on will create good jobs (because it will), and highlight simple things that can be done, like painting new roofs white. The “future generations” line of thought is a compelling one. The status quo literally is burning our future, and sustained involvement from the progressive-leaning Millennials generation will be pivotal to the success of any movement for real environmental responsibility.

Related: Drew Westen and Celinda Lake wrote a really good piece on how to talk to voters about climate change in 2009.

Keep Your (James) Lovelock Down

There’s a fine line to walk between moving the debate to a place where it reflects the urgency of the problem and sending the message that little or nothing meaningful can be done. While echoing James Lovelock’s sentiments may be able to snap some people out of their complacency, it could also create a dynamic where arguments from both sides reinforce the tendency to not act.

If the perception is that one side says climate change is a hoax, and the other says its very real but nothing can really be done about it, people who don’t want to dig into the debate will conclude that it’s not worth their time in any event. Of course, if there is evidence that a Lovelock-like argument works to persuade or mobilize a certain group, it would be applicable to related efforts. But generally speaking, “Gaia Is Doomed” doesn’t seem like a good starting point.  Fear about climate change is totally warranted and could lead to increased action. A sense of futility won’t.

As an aside, conservatives are not above echoing Lovelock for their own purposes.

I DO Want To Talk To A Scientist

Putting the spotlight on the scientific community.

It appears scientists are starting to pushback more on right-wing climate lies. If this continues and escalates (and it needs to), conservatives will raise objections to scientists “getting involved in a political issue.” To those interested in a merit-based climate change discussion, the reasoning behind making the scientific consensus central to the debate is readily understandable. People with very big platforms are shamelessly spreading all manner of disinformation and they need to be countered. Naturally, the grossly uninformed and purposely deceptive people spreading the lies, smears, and half-truths will take great offense to this.

Think of it this way. What if Glenn Beck was telling people that gravity was a hoax and they should jump off a tall building to show those liberal scientists the power of the Freedom Float? Scientists would be perfectly justified in saying “No, gravity is not a hoax. If you jump off a tall building, you will fall to your death.”

The same principle should be at work here.

Journalism, How Does That Work?

Though it’s not difficult to be sympathetic toward those whose inbox is flooded with Tea Party rage anytime a conservative delusion is punctured by their coverage, the news media’s approach to the story is inadequate.

Any network can tout how “green” they are to convey responsibility. But while a news outlet “going green” is definitely welcome, it’s nowhere near as important as said outlet covering the climate change science as fact. In the words of Al Gore (if you’re an angry conservative who stumbled across this post, this is where you mumble something to yourself about how you hate Al Gore and science has a well-known Al Gore bias) it’s important to change the light bulbs, but it’s even more important to change the laws. While it’s not the media’s job to change laws, it is their job to relay verifiable information to their audience .  

Beyond Inconvenient

What about a second documentary that combines interviews with scientists, economists,and foreign policy experts with input from the best data visualization, public opinion, and film gurus on the progressive side? The creative capital is there. Why not use it?

Related

• Blue Green Alliance
• Repower America
• 350.org