GOP Senate Candidates Oppose Climate Science And Policy
by Brad Johnson, ThinkProgress Wonk Room Climate Editor
Updated September 14. View the original version here.
A comprehensive Wonk Room survey of the Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate finds that nearly all dispute the scientific consensus that the United States must act to fight global warming pollution. In May, 2010, the National Academies of Science reported to Congress that "the U.S. should act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop a national strategy to adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change" because global warming is "caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for - and in many cases is already affecting - a broad range of human and natural systems."
This finding is shared by scientific bodies around the world. However, in the alternate reality of the fossil-fueled right wing, climate science is confused or a conspiracy, and policies to limit pollution would destroy the economy.
Remarkably, of the dozens of Republicans vying for the 37 Senate seats in the 2010 election, no one supports climate action, after climate advocate Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) lost his primary to Christine O'Donnell. Even former climate advocates Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) now toe the science-doubting party line.
Many of the Senate candidates are signatories of the Koch Industries' Americans For Prosperity No Climate Tax pledge and the FreedomWorks Contract From America. The second plank of the Contract From America is to "Reject Cap & Trade: Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation's global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures."
But being a Californian, I was particularly ticked off by the following:
"The courage to examine the science behind global warming?" WTF? You know what this sounds like to me? It sounds like Bell Curve racism, thart's what: "The courage to examine the science behind racial equality." Only in this case, there isn't even the pretense of any science that can actually be used.
The reality of what's going on here--with scientists as a class being attacked (since, obviously, they must lack the "courage" to examine their own science) by a malignant narcissist failed CEO who destroyed 30,000 jobs--is so stupifying that it boggles the mind. But it's also just one more data-point in a much larger pattern, as described by social psychologist Albert Bandura in one of the articles I discussed earlier today in "Against Virtue (Pt 2): The need for a situationist morality". The article was "Impeding Ecological Sustainability Through Selective Moral Disengagement", and in it he wrote:
Derogation of those working toward ecological preservation is a common tactic for neutralising moral concern over lifestyle practices that impair the ecological supports of life. The proponents are disparaged as 'doomsayers', 'scaremongers', 'environmental wackos', 'tree huggers', and the like. Bloggers who target deniers that environmental problems are of human doing are called 'kooks'. The critics christened Al Gore, the indefatigable environmentalist, as 'ozone man'. The British press labelled Prince Charles, who called for a sustainable stewardship of the environment, as a "loony eccentric prince who talked to plants" (Shnayerson, 2007).
The so-called doomsayers gave the 'doomslayers' an easy victory with a short time frame for projected price rises of a few metals that did not happen. This event is heralded as evidence that human ingenuity will find solutions to resource scarcity (Myers and Simon, 1994). We are only now witnessing regions in which surging population growth is outstripping food and water supplies. Considering how our detrimental environmental practices are spinning out of control, Malthus may very well have the last tragic laugh.
Scientists come in for especially harsh treatment because they are the bearers of disturbing news about what is happening to our battered planet (White et al., 2007).
They are ascribed nefarious motives and disparaged as 'self-appointed guardians', 'hysterical crusaders', and 'misguided zealots'. Their research is discredited as 'junk science', and their findings are trivialised. If scientists are regarded as untrustworthy and their science is dismissed as faulty, there is no need for people to bring self-sanctions to bear on their detrimental practices.
STATE BLOGS
