Who Cooked the Planet?byPaul Krugman
Never say that the gods lack a sense of humor. I bet they're
still chuckling on Olympus over the decision to make the first half of
2010 the year in which all hope of action to limit climate
change died the hottest such stretch on record.
Of course, you can't infer trends in global temperatures from one
year's experience. But ignoring that fact has long been one of the
favorite tricks of climate-change deniers: they point to an unusually
warm year in the past, and say "See, the planet has been cooling,
not warming, since 1998!"
Actually, 2005, not 1998, was the warmest year to date but the
point is that the record-breaking temperatures we're currently
experiencing have made a nonsense argument even more nonsensical; at
this point it doesn't work even on its own terms.
But will any of the deniers say "O.K., I guess I was wrong," and
support climate action? No. And the planet will continue to cook.
So why didn't climate-change legislation get through the Senate?
Let's talk first about what didn't cause the failure, because
there have been many attempts to blame the wrong people.
First of all, we didn't fail to act because of legitimate doubts
about the science. Every piece of valid evidence long-term
temperature averages that smooth out year-to-year fluctuations, Arctic
sea ice volume, melting of glaciers, the ratio of record highs to
record lows points to a continuing, and quite possibly
accelerating, rise in global temperatures.
Nor is this evidence tainted by scientific misbehavior.
You've probably heard about the accusations leveled against climate
researchers allegations of fabricated data, the supposedly
damning e-mail messages of "Climategate," and so on.
What you may not have heard, because it has received much less
publicity, is that every one of these supposed scandals was eventually
unmasked as a fraud concocted by opponents of climate action, then
bought into by many in the news media.
You don't believe such things can happen? Think Shirley Sherrod.
Did reasonable concerns about the economic impact of climate legislation
block action?
No.
It has always been funny, in a gallows humor sort of way, to watch
conservatives who laud the limitless power and flexibility of markets
turn around and insist that the economy would collapse if we were to
put a price on carbon. All serious estimates suggest that we could
phase in limits on greenhouse gas emissions with at most a small impact
on the economy's growth rate.
So it wasn't the science, the scientists, or the economics that
killed action on climate change. What was it?
The answer is, the usual suspects: greed and cowardice.
If you want to understand opposition to climate action, follow the
money. The economy as a whole wouldn't be significantly hurt if we
put a price on carbon, but certain industries above all, the
coal and oil industries would. And those industries have mounted
a huge disinformation campaign to protect their bottom lines.
Look at the scientists who question the consensus on climate change;
look at the organizations pushing fake scandals; look at the think tanks
claiming that any effort to limit emissions would cripple the economy.
Again and again, you'll find that they're on the receiving end
of a pipeline of funding that starts with big energy companies, like
Exxon Mobil, which has spent tens of millions of dollars promoting
climate-change denial, or Koch Industries, which has been sponsoring
anti-environmental organizations for two decades.
Or look at the politicians who have been most vociferously opposed to
climate action. Where do they get much of their campaign money? You
already know the answer.
By itself, however, greed wouldn't have triumphed. It needed the aid
of cowardice above all, the cowardice of politicians who know
how big a threat global warming poses, who supported action in the
past, but who deserted their posts at the crucial moment.
There are a number of such climate cowards, but let me single out one in
particular: Senator John McCain.
There was a time when Mr. McCain was considered a friend of the
environment. Back in 2003 he burnished his maverick image by
co-sponsoring legislation that would have created a cap-and-trade system
for greenhouse gas emissions. He reaffirmed support for such a system
during his presidential campaign, and things might look very different
now if he had continued to back climate action once his opponent was in
the White House.
But he didn't and it's hard to see his switch as
anything other than the act of a man willing to sacrifice his
principles, and humanity's future, for the sake of a few years added
to his political career.
Alas, Mr. McCain wasn't alone; and there will be no climate bill.
Greed, aided by cowardice, has triumphed. And the whole world will pay
the price.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/opinion/26krugman.html?partner=rss&emc\
=rss
