climate of negligence-final

8/2/2019 Climate of Negligence-FINAL

1/85

CLIMATE OF NEGLIGENCE: CLIMATE DESTABILIZATION AND THE USPOLITICAL AGENDA

BY

Jared Duval

A Study

Presented to the Faculty

Of

Wheaton College

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for

Graduation with Departmental Honors

in Political Science

Norton, Massachusetts

May 20, 2005

1


2/85


3/85

least, I have to thank my mother Alice Blackmer. She directed my attention to new

international studies on global warming (no small feat considering the lack of press

attention such studies garnered in the US press) and encouraged me to address this issue

from a variety of unique perspectives. In addition, she provided encouragement in ways

that only a mother can.

Although I am certain that I have exhausted my allotted quota of wax2 in

constructing this work it is my sincere hope that I have managed to add a measure of light,

while avoiding adding too much heat, to the issue of climate destabilization and the

challenges facing its advancement on the US political agenda. If I have, I am greatly

indebted to the aforementioned people and to many others whom I have not named here.

2 In the 15th century, at the height of the Spanish empire, many sculptors were commissioned to craft statuesout of expensive white marble. To cover up any mistakes, sculptors would patch their statues with wax.

3


4/85

Table of Contents

Preface:Risking Humanitys Survival? (5-9)

Chapter One: Climate Destabilization: What the Scientific Community Does and Does Not

Know (10-26)

Chapter Two: A Brief History of the The Environment as an Issue on the National

Political Agenda: How Low Can it Go? (27-38)

Chapter Three: Climate Destabilizations Place on the Social Problems Agenda: A

Look at the Dominant Framing Constructs Utilized by Media and Prominent Think Tanks

in the US(39-49)

Chapter Four: US Political Leadership on Climate Destabilization: Besides One False

Hope, An Oxymoron (50-71)

Conclusion:From Believing Cassandra to Relieving Sisyphus: Melting the Mountain of Ice

Before Us (72- 78)

Bibliography: (79-82)

4


5/85

Preface: Risking Humanitys Survival?

Whenever one browses international news today, it seems there is always some

mention of another new scientific study reporting the increasing evidence of human-

induced climate destabilization3 or of some renowned scientist or international expert

delivering yet another dire warning about its dangers. Just this past January, Dr. Rajendra

Pachauri, Chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

(UN IPCC) was addressing the topic of climate change at a UN conference when he

announced, we are risking the ability of the human race to survive.4 Dr. Pachauri

elaborated on his statement stating that we have, already reached the level of dangerous

concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere climate change is for real. We have

just a small window of opportunity and it is closing rather rapidly. There is not a moment

to lose.5

With the frequent alarmism of mass-media, it would be easy to be unmoved by

such a declaration. But what Dr. Pachauri is saying is uncharacteristically important.

Essentially, after analyzing and digesting the findings of the IPCCs seventeen year

research effort on climate change, the man who has overseen the largest, most transparent,

3 While the terms most popularly used to describe this trend are climate change or global warming, Iprefer to use the term climate destabilization because, as I will establish in Ch. 1, it is a more accuratedescription of what scientists are telling us is actually happening. Yes the climate is changing but it isalways and has always been changing. The difference now is the pace and magnitude of that change- on ascale that is destabilizingto natural processes. Similarly global warming does not really convey the fullreality of what might happen either, as a destabilized climate could lead to cooling in some areas. Thistrend has been reported by the UN World Meteorological Organization, which stated in 2004 that During

the northern hemisphere wintermaximum and minimum temperatures were below normal by 6-10degrees Celsius. World Meteorological Organization Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in2004, http://www.wmo.ch/web/wcp/wcdmp/statement/html/983_E.pdf, 5-6. Generally though, mean globaltemperature is certainly increasing. Regardless of my personal language preference, I have neverthelessused the phraseology of my source whenever referencing him or her and whenever analyzing any of his orher statements. I have only used my preferred term when speaking fully independently.4 From comments delivered at a UN conference in Mauritius, January 2005. As reported by Geoffrey Lean,Global Warming Approaching Point of No Return, Warns Leading Climate Expert,Independent/UK,January 23, 2005.5 Ibid.

5
http://www.wmo.ch/web/wcp/wcdmp/statement/html/983_E.pdfhttp://www.wmo.ch/web/wcp/wcdmp/statement/html/983_E.pdf


6/85

and most peer-reviewed scientific collaboration in history6 is now saying that climate

change threatens humanitys very survivaland requires immediate action. Coming from

Dr. Pachauri in particular, these words seem to carry more weight than they would coming

from someone with less of a reputation for reservation.7

As Chairman of the UN sponsored IPCC for the past four years, Dr. Pachauri has

overseen a panel whose mission is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and

transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to

understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential

impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

8

In the process of fulfilling this

mission, more than 2000 scientists and experts from more than 100 countries have

contributed to the writing and reviewing of the IPCCs assessment reports.9In short, the

conclusions disseminated by the IPCCs assessment reports, and the process by which

those conclusions were made, would seem to be the most credible and sound currently

available.10

But the IPCC is not the only body concerned with climate change. Indeed, a host of

other disturbing reports and statements, not always limited to the scientific community,

have also surfaced recently. As author and journalist Ross Gelbspan wrote in a preface to

6 Description provided by Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Ross Gelbspan, Bush's Climate Follies, TheAmerican Prospect Online, July 29, 2001.7 In fact, Dr. Pachauri replaced Dr. Robert Watson as chair of the IPCC in 2001 in part because Dr.

Watsons repeated calls for urgent action to address climate change were considered too alarmist by theBush administration. In response, the US delegation successfully lobbied for Dr. Pachauri as a replacement.At the time of Pachauris appointment, 2000 Democratic Presidential nominee Al Gore warned against theselection of the lets drag our feet candidate. Lean, Point of No Return8 From the About IPCC section of the IPCC website, http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm9 The information regarding the number of scientists and experts involved in producing the IPCCassessment report is taken from a press release produced by the United Nations Environment Program. Itcan be found here,http://www.unep.ch/iuc/press/climate/pr12-95.htm10 I do not mean to intend that the IPCC is beyond reproach. Indeed, in Chapter 1 I take a closer look atcriticisms of the IPCC and analyze the level of confidence we should have in its findings.

6
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htmhttp://www.unep.ch/iuc/press/climate/pr12-95.htmhttp://www.unep.ch/iuc/press/climate/pr12-95.htmhttp://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htmhttp://www.unep.ch/iuc/press/climate/pr12-95.htm


7/85

the book,Feeling the Heat: Dispatches from the Frontlines of Climate Change,11 the

worlds economic leaders are also becoming increasingly concerned with the potential

consequences of climate change. He writes:

A vote by executives of the worlds largest corporations, finance ministersand heads of state who attended the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerlandin 2000 was remarkable. When conference organizers polled participants on whichof five different trends were most troubling, the participants overrode the choicesand declared climate change to be by far the most threatening issue facinghumanity.12

With these warnings, both scientific and economic, in mind the disconnect between

the enormity of problems predicted as a result of unmitigated climate destabilization and

the issues current lack of any substantive presence on the US political agenda strikes me

as particularly negligent. For, if the scientists and economists are correct, what other issue

(aside from possible exception of nuclear proliferation,13) presents the sheer enormity of

threat to humankind that climate destabilization does? Particularly, as the most powerful

country in the world -best positioned to respond to such a global threat- shouldnt we be

able to expect this issue to rise the top of the US social problems and political issue

agenda?

Before answering these questions specifically, I recognize the necessity of

challenging some of my driving assumptions more critically. Thus, this work begins in

Chapter 1 with a thorough review of the best climate science currently available. Here I

have attempted to pinpoint what exactly we currently know, what we dont currently know,

11

Motavalli, Jim, ed., Feeling the Heat: Dispatches From the Frontlines of Climate Change (New York:Routledge, 2004).12 Ibid., iv.13 Even if we consider these issues comparable, it seems relevant to mention that Hans Blix, a man who asdirector general of the International Atomic Energy Agency from 1981 to 1997 probably possesses moreknowledge about atomic and nuclear weapons than nearly anyone else in the world, was recently quoted assaying, To me the question of the environment is more ominous than that of peace and war. We will haveregional conflicts and use of force, but world conflicts I do not believe will happen any longer. But theenvironment, that is a creeping danger. I'm more worried about global warming than I am of any majormilitary conflict. Hans Blix, interview by John Norris,MTV News, March 13, 2003.

7


8/85

and what can be said with confidence with regard to future predictions. I conclude that not

only is there a scientific consensus that humans are contributing to climate destabilization,

but also that the best available predictions of future impacts resulting from that

destabilization demand an immediate and widespread policy response from US political

leaders.

With a more solid understanding of climate science at hand, Chapter 2 offers an

overview of the history of environmental issues on the issue agenda of the US political

system, leading up to the current day. I find that environmental issues experienced a great

level of public and governmental attention in the 1970s but that since then the

governmental response to environmental issues has declined drastically - to the point where

today the environment ceases to be a major issue on the national political agenda.

Chapter 3 provides a review of research and literature on the prominent methods

most usually utilized to measure the issue prioritization and framing of global warming.

Specifically, I review literature that has focused on content analysis of US media and

prominent conservative think tanks. Analyzing a wide array of research I conclude that the

US media has adopted the exact same conservative frame advanced by conservative

think tanks and that conservative think tanks have succeeded in disseminating their

opinions much more so than other think tanks.

Chapter 4 introduces, explains, and analyzes the most substantive original work of

this thesis; my contention that there does not exist political leadership in the United States

committed to advancing the issue of climate destabilization commensurate with the relative

importance of the issue. This thesis is supported by identifying the lack of issue priority

given to climate destabilization on the websites of the US Senate leadership and the

8


9/85

members of the Environment and Public Works and Energy and Natural Resources

Committees.

I then conclude with a review of findings and recommendations for further

research. Finally I propose a new paradigm for approaching and advancing the issue of

climate destabilization.

Ch.1: Climate Destabilization: What the Scientific Community Does and Does Not

Know

9


10/85

The purpose of this chapter is to review the most defensible climate science

currently available. Not having any expertise in climate science myself, I have primarily

deferred to the most exhaustive evaluation of the peer-review process in scientific

history,14 (the most recent IPCC Assessment Report on global climate change), for most of

my information. However, I have also included the points of view found in various

criticisms of that IPCC report and comments from a follow-up report compiled by the

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) at the request of President Bush.

Further, because the last IPCC Assessment Report was released in 2001 and the

follow-up NAS report was released later that same year, I have also included relevant

major advances in climate science which have occurred since then. These include findings

released by the United Nations Meteorological Association in 2004 and the Scripps

Institution of Oceanography released in February 2005. Also, comprehensive reports

including the latest Arctic Climate Impact Assessment released in November, 2004 and the

Recommendations of the International Climate Change Taskforce released in January,

2005 are covered.

The theory behind human induced climate change revolves around the fact that

certain greenhouse gases exhibit the dual characteristics of Ultra Violet transparency and

infrared re-radiation. The concept is scientifically simple enough that social scientists can

sum it up with ease, as economists Warwick J. McKibbin and Peter J. Wilcoxen do in an

article that recently appeared in the Journal of Economic Perspectives.15 They write:

Certain gases in the atmosphere are transparent to ultraviolet light but alsoabsorb infrared radiation. The most famous of these gases is carbon dioxide, butwater vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons and various other gases

14 Dr. Jeffrey A. Harvey, Senior Scientist, Department of Multitrophic Interactions, Netherlands Institute ofEcology, Centre for Terrestrial Ecology,http://www.ecoglobe.org/nz/biodiv/biod2218.htm15 Warwick J. McKibbin and Peter J. Wilcoxen, The Role of Economics in Climate Change Policy,

Journal of Economic Perspectives 16, no.2 (2002): 107-129.

10
http://www.ecoglobe.org/nz/biodiv/biod2218.htmhttp://www.ecoglobe.org/nz/biodiv/biod2218.htmhttp://www.ecoglobe.org/nz/biodiv/biod2218.htmhttp://www.ecoglobe.org/nz/biodiv/biod2218.htm


11/85

have the same property. Energy from the sun, in the form of ultraviolet light, passesthrough the carbon dioxide unimpeded and is absorbed by objects on the ground.As the objects become warm, they release the energy as infrared radiation. Thecarbon dioxide (in the atmosphere) absorbs the infrared and reradiates it backtoward the surface, thus raising global temperatures.16

Carbon Dioxide is the greenhouse gas (GHG) most frequently referenced in the

climate change debate. It assumes priority for two main reasons: 1) it is the greenhouse gas

of greatest concentration in the atmosphere, accounting for approximately 76% of all

greenhouse gases,17 and 2) the greenhouse effect of Carbon Dioxide is of a scale larger

than that of most other greenhouse gases18because it stays in the atmosphere and reradiates

infrared heat back to earth for centuries, as opposed to the shorter lifespan of other GHGs

(this staying property is commonly referred to as Carbon Dioxides inertia)19. With this

background in mind let us address the question of what the current state of climate change

science is.

As already established in the preface but worth repeating, the IPCC was founded in

1988 to collect, analyze, and review the current findings of scientists from around the

world with regard to climate change so as to provide the UN and its member countries with

assessments of scientific, technical and socio- economic information relevant for the

16 Ibid., 108.17 Percentage figure provided from a report found on the University of Michigan website. Found here,http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm18 As the National Center for Atmospheric Research reports, Some types of emissions, such as methane,remain in the atmosphere for years; others, such as carbon dioxide, stay for centuries.http://www.ucar.edu/research/pollution/atmosphere.shtmlHowever, recent research has suggested that theinertia of carbon dioxide is much longer than previously thought and that not all CO2 stays in the

atmosphere for the same amount of time. For example, University of Chicago Professor of GeophysicalSciences David Archers research indicates that as much as 7% of CO2 released today will still be in theatmosphere (reradiating) 100,000 years from now. He thus calculates the mean lifetime of CO2 to bearound 30,000 years. However he admits that this number can be deceiving and suggests that severalhundred years is a more appropriate number for popular discussion because it indicates the atmosphericCO2 lifetime of about 75% of emitted CO2. A description of his research appears here, David Archer,posting to Real Climate discussion board, March 15, 2005, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=134#more-13419 A description of the term inertia appears here; IPCC, Summary for Policymakers, Third Assessment

Report. http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/un/syreng/spm.pdf 16

11
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htmhttp://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htmhttp://www.ucar.edu/research/pollution/atmosphere.shtmlhttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=134#more-134http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=134#more-134http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=134#more-134http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/un/syreng/spm.pdfhttp://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htmhttp://www.ucar.edu/research/pollution/atmosphere.shtmlhttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=134#more-134http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=134#more-134http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/un/syreng/spm.pdf


12/85

understanding of climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and

mitigation.20 A review of the IPCCs significant findings, taken directly from their most

recent 2001 Assessment Report, offers as good a starting point as any. Their findings

include the following:

Current Findings

- The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from a level of 280 partsper million (ppm) for the period 1000-1750 to 368 ppm in the year 2000 (thisrepresents a 31% increase, with a margin of error of +/- 4%)21

- Global mean surface temperature increased by .6 degrees C (1.08 degreesFahrenheit) (+/-.2 degrees C) over the 20th century (very likely)22

- Human activities have increased the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse

gases and aerosols since the pre-industrial era- Globally it is very likely that the 1990s was the warmest decade, and 1998 thewarmest year, in the instrumental record (1861-2000)

- Cold/frost days decreased for nearly all land areas during the 20th century (verylikely)

- It is very likely that the 20th century warming has contributed significantly tothe observed sea-level rise, through thermal expansion of seawater andwidespread loss of land ice

- Global mean sea level increased at an average annual rate of 1 to 2 mm duringthe 20th century

- Widespread retreat of non-polar glaciers occurred during the 20th century- There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the

last 50 years is attributable to human activities (italics and underline mine)

Future Projections

- The projected concentration of CO2 in the year 2100 ranges from 540 to 970ppm, compared to about 368 ppm in the year 2000 and 280 ppm as late as 1750

- Projections using the SRES emissions scenarios in a range of climate modelsresult in an increase in globally averaged surface temperature of 1.4 to 5.8degrees Celsius (2.5 to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit) over the period 1990 to 2100(this prediction is an increase from the 1995 2nd assessment report whichanticipated a 1 3.5 degree Celsius increase)

20 Description provided by the IPCC on the front page of their website,http://www.ipcc.ch21 All of the following points are taken from the IPCC, Summary for Policy Makers, 5-3322 The IPCC utilized the following terminology for its 3rd Assessment report to indicate the relativecertainty of each assertion or prediction; very likely indicates a 90 99% chance, likely indicates a 66 90% chance, medium indicates a 33 66% chance, and unlikely indicates a 10 33% chance ofoccurrence. IPCC, Summary for Policymakers, Box SPM-1, 5.

12
http://www.ipcc.ch/http://www.ipcc.ch/http://www.ipcc.ch/


13/85

- Glaciers are projected to continue their widespread retreat during the 21st

century- Global mean sea level is projected to rise by .09 to .88 meters between the years

1990 and 2100 ( a range of more than 3.5 inches to 2 feet, 10 inches)- Models project that increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases

will result in changes in frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme events,such as more hot days, heat waves, heavy precipitation events, and fewer colddays

- Greenhouse gas forcing in the 21st century could set in motion large-scale, highimpact non-linear, and potentially abrupt changes in physical and biological

systems over the coming decades to millennia, with a wide range of associatedlikelihoods (italics mine)

- Because of inertia, some changes in the climate system, plausible beyond the21st century, would be effectively irreversible

- Unlike the climate and ecological systems, inertia in human systems is notfixed; it can be changed by policies and the choices made by individuals

- The greater the reductions in emissions and the earlier they are introduced, thesmaller and slower the projected warming and rise in sea levels- Lower emissions scenarios require different paths of energy resource

development and an increase in energy research and development to assistaccelerating the development and deployment of advanced environmentallysound energy technologies

Key Uncertainties

- Magnitude and character of natural climate variability- Factors in modeling of climate cycle, including effects of climate feedbacks- Understanding the probability distribution associated with temperature and sea-

level rise- Identification, quantification, and valuation of damages associated with climate

changeFurther Work Required to Better Understand

- The detection and attribution of climate change- The quantification of climate change impacts at global, regional, and local

levels- What constitutes dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate

system

Summarizing these findings, I believe that the four following statements can be

made with relative certainty:

13


14/85

1) The earth is warming at an anomalous rate when compared with past

warming trends.

2) Atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased dramatically from the

pre-industrial period.

3) The best science available widely supports the view that rising

temperatures are the result of human activities, principally our emission

of greenhouse gases like CO2.

4) The best climate models we have now suggest relatively major and

destabilizing increases in mean global surface temperature over the next

100 years.

Not content to trust the findings and recommendations of the IPCC, President Bush

sought out the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to review the IPCCs assessment

report and summarize the validity of its findings.23

While the NAS reported on many facets of the IPCC report, their general

conclusion was that greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earths atmosphere as a result

of human activities, causing surface air temperatures to rise24 and the IPCCs conclusion

that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the

increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the

scientific community.25 The NAS even went so far as to say that because the IPCC limited

23 Committee on the Science of Climate Change, National Research Council, Climate Change Science: AnAnalysis of Some Key Questions, 2001,http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10139.html , 27.24 Ibid., 125 Ibid., 3.

14
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10139.htmlhttp://www.nap.edu/catalog/10139.htmlhttp://www.nap.edu/catalog/10139.html


15/85

its projections to only the next 100 years, it may well underestimate the magnitude of the

eventual impacts (italics mine).26

Though I searched extensively, I was not able to locate a single peer reviewed

scientific article that contradicted this consensus. Nevertheless, I shall entertain a review of

some of the challenges to this consensus frompoliticalskeptics for the sake of balance.

The most common challenge to the theory of global warming is that conclusive

evidence that the earth is warming does not exist because some satellite data has recorded

decreasingglobal temperature since 1979. But as Dr. Kevin Trenberth, Head of Climate

Analysis at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado

states, the data used to support this claim comes from a spurious conglomeration of data

segments, garnered from eight separate satellites. Dr. Trenberth also notes that there is a

more reliable satellite record that, consistent with other data, does in fact show rising

global temperatures over the same period.27

Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Ross Gelbspan recently addressed the same point

of contention in a preface he wrote analyzing the latest findings of climate science. His

explanation of the confusion surrounding the satellite record and his description of where

the debate is at currently bears full repetition:

The very few independent scientists who still question whether globalwarming is caused by human activity focus on discrepancies between satellitetemperature readings in the upper levels of the atmosphere and on the ground. Butthose discrepancies were eliminated several years ago when researchers discoveredthe satellite temperature readings were incorrect because scientists had failed toaccommodate a natural decay in the orbits of satellites. When that decay was

26 Ibid., 2027 Dr. Kevin Trenberth, Global Warming: Its Happening, Dec. 4, 1997,

http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-09/ns_ket.html

15
http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-09/ns_ket.htmlhttp://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-09/ns_ket.html


16/85

factored in, the satellite readings snapped into focus with the groundmeasurements.28

Another recent controversy has centered around the famous hockey stick graph

shown here and included in the IPCCs 3rd

Assessment Report in 2001:

29

The graph, developed by University of Massachusetts geoscientist Michael Mann

purports to show that current average temperature in the Northern Hemisphere is at its

highest level since the year 1000. The dramatic rise in temperature, which it shows

beginning with the industrial period, coincides nearly exactly with the measured increases

in atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the same period. The shape formed by the sharp

mean temperature rise shown to have occurred beginning around 1900 gives the graph its

apt name.

However, as reported by the Wall Street Journal30 two Canadians - Stephen

McIntyre, a Toronto minerals consultant and amateur mathematician,31 and Ross

McKitrick, an economics professor at Canadas University of Guelph, recently published a

28 Motavalli, Jim, ed., Feeling the Heat: Dispatches From the Frontlines of Climate Change (New York:Routledge, 2004), v- vi.29 Graph taken from Dr. Richard Muller, Global warming bombshell- hockey-stick plot used modified data,http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2004nov20_c.html30 Wall Street Journal Online, Hockey Stick on Ice: Politicizing the science of global warming,http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=11000631431 Description found in Hockey Stick, Ibid.

16
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006314http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006314


17/85

joint critique of the mathematical methods that Prof. Mann used to create the hockey-stick

graph. Essentially, they assert that Mann used a mathematical technique involving

principal component analysis (PCA) that selects for the hockey-stick shape whenever

any data set is graphically constructed. Further, they argue that Mann selected only data

sets that would make the graph look flat up until recent times, omitting the medieval warm

period so as to increase the visual discrepancy between past temperatures and those of

today.

While this critique has received much press attention, few accounts have included

mention of the clarifying response released by Manns colleagues. It reads in part; even if

one were to include all the significant PCs,you get the same answer. If you dont use any

PCA at all,you get the same answer. If you use a completely different methodology, you

get basically thesame answer32 (italics mine).

Indeed, a graph shown on Wikipedia plots a comparison of ten separate,

independently published accounts of mean temperature change during the last 2000 years.

The graph does in fact show more of a pronounced medeival warm period and little ice

age, but the anamolous rise in temperature since the pre-industrial period clearly still

appears. Essentially, it still looks like a hockey stick, only with an even biggerblade

(albeit with a bit of a kink in the middle of its shaft).

32 Gavin Schmidt and Caspar Amman, Dummies guide to the latest Hockey Stick controversy,RealCLIMATE, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121

17
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121


18/85

33*

Recent findings published since the 2001 IPPC and NAS reports give even greater

weight to the mass of evidence attributing recent anomalous global warming to human

activity. In 2004 the UN World Meteorological Association published its Statement on the

Status of the Global Climate, concluding that 2004 was the fourth warmest year in the

temperature record since 1861 and that the five warmest years on that record were, in

decreasing order, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2001.34 In addition, their accumulated and

verified temperature readings indicate that the rate of temperature increase since 1976 has

been approximately three times higher than the average of the last one hundred years .35

Merely a month before that UNWMO data was released, dramatic findings were

also released in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA). The ACIA is a multi-year,

comprehensively researched, fully referenced, and independently reviewed evaluation of

arctic climate change,36 compiled by over three hundred scientists. It is a project of the

33*image used under GFDL licensehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png34 World Meteorological Organization Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 2004,http://www.wmo.ch/web/wcp/wcdmp/statement/html/983_E.pdf, 4.35 Ibid., 4.36 Statement by Dr. Robert W. Corell, Chair, Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, before the Committee onCommerce, Science, and Transportation, United States Senate, November 16, 2004,

18
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.pnghttp://www.wmo.ch/web/wcp/wcdmp/statement/html/983_E.pdfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.pnghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.pnghttp://www.wmo.ch/web/wcp/wcdmp/statement/html/983_E.pdf


19/85

International Arctic Science Committee (IASC), a non-governmental organization whose

membership consists of eight countries including the United States. The mission of the

ACIA is to evaluate and synthesize knowledge on climate variability, climate change, and

increased ultraviolet radiation and their consequences.37

Its principal finding was startling: the Arctic is warming at a ratenearly twice that

of the rest of the world.38 While it also confirmed the IPCC finding that large portions of

Arctic sea-ice are 40% thinner than in 1970, the biggest surprise was the disclosure that one

of its climate models pointed to a new possibility; the near complete disappearance of

arctic summer sea ice by 2100.

39

However, that estimate is at the far end of their

projections, while the five model average suggests a more probable decline in summer sea

ice of about 50% by 2100. These projections are visually represented below.

40

This past January the International Climate Change Taskforce, co-chaired by

British Member of Parliament Stephen Byers and Republican US Senator Olympia Snowe,

37 Description of mission found on ACIA homepage,http://www.acia.uaf.edu38 Susan Joy Hassol and others,Arctic Climate Impact Assessment; Impacts of a Warming Arctic, (NewYork: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 10.39 Ibid., 36.40 Ibid., 30

19
http://www.acia.uaf.edu/http://www.acia.uaf.edu/http://www.acia.uaf.edu/http://www.acia.uaf.edu/


20/85

also expanded upon the 2001 IPCC report. Responding to the IPCCs challenge to develop

a threshold indicating the point at which dangerous anthropogenic interference with the

climate system41 will be reached, the taskforce recommended that a long-term objective

be established to prevent global average temperature from rising more than 2 degrees

Celsius (3.6 degrees F) above the pre-industrial level, to limit the extent and magnitude of

climate change impacts.42 This decision was reached after extensive review of relevant

scientific literature led the taskforce to conclude that a 3.6 degree Fahrenheit increase is

the threshold of temperature increase above which the extent and magnitude of the

impacts of climate change increase sharply.

43

While the authors of the Recommendations freely admit that climate science has

not yet advanced to the point where it can confidently predict a resultant increase in

temperature given a specific level of greenhouse gas concentrations, they nevertheless

analyzed the best comparative data available regarding carbon dioxide increases since

1750, while also taking into account all other influences on warming and cooling projected

for 2100, including other GHGs. After so doing they concluded that in order to avert a rise

in temperature greater than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit we must take immediate steps to ensure

that atmospheric CO2 concentrations do not rise above 400 parts per million. For

perspective, atmospheric CO2 concentrations currently stand at 381 ppm, and are rising at

a rate of 2 ppm per year. If such a trend continues, we would arrive at the climate crisis

point by 2015.44

41 IPCC 3rd Assessment Report42Meeting the Climate Challenge: Recommendations of the International Climate Change Taskforce ,January, 2005, http://www.tai.org.au/Publications_Files/Papers&Sub_Files/Meeting%20the%20Climate%20Challenge%20FV.pdf, ix.43 Ibid., 344 The term climate crisis point was used by author Bill McKibben in a recent piece that appeared in Gristmagazine. Direct repetition of part of that piece bears inclusion here, especially because of the insight itprovides as to the comparative significance of this new recommendation. McKibben writes, That 400 ppm

20
http://www.tai.org.au/Publications_Files/Papers&Sub_Files/Meeting%20the%20Climate%20Challenge%20FV.pdfhttp://www.tai.org.au/Publications_Files/Papers&Sub_Files/Meeting%20the%20Climate%20Challenge%20FV.pdfhttp://www.tai.org.au/Publications_Files/Papers&Sub_Files/Meeting%20the%20Climate%20Challenge%20FV.pdfhttp://www.tai.org.au/Publications_Files/Papers&Sub_Files/Meeting%20the%20Climate%20Challenge%20FV.pdf


21/85

While the scientific evidence reviewed up to this point represents an overwhelming likelihood of human-induced climate change

as scientific reality, perhaps the greatest evidence yet contributed comes from two pieces of research first reported in the April 2001 issue

ofScience,45 and recently updated by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in February 2005 at the American Association for the

Advancement of Sciences annual meeting.46

The first relevant study was led by Sydney Levitus of the National Oceanographic Data Center/National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In it, findings indicate that Levitus was able to accurately predict oceanic temperature increases

using modeling techniques based on knowledge ofman-made emissions levels. Levitus summarized his findings by saying, "I believe our

results represent the strongest evidence to date that the Earth's climate system is responding to human-induced forcing.47

Building on that research, the lead author of the recent Scripps study, Tim Barnett, examined over seven million readings of

temperature, salinity, and other variables measured from the worlds oceans by the US NOAA. Barnett then used computer models to

simulate predicted increases in ocean temperature based on a variety of models, some of which included changes in solar activity and

volcanic eruptions- two of the natural processes frequently posited as possible explanations for increased ocean and surface temperature

number is very low; previously, most crisis scenarios focused on 550 ppm, which would represent a doubling of pre-Industrial Revolution carbon concentrations.It's as if the American Medical Association suddenly announced that you needed your cholesterol down below 100 or your heart was going to go. BillMcKibben, Changing the Climate Change Climate, Grist Dispatch, January 25, 2005, http://www.grist.org/comments/dispatches/2005/01/25/mckibben/45 Sydney Levitus, Anthropogenic Warmings Oceanic Signature, Science, 292, no.5515 (2001) 157-384.46 Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Scripps Researchers Find Clear Evidence of Human-Produced Warming in World's Oceans,http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/article_detail.cfm?article_num=66647

Science Daily Online, Human-Induced Greenhouse Warming Pumps Heat Into Oceans, Two Science Studies Report

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/04/010413081057.htm

21
http://www.grist.org/comments/dispatches/2005/01/25/mckibben/http://www.grist.org/comments/dispatches/2005/01/25/mckibben/http://www.grist.org/comments/dispatches/2005/01/25/mckibben/http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/04/010413081057.htmhttp://www.grist.org/comments/dispatches/2005/01/25/mckibben/http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/04/010413081057.htm


22/85

by critics. However, the only model that came even close to predicting the real changes in oceanic temperature that actually occurred

were those based on man-made emissions of greenhouse gases. The warming signal indicated by the models based on man-made

warmingcorresponded with the findings from the real measurements obtained at sea over 95%of the time. Barnet concluded, it shows

we can successfully simulate its (oceanic temperatures) past and likely future evolution. The statistical significance of these results is far

too strong to be merely dismissed the debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people -

the models got it right.48 Barnett also challenged politically driven skeptics stating, If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is

too great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable.49

This ultimatum comes in response to those who have recently challenged the scientific consensus around global warming. For

instance, conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation have based their arguments against taking action on global warming on

the assertion that the science isnt certain.50 Here, Heritage is technically correct, but the spirit of what they are saying is very

misleading.51 Essentially, the problem comes down to one of semantics.

48 Scripps, Clear Evidence of Human Produced Warming49 Mark Henderson, New proof that man has caused global warming, Times Newspapers, February 18, 2005, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-3-1489955-3,00.html50 For instance, the Heritage Foundation writes, Large uncertainties remain in predicting future climate changes, their impact, and their causes. Charlie E.Coon, Why President Bush Is Right to Abandon the Kyoto Protocol, The Heritage Foundation,http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1437.cfm. The51 Furthermore, Republican skepticism of climate science is very disingenuous and appears to be driven much more by a fear of what might happen if theyconcede that the science is accurate than whether or not the science is in fact accurate. As Republican pollster Frank Luntz surreptitiously writes in an internalRepublican memo regarding Republican framing of environmental issues, while the scientific debate is closing against us, Republicans should still continue toassert that the scientific debate remains open. While believing the real scientific debate to be nearly closed, Luntz nevertheless counsels Republicans in thesame memo that you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate. Frank Luntz, The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer,

22
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-3-1489955-3,00.htmlhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-3-1489955-3,00.htmlhttp://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1437.cfmhttp://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1437.cfmhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-3-1489955-3,00.htmlhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-3-1489955-3,00.htmlhttp://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1437.cfm


23/85

Anyone familiar with academic research and empirical approaches in general knows that no research is evercertain. Indeed, all

current scientific research is only the best we have at the present moment in time and is always subject to further inquiry. In light of this

understanding I would suggest that conservative critics are taking advantage of the general publics ignorance of the scientific term,

certainty, and how it relates to the ideas of laws, theories and hypotheses. While popularly used in such a way as to convey oh

thats just what you think, the term theory as it relates to science actually connotes an explanation of phenomena based upon

hypotheses that have been independently verified multiple times. In short, it connotes a strong standard of evidence.

Thus, since we can neverbe truly certain about the theory of global warming, we should switch the focus of the current debate

away from saying it is just a theory and recognize that theory status is actually incredibly impressive once achieved.

To the surprise of many critics, Naomi Oreskes recently reported that the idea of human induced global warming has, for all

intents and purposes, already succeeded in achieving theory status. In an essay52that appeared in the international journal Science last

December, Oreskes presented findings based on her content analysis of the abstracts of 928 peer-reviewed articles published in refereed

scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 which contained the phrase global climate change. Of those 928 articles, not a single article

disagreed that anthropogenic climate change is occurring.53

Healthier America, The Luntz Research Companies- Straight Talk,http://www.ewg.org/briefings/luntzmemo/pdf/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf137-13852 Naomi Oreskes, The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Science, 306, no.1126 (2004) 1686.53 Oreskes describes her methodology as follows; The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation ofimpacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all papers, 75% fell into the first three categories,either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climatechange. Naomi Oreskes, Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, 1686.

23
http://www.ewg.org/briefings/luntzmemo/pdf/LuntzResearch_environment.pdfhttp://www.ewg.org/briefings/luntzmemo/pdf/LuntzResearch_environment.pdfhttp://www.ewg.org/briefings/luntzmemo/pdf/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf


24/85

Global warming is certainly not a scientific law, but as an exceedingly complex natural process which could only ever hope to

achieve the status of scientific theory, it is very near the pinnacle of its potential categorical status.

Other scientific theories include evolution and relativity - would we be likely to call the science supporting those theories

unsound or uncertain? So yes, critics are correct to assert that uncertainty exists in climate science. However, that is not newsworthy, it is

merely common sense.

What is newsworthy is that the best, peer reviewed science that we currently have is predicting global mean temperature increases

as large as 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. Does that mean that this prediction will turn out to be true? We have no way of

knowing for sure. Butwe also have no way of knowing what consumer spending will be like next year. Yet the Federal Reserve still

adjusts interest rates based on the best predictions of economists (whose predictions in recent years have not been nearly as accurate as

those of climate scientists). Shouldnt we apply the similar standard ofbest available evidence to an issue as important and far reaching

as the stability of our climate?

Of course we should continue to test the science of climate change and try to improve upon it so as to be able to better understand

natural processes and the effect that humans have on them as critics continue to advocate. Indeed, continuing such research is the highest

responsibility of climate scientists. However, that does not mean that the responsible course of action for policy makers in the meantime

is to avoid precautionary action that could prevent the worst predicted impacts of climate change. To the contrary, it is theirhighest

responsibility to respond with policy measures informed and driven by the best science presently available. While such a standard may

24


25/85

not be perfect, it is the best at our disposal if we are to agree that science can never be certain.54 Thus, for now all we can do, and what

we must do, is respond to what that standard indicates: man-made global warming is real, our waiting period is over, and the time for

action is now.

This action is required not in spite of scientific uncertainty, but precisely because of it. Being that we are tampering with a global

process that is infinitely complex (the resulting destabilization of which could result in multiple problems that we have yet to anticipate

and can now only dream about), precautionary action is all the more defensible and incumbent. Indeed, it is the very uncertainty that

demands the immediate consideration and active implementation of policy responses from our political leaders because the potential

dangers are so grave.

54 The best articulation of this idea that I found was written by Peter Gleick, President to the Pacific Institute, an independent think tank based in Oakland, CA.He writes, There are plenty of scientific uncertainties around climate change, as all good climate scientists readily acknowledge (sometimes to the frustration ofmedia, the public, and policymakers). The climate, as one of the most complex geophysical features of our planet should and will engender legitimate scientificdebate and research for decades to come. But this ongoing dispute about the details of impacts, the costs and benefits of mitigation and adaptation policies, andappropriate national and international policy should not be used to obfuscate the overwhelming consensus that exists among climate scientists. Climate changecaused by human activities is real, is already underway, and poses an unprecedented threat to human health and well-being. Peter H. Gleick, PoliticalScience: The Rise of Junk Science and the Fall of Reason An ENN Commentary, Environmental News Network, February 10, 2005,http://www.enn.com/today_PF.html?id=7110

25
http://www.enn.com/today_PF.html?id=7110http://www.enn.com/today_PF.html?id=7110


26/85

Chapter 2: A Brief History of the The Environment as an Issue on the National Political Agenda: How Low Can it Go?

Introduction:

Before delving into the question of what issue priority is now given to climate destabilization and whether it is likely to be

addressed sufficiently on a policy level anytime soon, it is appropriate to first examine the historical trends associated with the issues-set

within which it is most commonly confined: that of environmental issues. With an awareness of the changes over time to the

prioritization of this larger issue category, we can better understand the current, confining, paradigm within which consideration of any

26


27/85

environmental issue,55 including global warming, operates. Further, only by looking at the historical trends that reveal the

comparatively low priority of the the environment as a national political issue today can we gain a proper appreciation for the myriad

of complex problems hindering the advancement of climate destabilization as a national political priority in its own right.56

A Look Back at the Factors Motivating Policy Responses to Environmental Concerns in the 1970s

In the 1960s and early 1970s environmental issues began to make their way to the top-tier of the national political agenda. With

the release of Silent Spring57 in 1962, Rachel Carson provided many Americans (and American policy makers) with a sobering first

look at the worrisome impacts that pesticide use, particularly DDT, have on our ecosystems. Many Americans, after reading her book or

hearing of its contents, began to contemplate the very real possibility of springtimes absent songbirds. In the wake of Silent Spring,

55 As I will re-establish later, I do not list climate destabilization as an environmental issue because I think that it is an issue which inherently belongs in theenvironment category. To the contrary, I actually think of climate destabilization as much more of a human rights, foreign policy, and health issue thanenvironmental issue. However, analysis of media reports and political issue statements that will be referenced later all show that global warming is nearly alwaystalked about primarily as an environmental issue.56 Support for conducting a historical overview of a social problem before examining the feasibility of advancing it on the issue agenda is provided by SheldonUngar who writes, Social problemsmust be sold, and the success or failure of such endeavors cannot be adequately understood by examining claims makingactivities independent of the specific history and properties that have accrued to a social problem. Sheldon Ungar, Bringing the Issue Back In: Comparing theMarketability of the Ozone Hole and Global Warming, Social Problems 45, no.4 (November 1998): 510-527.57 Rachel Carson, Silent Spring(Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962)

27


28/85

many (in)famous events of the late 1960s further concentrated American attention on the need to address environmental issues through

national policy measures.

In a history of the development of the modern environmental movement Phillip Shabecoff outlines a series of events and

situations that further helped environmental concerns move up the national policy agenda following the publication of Silent Spring.58 He

lists the oil spill in Santa Barbara, California of 1969, the ignition of the petroleum-laden Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, also in 1969, the

envelopment of many American cities (most notoriously Los Angeles) in harmful smog, and the public disclosures of Lake Eries

extensive phosphate pollution and the toxic PCB pollution of the Hudson and Housatonic Rivers, all occurring at around the same time,

as a series of events that served to concentrate public attention on the environment.59

Perhaps not coincidentally, the National Environmental Policy Act was passed in 1969, establishing for the first time a national

policy for the environment. Bearing these events, and the climate of environmental concern that they contributed to in mind, it is clear

that the onset of the 1970s was a ripe time to address water and air pollution issues in particular, and environmental concerns more

generally, through concurrent national legislative action.

Indeed, only three months after the first Earth Day was held on April 22 nd, 1970 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was

formed. Five months later, in December of 1970, the Clean Air Act was signed into law by President Nixon, requiring the newly formed

EPA to set national ambient air quality standards so as to provide an adequate margin of safety for protection of public health from

58 Phillip Shabecoff,A Fierce Green Fire: The American Environmental Movement(New York: Harper Collins, 1993)59 Ibid., 111.

28


29/85

any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with six major pollutants. Following that legislation, the Clean Water Act was

passed into law in 1972, setting deadlines for the elimination of pollution discharge into navigable waters and making the goal of

fishable and swimmable waters official and enforceable national policy.60

Daniel Mazmanian and Michael Kraft offer a list, and analysis, of other legislative actions taken during the 1970s in their work

The Three Epochs of the Environmental Movement61. These included the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act of 1976, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,

and Liability Act of 1980 (better known as Superfund). Together, this set of laws would come to represent the most comprehensive and

far reaching set of environmental policies ever undertaken in United States political history, either before the decade of the1970s or

during any decade thereafter.

Drawing from the writings of Riley E. Dunlap62and Christopher J. Bosso63, respectively, Mazmanian and Kraft concluded that

during this period of widespread environmental awareness and policy response, (which they refer to as the first environmental epoch,)

60 Michael E. Kraft and Daniel Mazmanian, ed.s, The Three Epochs of the Environmental Movement in Toward Sustainable Communities: Transition andTransformation in Environmental Policy (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1999)61 Kraft and Mazmanian, Three Epochs, 21.62 Riley E. Dunlap, Public Opinion and Environmental Policy inEnvironmental Politics and Policy: Theories and Evidence , 2nd ed., ed. James P. Lester(Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1995), 63-114.63 Christopher J. Bosso, Facing the Future: Environmentalists and the New Political Landscape in Environmental Policy, ed.s Norman J. Vig and Michael. EKraft (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press), 55-76.

29


30/85

a consensus emerged among scientists, technicians, policy makers, and the public that the issues of pollution and environmental

degradation were severe and should be addressed as a top national priority64 (italics mine). However, the consensus did not last long.

The 1980s: The Beginning of the Decline of Environmental Issues on the National Policy Agenda.

Sometime around the early 1980s, the federal approach to environmental policy began to change in focus and in method of

response as environmental issues began to recede from the forefront of the national political agenda. Mazmanian and Kraft refer to this as

the beginning of second environmental epoch, a period wherein there occurred a dissolution of faith in governments ability to use

regulation as a means to remedy environmental problems at all and/or in a way that could effectively balance other social and economic

interests. Thus, they describe this second epoch, as being marked by the drive for efficiency and flexibility in the regulatory apparatus

created in the first epoch65. The national legislation that most successfully highlights this approach might be found in the Clean Air Act

amendments of 1990 which established a national market, complete with tradeable pollution credits for Sulfur Dioxide, that successfully

utilized market incentives in order to reduce pollution.

The Present: The Death of Environmentalism?

64 Kraft and Mazmanian, The Three Epochs, 14.65 Ibid., 9.

30


31/85

Judging from the historical record, I believe Mazmanian and Krafts descriptions of the first two environmental epochs

(stretching from 1970-1990) to be generally apt and accurate. Indeed, the descriptions they provide of each epochs key traits are

grounded in at least some observable evidence of 1) policy makers who (at least tacitly) agreed with opinion leaders on the identification

and construction of what the environmental problem(s) then at hand were, and 2) national policy solutions whose methods of

response closely mirrored what opinion leaders saw as the appropriate mechanism for dealing with the problem at the time (regulation in

the 70s, more flexible and market based approaches in the 80s and 90s).

In contrast to the apt nature of their first two environmental epochs as descriptive and accurate categories of real events,

Mazmanian and Krafts description of a so-called third environmental epoch would be better understood as an outline for what they

hope mighthappen in the future rather than as any kind of descriptive, evidentiary based reflection of real trends now occurring.

Writing in 1999, they described this third epoch, which they say replaced the second and began in 1990 (and is supposed to be

occurring at present), as a period marked by considerations of sustainable development and when concerns for the natural

environment will play a far more pronounced role than during other periods in American history .66

Granted, while there is extensive support for a claim that the environmental literature and the environmental movement has

begun to focus intently on the idea and the goals of sustainable development (and sincerely hopes for such a sustainability-focused

66 Ibid., 8.

31


32/85

future), there is little real-world evidence, at least in the form of responsive federal legislation, to show that such a sustainability epoch

ever really began for national policy makers and/or that such an epoch now exists outside of the dreams of environmentalists.

While there are certainly counter-examples, especially at the local community level, the dominantfeature of American societys

current regard for environmental issues and the national environmental policy atmosphere that surrounds such issues would be much

more accurately described as having a focus on (unsustainable) economic efficiency at any cost than as having any real and visible

focus on sustainable development.

Indeed while Mazmanian and Kraft list the third epochs characteristics as, bringing into harmony human and natural systems;

halt(ing) dimunition of biodiversity; embrac(ing) an eco-centric ethic; and as a time of comprehensive future visioning67, such

descriptions conflict so much with the actual state of the dominant environmental policy paradigm of today that they almost lead one to

consider them fiction writers rather than expert analysts of policy and historical trends associated with environmental concerns.

Thus I believe we must move beyond their epoch model if we are to gain an accurate understanding of the true state of the

environment as a current issue on the national political agenda today.

Ironically, as Shellenberger and Nordhaus write, the truth may be that the lack of issue priority currently given to the environment

might actually be the direct result of the environmental movement still being stuck in the thinking of the first environmental epoch.

They write;

67 Ibid., 10-13

32


33/85

The three-part strategic framework for environmental policy making hasnt changed in 40 years: first, define a problem (e.g.global warming) as environmental. Second, craft a technical remedy (e.g. cap-and-trade). Third, sell the technical proposal tolegislators through a variety of tactics, such as lobbying, third-party allies, research reports, advertising, and public relations.68

Such a stale strategy for confronting environmental issues has not paid off. Indeed, later in their paper Shellenberger and Nordhaus

relay polling results indicative of the general publics declining opinion of environmental groups. In a poll asking whether most of the

people actively involved in environmental groups are extremists, not reasonable people, 32% of respondents agreed in 1996. By 2000

the number who agreed had increased to 41%.69

But while such polling may suggest a decline in the credibility and effectiveness of leading environmental groups, such skepticism

has not, as of yet, translated into a loss of support for the environmental movement as a whole. Indeed, in a 2003 Gallup poll, 61% of

respondents characterized their support of the environmental movement as either an active participant or sympathetic but not active

(14% and 47% respectively). 32% were neutral and a mere 6% were unsympathetic to the movement.

Such numbers suggest that support for the environmental movement as a whole is currently very wide but not very deep.70

Practically then, nearly everyone supports a clean and safe environment but the environment as an issue is no longer a top priority for

many voters as it was in the 1970s. Surely, such environmental concern has not been strong enough to prevent the re-election of the

worst environmental president in the history of the United States.71

68 Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, The Death of Environmentalism,http://www.thebreakthrough.org/images/Death_of_Environmentalism.pdf69 Ibid., 11.70 Ibid., 1171 This title has been bestowed on President Bush by many, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Al Gore, and Joseph Lieberman.

33
http://www.thebreakthrough.org/images/Death_of_Environmentalism.pdfhttp://www.thebreakthrough.org/images/Death_of_Environmentalism.pdfhttp://www.thebreakthrough.org/images/Death_of_Environmentalism.pdf


34/85

The Environment and Global Warming in the 2004 Presidential Campaign:

Even if the issue priority given to the environment by a certain subset of voters has increased, the attention given to the

environment by leading politicians has declined dramatically in recent years. To support this claim I have used various measures to

gauge the issue importance assigned to the environment by the major party nominees for president in the 2004 presidential campaign.

What follows is a brief review of my content analysis of the presidential debates and the nominating convention speeches of both major

party nominees. Although an imperfect measure, I would argue that identifying the presence of the environment in the latest presidential

campaign is the most obvious and direct way to measure the issues priority (or lack thereof) on the national political agenda today.

The Debates

34


35/85

My comparison of the last two presidential campaigns reveals that the environment72 has declined as an issue of prominence on

the national political stage, (as measured by debate time devoted)73 in the past four years. During more than four hours of televised

presidential debate in 2000, the environment was a topic of discussion for 15 minutes.74 While that may seem like a small amount of

time, it compares to a merefour and a halfminutes devoted to the environment during the four and a half hours of nationally televised

presidential debate in 2004. In fact, the environment tookup less than 2% of debate time during the 2004 presidential debates.75

Global warming itself was only discussed for one minute- 30 seconds by each candidate. The extent of Kerrys remarks on global

warming were, They pulled out of the global warming, declared it dead, didnt even accept the science. Im going to be a president who

believes in science. This is hardly a statement that articulates either the threat of climate change or any substantive policy proposal for

how it should be remedied.

And while Bush never used the term global warming he did respond by saying, well, had we joined the Kyoto treaty, which I

guess hes referring to, it would have cost America a lot of jobs. This argument is consistent with the dominant frame presented by US

media and conservative think tanks, as will be covered in Chapter 3.

72 Any and all environmental issues listed on the DNC and RNC websites served as my criteria for identifying when an environmental issue was discussed inthe 2004 debate. I do not know what criteria Mencimer used in arriving at her 15 minute figure.73 Granted, candidates themselves do not choose which questions are asked so using debate time devoted to an issue as a measure for how much a politician isconcerned about an issue is not wholly fair. However, neither candidate steered comments toward discussion of global warming in question responses that wererelated and neither candidate addressed the issue in opening or closing remarks.74 Stephanie Mencimer, Weather tis Nobler in the Mind, Washington Monthly, July/August 2002.75 Text of all three presidential debates was taken from, Commission on Presidential Debates, http://www.debates.org/pages/debtrans.html

35


36/85

Nominating Convention Speeches:

Accepting the Republican Partys nomination for President last September, President George W. Bush delivered an address of

over 5,000 words.76 He did not bother to mention the words global warming, climate change, and/or greenhouse gases once in that

entire, nationally televised speech. More alarming, he did not devote a single sentence to any environmental issue facing the country in

that speech.77

In contrast, John Kerry devoted a full four sentences (55 words) to the environment in his convention speech, which, like Bushs

was also approximately 5000 words in length. Like the debates, those 55 words represent a devotion of one percent of the full text to the

environment.78Further, not once did Kerry use the term global warming, climate change, and/or greenhouse gases in this the

speech which was to lay out his vision for America in the next four years.

Preliminary Conclusions:

76 The text of his nomination speech can be found here, White House website, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/print/20040902-2.html77 Again, I operationalized environmental issue by including any and all environmental issues as defined by the RNC and DNC websites.78 The four sentences were as follows; 1) It was the beginning of a great journey, a time to march for civil rights, for voting rights, for the environment, forwomen, for peace. 2) She (his mother) gave me her passion for the environment. She taught me to see trees as the cathedrals of nature. 3) I will have a vicepresident who will not conduct secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws. And 4) What does it mean when 25% of the children inHarlem have asthma because of air pollution? The full text of his speech can be found here, Washington Post Online, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25678-2004Jul29.html

36
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/print/20040902-2.htmlhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/print/20040902-2.htmlhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/print/20040902-2.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25678-2004Jul29.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25678-2004Jul29.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25678-2004Jul29.htmlhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/print/20040902-2.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25678-2004Jul29.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25678-2004Jul29.html


37/85

Humanity faces an issue that some are saying could potentially threaten our very survival. Yet a review of the most watched and

heard statements from the Presidential candidates in the latest presidential campaign indicates that there is little to no issue presence for

climate change on the national political agenda. Further, there is strong evidence that the environment in general has declined as a

national legislative priority- to the point where it is nearly absent from the major national issue agenda.79

More specifically, climate change suffers from at least two inherent problems that hinder its advancement on the national political

agenda. First, it is most frequently categorized as an environmental issue. Second, it is seen as a global problem, not necessarily

under the purview of the US federal government. Being categorized as an environmental issue, also means that climate change is

susceptible to the same problems facing all other environmental issues fighting for attention from the US government; general de-

prioritization relative to other social problems since the 1970s.80

Further, and related to it being both an environmental and a global problem, climate change suffers from what economists would

call the public good dilemma. With countries acting as individual actors, there is no incentive for any one to undertake potentially

costly reforms to their emissions practices, even if they know that without such reforms the world could be worse off for all of

humanity.81Thus, whyshouldJohn Kerry (or anyone else for that matter) risk political capital to focus on the issue?

79 One would expect an issue of major status in the US to be covered substantively in at least one of the three presidential debates and or the nominatingconvention speeches of each major party nominee.80 I examine the differences between the issue priority of the environment during the 1970s and that of its priority today in Chapter 2.81 This exact problem has hindered the Kyoto negotiations, with the US and Australia essentially free-riding on any global benefits the Kyoto protocol, justenacted without them on February 16, 2005, might produce. While the EU, Russia, and Japan, among others, have committed themselves to achieving emissionslevels below that of 1990 levels by 2012 we have instead refused to sign on to the protocol, essentially saying, Why should we clean up if developing countries

37


38/85

Having established 1) the necessity of addressing global warming through precautionary policy measures, 2) the general decline

of the environment as a national priority since the 1970s and 3) the near total lack of mention of the environment and/or global warming

during the latest presidential campaign, let us now review the status of global warming as a social problem generally, as measured by a

content analysis of leading media outlets and their coverage of the issue.

dont have to?

38


39/85

Chapter 3: Climate Destabilizations Place on the Social Problems Agenda: A

Look at the Dominant Framing Constructs Utilized by Media and Prominent Think Tanks in the US

Having gained an appreciation for the current scientific consensus on human induced global climate change (and the uncertain yet

dangerous repercussions it portends) and with an understanding of the past and present place of the environment on the social

problems issue agenda, the question naturally arises; what is the current status ofglobal warmingon that agenda?

39


40/85

A significant amount of past research has responded to this question by analyzing the content of news coverage82838485 and/or think

tank86 documents. Mainly, this past work has attempted to analyze the development of global warming as a social problem from a

sociological perspective with regard to Downs issue attention cycle 87as well as Hilgartner and Bosks public arenas model. 88

Downs issue attention cycle consists of five stages; 1) the pre-problem stage, 2) alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm, 3)

the cost of significant progress, 4) gradual decline of intense public interest, and 5) the post problem stage. 89

Recent research suggests that while global warming has passed through these stages, such a model is not sufficient to understand

the obstacles facing global warming on its way to becoming a higher issue priority.90 In particular, because of a concerted response by the

conservative movement to assert the non-problematicity91 of global warming, the issue has effectively been pushed back to the very

beginning of the issue cycle. This trend can be witnessed in the content of both policy think tanks and the US media in general.

82 Moti Nissani, Media Coverage of the Greenhouse Effect,Population and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 21 (1999) 27-43.83 Craig Trumbo, Constructing climate change: claims and frames in US news coverage of an environmental issue, Public Understanding of Science , 5 (1996)269-283.84 Jerry Williams and R Scott Frey, The Changing Status of Global Warming as a Social Problem: Competing Factors in Two Public Arenas, Research in

Community Sociology, 7 (1997) 279-299.85 Sheldon Ungar, Bringing the Issue Back in: Comparing the Marketability of the Ozone Hole and Global Warming, Social Problems, 45, no.4 (November,1998)86 Aaron M. McCright and Riley E. Dunlap, Challenging Global Warming as a Social Problem: An Analysis of the Conservative Movements Counter-Claims,Social Problems, 47, no.4 (Nov. 2000), 499-522.87 Anthony Downs, Up and Down With Ecology: The Issue Attention Cycle, The Public Interest, 28 (1972) 38-50.88 Stephen Hilgartner and Charles L. Bosk, The rise and fall of Social Problems: A public arenas model. American Journal of Sociology, 94 (1988) 53-78.89 Downs, Issue Attention Cycle., 1-2.90 McCright and Dunlap, Challenging Global Warming, 501.91 William R. Freudenberg, Social constructions and social constrictions: Toward analyzing the social construction of the naturalized as well as the natural,Environment and Global Modernity, Gert Spaargaren, Arthur P.J. Mol, and Frederick H. Buttel, eds (London: Sage, 2000) 103-119, quoted in McCright andDunlap, Challenging Global Warming, 501.

40


41/85

Think Tanks:

To illustrate this trend, Aaron McCright and Riley Dunlap conducted a content analysis of the counter-claims made by the

conservative movement as disseminated through documents released by prominent conservative think tanks from 1990-1997. Their

results exposed a discernable frame guiding conservative counter claims, with nearly all documents propagating one of the following

arguments; 1) the evidentiary basis for climate change is weak, if not entirely wrong, 2) if it does occur global warming will result in

substantial benefits, and 3) any proposed action to mitigate climate change would do more harm than good. 92

The first and third arguments occurred with the greatest frequency, appearing in 71% and 62%, respectively, of all conservative

think tank documents containing the terms global warming, greenhouse effect, and/or climate change. The argument with regard

to the potential benefits of global warming was decidedly less prevalent, although by appearing in 13% of documents it represented the

third most utilized conservative argument in attempting to deconstruct the problematicity of climate change.93

Recently, hypotheses with regard to the framing contrasts between conservatives and liberals have been advanced by linguist

George Lakoff.94Seeking to apply Lakoffs comparative framing approach to the global warming debate, I began a search of documents

that I thought would provide an accurate representation of the two sides conservative and liberal that could build off of McCright

92 Ibid., 510.93 Ibid., 510.94 George Lakoff,Moral Politics: How Conservatives and Liberals Think, 2nded. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002) and George Lakoff,Dont Think ofan Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate (White River Junction, VT: 2004)

41


42/85

and Dunlaps research. Like those authors did, I decided to analyze policy think tank documents (though I intended to use them as

substitutes for each side of the political debate instead of as representative of one movement).

Prior to analyzing the content of liberal95think tank work on climate change I expected their documents to identify climate

change as a valid problem in need of an immediate solution.96 Before analyzing the content of conservative97 think tank work, I

expected their documents, in accordance with McCright and Dunlaps findings, to focus mainly on identifying climate change as a

scientifically unsound theory not worthy of the publics attention.98

Complicating this research design, and unbeknownst to me prior to commencing my content search, is the reality that think tanks

do not necessarily offer good representations of the policy positions taken by politicians at the forefront of national party politics (and

thus, are not good stand ins for analysis of national framing conflicts between liberals and conservatives).99

95 The liberal think tanks I looked at were the Center for American Progress (http://www.americanprogress.org) and the Brookings Institution (http://www.brookings.edu)96 While I was not aware of the relative lack of truly liberal think tanks at the outset of my research, my hypothesis was correct to the extent that the Center for

American Progress has indeed called for immediate action to address anthropogenic climate change. See for instance John Podesta, One Day After Kyoto,Center for American Progress, February 17, 2005,http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=387633 . Further, Brookings has also calledfor immediate action, though they favor relatively moderate actions as compared to the CAP. See for example, David Sandalow, The Years After Tomorrow,The Brookings Institution, July 5, 2004,http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/sandalow20040705.htm97 The conservative think tanks I looked at were the Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org), the Cato Institute (http://www.cato.org ), and theAmerican Enterprise Institute (http://www.aei.org )98 Indeed, a version of this hypothesis did bear fruit. While Heritage, Cato, and AEI did not overtly say that the issue was not worthy of public attention, each ofthem had some kind of combination of the following two positions; 1) that the science of climate change is uncertain and/or 2) that any efforts to combat climatechange will be too costly. These findings reflect exactly, and reinforce, those of McCright and Dunlap.99 Certainly, there is an overt focus on framing in conservative think tanks. However, since liberal framing either 1) doesnt primarily happen in think tanks, or 2)simply occurs by default in an unorganized fashion, using think tanks to compare the frames of each side is not fully representative of what frames are reallybeing used.

42
http://www.americanprogress.org/http://www.brookings.edu/http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=387633http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=387633http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=387633http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/sandalow20040705.htmhttp://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/sandalow20040705.htmhttp://www.heritage.org/http://www.heritage.org/http://www.cato.org/http://www.aei.org/http://www.aei.org/http://www.americanprogress.org/http://www.brookings.edu/http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=387633http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/sandalow20040705.htmhttp://www.heritage.org/http://www.cato.org/http://www.aei.org/


43/85

For instance, one think tank often associated with the left is the Brookings Institution. However, this categorization has largely

occurred by default because up until 2003 it was the only major think tank not to be overtly aligned with the conservative movement.100

Brookings is an independent academic organization that publishes work that could be identified all over the ideological spectrum. They

even state publicly and explicitly that they do not let ideology guide their research in their Policy Statement on Non-Partisan,

Independent Research.101 In short, Brookings is not guiding the policy prescriptions of the Democratic Party, nor is it pushing the

Democratic Party to the far left of the ideological spectrum (the role that some think tanks on the right fill for the Republican Party).

In contrast to Brookings, conservative think tanks like Cato, Heritage, and the American Enterprise Institute readily admit that

they are committed ideologically.102Cato speaks of its role as one of promoting American principles of limited government, individual

liberty, free markets, and peace.103 Heritage states that its mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the

principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense 104

100 If we use the standard of having at least a $10 million operating budget to qualify as major, the major policy think tanks in 2003 were Brookings ($36million annual operating budget), the Heritage Foundation ($30 million annual operating budget), the American Enterprise Institute ($16 million in annualexpenses), the Cato Institute ($15 million in annual expenses) and the Center for American Progress ($10 million projected annual operating budget). Allfinancial figures were extracted from Alexander Bolton, Democratic Think Tank Taking Shape, The Hill, June 4, 2003,http://www.hillnews.com/news/060403/tank.aspx101 Brookings Institution,http://www.brookings.edu/index/aboutresearch.htm102 Granted, simply because a think tank like Brookings does not admit an ideological preference, that certainly does not qualify as proof that one does not, inreality, guide their research. However, in looking through the range of opinion and research on their site, one can readily see that Brookings is less consistentlyaligned with a predictable ideological framework in their research assumptions and conclusions than the three conservative think tanks I have listed.103 Cato Institute, http://www.cato.org/about/about.html104 Heritage Foundation,http://www.heritage.org/about

43
http://www.hillnews.com/news/060403/tank.aspxhttp://www.brookings.edu/index/aboutresearch.htmhttp://www.brookings.edu/index/aboutresearch.htmhttp://www.cato.org/about/about.htmlhttp://www.heritage.org/abouthttp://www.heritage.org/abouthttp://www.hillnews.com/news/060403/tank.aspxhttp://www.brookings.edu/index/aboutresearch.htmhttp://www.cato.org/about/about.htmlhttp://www.heritage.org/about


44/85

(italics mine). And AEI is dedicated to preserving and strengthening the foundations of freedom--limited government, private

enterprise, vital cultural and political institutions, and a strong foreign policy and national defense.105

Reading these mission statements over, one wonders whether these three organizations were all sitting down together while

drafting them. Tellingly, the conservative ideological principle of limited government is stated as a guiding principle by each of the

three think tanks ad nauseam. Further, although the exact wording is not wholly consistent, each think tank references a dedication to the

idea of private enterprise or free markets in some way.

Granted, ideologically guided research is not a monopoly of the right. However, the only major liberal think tank that with an

overtly ideological commitment currently in existence is the Center for American Progress, which was formed in 2003. 106For this reason

and others, doing any kind of content analysis attempting to compare the framing of the climate change debate between policy think

tanks (as stand-ins representing th

climate of negligence-final

Documents