Why the Right Goes Nuclear Over Global Warming
LAST YEAR, the National Journal asked a group of Republican senators and House members: “Do you think it’s been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems?” Of the respondents, 23% said yes, 77% said no. In the year since that poll, of course, global warming has seized a massive amount of public attention. The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a study, with input from 2,000 scientists worldwide, finding that the certainty on man-made global warming had risen to 90%.
So, the magazine asked the question again last month. The results? Only 13% of Republicans agreed that global warming has been proved. As the evidence for global warming gets stronger, Republicans are actually getting more skeptical. Al Gore’s recent congressional testimony on the subject, and the chilly reception he received from GOP members, suggest the discouraging conclusion that skepticism on global warming is hardening into party dogma. Like the notion that tax cuts are always good or that President Bush is a brave war leader, it’s something you almost have to believe if you’re an elected Republican.
How did it get this way? The easy answer is that Republicans are just tools of the energy industry. It’s certainly true that many of them are. Leading global warming skeptic Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Texas), for instance, was the subject of a fascinating story in the Wall Street Journal a couple of years ago. The bottom line is that his relationship to the energy industry is as puppet relates to hand.
But the financial relationship doesn’t quite explain the entirety of GOP skepticism on global warming. For one thing, the energy industry has dramatically softened its opposition to global warming over the last year, even as Republicans have stiffened theirs.
The truth is more complicated — and more depressing: A small number of hard-core ideologues (some, but not all, industry shills) have led the thinking for the whole conservative movement.
Your typical conservative has little interest in the issue. Of course, neither does the average nonconservative. But we nonconservatives tend to defer to mainstream scientific wisdom. Conservatives defer to a tiny handful of renegade scientists who reject the overwhelming professional consensus.
National Review magazine, with its popular website, is a perfect example. It has a blog dedicated to casting doubt on global warming, or solutions to global warming, or anybody who advocates a solution. Its title is “Planet Gore.” The psychology at work here is pretty clear: Your average conservative may not know anything about climate science, but conservatives do know they hate Al Gore. So, hold up Gore as a hate figure and conservatives will let that dictate their thinking on the issue.
Meanwhile, Republicans who do believe in global warming get shunted aside. Nicole Gaudiano of Gannett News Service recently reported that Rep. Wayne Gilchrest asked to be on the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio refused to allow it unless Gilchrest would say that humans have not contributed to global warming. The Maryland Republican refused and was denied a seat.
Reps. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) and Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), both research scientists, also were denied seats on the committee. Normally, relevant expertise would be considered an advantage. In this case, it was a disqualification; if the GOP allowed Republican researchers who accept the scientific consensus to sit on a global warming panel, it would kill the party’s strategy of making global warming seem to be the pet obsession of Democrats and Hollywood lefties.
The phenomenon here is that a tiny number of influential conservative figures set the party line; dissenters are marginalized, and the rank and file go along with it. No doubt something like this happens on the Democratic side pretty often too. It’s just rare to find the phenomenon occurring in such a blatant way.
You can tell that some conservatives who want to fight global warming understand how the psychology works and are trying to turn it in their favor. Their response is to emphasize nuclear power as an integral element of the solution. Sen. John McCain, who supports action on global warming, did this in a recent National Review interview. The technique seems to be surprisingly effective. When framed as a case for more nuclear plants, conservatives seem to let down their guard.
In reality, nuclear plants may be a small part of the answer, but you couldn’t build enough to make a major dent. But the psychology is perfect. Conservatives know that lefties hate nuclear power. So, yeah, Rush Limbaugh listeners, let’s fight global warming and stick it to those hippies!
Jonathan Chait is a senior editor at The New Republic, where he has worked since 1995. He has written for The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Slate, Time, American Prospect and other publications.
Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times
The attitude about global warming reflects a contradiction in the way people regard Nature. On one hand–they want to believe its human destiny to change their environment–”subdue the earth.” On the other–when they run into trouble, they believe that Nature or a deity will sort things out.
It is not only right wing(and usually religious) fanatics who have this view. Some technology worshipping secular humanists also think this way–believing the answer to every science created problem is found in more science, not common sense.
Great article. Everyone needs to understand this to help win the debate on global warming. This hits on the real reason the right is fighting against recognizing human caused global warming - hate. We have been baffled by their continued denial, thinking it based in misguided reason somehow. You can’t engage in any real debate with such people, you must talk past them.
These righties would rather go to their grave, or let the earth die, than concede this battle to the liberals.
Ok, kinda sorta. The author hits several points, all of them correct but the biggest single reason is not JUST the fealty of the GOP to the energy industry but to ALL industries that contribute to global warming. This is far more than just energy producers, its pretty much anything with a smokestack AND the entire auto industry AND everything connected with the motoring society which, of course, includes the non-negotiable suburban lifestyle on which our economy is predicated. So my point is that its the entire foundation of our capitalist economy that gets placed in jeopardy (or so cons think) when we start getting serious about fighting global warming. This is something even Rush Limbaugh instinctively understands and it scares the snot out of him. We ALL would have to sacrifice, and in no small way, if we’re really serious about saving the planet’s ecosystem but these folks would rather die than sacrifice their profits or their way of commerce.
Don’t forget that the number one polluter in the U.S. is the military, totally exempt from all pollution regulations and laws.
kelmer - GW isn’t a science created problem. You’re making the same mistake as those who think guns kill people. But that’s beside the point.
Does anyone really believe alot of ultra-rich and powerful people fight GW to maintain their own profits? If that were their motive they’d find a way to make the same profits Supporting technologies that might reduce GW. No, their motive is far different. I suggest you read American Fascists by Chris Hedges. Don’t forget, we’re not talking about mere Right wingers, we’re talking about Religious Right wingers whose self-proclaimed mission is to establish a Christian America, then a Christian world. I know it sounds melodramatic and downright silly, especially to those of you who are up on all the details of current affairs, the “trees” as it were. But the Religious Right focuses on the “Forest” with the same zeal as any so-called global terrorist.
Well an unseen force as mentioned above that may end up countering the GOP’s anti-stop-global-warming stand is their very own religious base.
I read an article here a few months (year?) ago that said their was a growing green undercurrent in the religious right, some have relized that god may get more irked that they spent alot of time harasing women outside abortion centers, but let the planet’s health slip right by them. God explicitly said humanity was to take charge of the planet.
So if this movement spreads and filters up the GOP-energy industry may loose their base - to the green party.
That would make for some awkward press conferences…
IMO the right refuses to admit the truth about Global Warming because it would be an admission that they were wrong in the 1st place about an issue they temselves politicized. This is also GOP dogma: never admit a mistake. The environment is the providence of the left, and since the right constantly demonizes the left and derides them with cries of tree hugger, looney-lefty and environazi it’ll be a cold day in hell when the GOP admits the truth. Actually it’ll be a sort of tepid day in Hell, while the temperature in Nome is hovering around 100.
“Well shee-it we ain’t a gonna let them granola-eatin Hollywood huggin’ homoSEXUAL loving America hatin’ terrorist coddlin types be right, no sir. Damn it’s hot”
On a different note: it is about business. Renewable energy is just that- renewable. If the oil companies lose their monopoly on non-renewable energy sources they lose the ability to bill us each and every month- each and every fill-up. Know why there aren’t more viable solar roof units or affordable home windmill kits? Same reason the oil/auto cartel loves those low MPG vehicles. Did somebody say chaCHING?
good point about the nukes. see that’s why reading helps comprehension. other people are smart!
“The truth is more complicated — and more depressing: A small number of hard-core ideologues (some, but not all, industry shills) have led the thinking for the whole conservative movement.”
I have a problem with this explanation. I fully agree that conservatives are easily (mis)led. But that does not explain why the average conservative has such a rabid negative gut reaction on the global warming issue that effectively prevents a rational discussion of pros and cons, costs and benefits. A bit like gay marriage.
So I think a full explanation for the phenomenon needs to include something about the reason the issue generates so much emotion among American conservatives (and less emotion, seemingly, among conservatives in other nations.)
Al Gore’s credibility has been challenged by those who oppose his efforts to advocate global warming mitigation measures on the basis that he is no scientist. Unlike his opposition, he has no political agenda or loyalty to special interests, is knowledgeable on the subject due to his involvement with environmental concerns for over two decades, and has the overwhelming endorsement from the legitimate international scientific community.
This background has provided him with sufficient overall knowledge on this critically important issue to educate the populace in a meaningful and credible way, and with skills that most scientists lack. .
It is remarkable that it took the Al Gore’s documentary “Inconvenient Truth”, and now the polar bear demise and the recent conclusions from the international scientific community, to alert many to the impending dangers from global warming–which has been obvious to anyone who had made even minor efforts to be informed. The evidence linking carbon pollution to warming is as close to certain as science can be. Its causes, consequences, and mitigation requirements have been documented by the scientific community, many dedicated environmental organizations including The Union of Concerned Scientists, and chronicled in the press for years.
The dangerous manipulation of essential scientific data used by this administration to conceal and derail corrective measures for this threat and other vital environmental reforms has also been apparent. Th gullibility of so many who are influanced by them is more alarming than the scientific manipulation itself.
Contrary to their assertions, measures to reduce greenhouse gases could only improve our economy by lessening our trade deficits, and improving our security by reducing our dependance on foreign oil. We could also regain some of our lost world respect that has resulted from our opposition Kyoto while arrogantly contributing disproportionally to carbon pollution. With our involvement, China & India could then be compelled to join the rest of the developed world.
Often overlooked is the fact that the same measures needed to mitigate global warming would be necessary even if it were not an issue. Conservation, alternative energy development, anti- pollution refinements, etc are essential for other vital environmental reforms such as air and water quality, reductions in toxic waste generation, land preservation, etc.
The environmental and social damage from our indifference to (and even denial of) carbon pollution and its effects can only worsen if we allow these destructive policies of this reckless and unlearned president and his financial supporters to continue.
The phrase “clean nuclear energy” makes no more sense than “Our Godly president”.
Isn’t the emotional reaction of American cons with regard to global warming similar to the reaction of conservative Muslims with regard to social modernity? When you are losing a battle, you tend to become most desperate and to require the greatest adherence to your most strict rules. That is a last gasp, which may be easy to see by viewing a long time period, as when reading history, though it can be confusing when examining it in real time.