M.J. Andersen: Worry no more about climate change

A good way of reassuring people about the climate is to issue a report with a fawn on the cover. In the one that landed on my desk the other day, a fawn with dewy eyes and a button nose gazes out from a sylvan glade.

“Climate Change Reconsidered” she seems to be saying. Also, “What, me worry?” This deer equivalent of Alfred E. Neuman comes courtesy of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. NIPCC scoffs at all the worry over global warming, and wants you to scoff too.

Among the bullet points in NIPCC’s “Summary for Policymakers”: Any global warming that exists (and it is probably due more to the sun than to humans) is actually good for animal habitats. It expands them. And in any case, animals are adapting to climate change.

The NIPCC did not leave room for specific examples, but it probably could have. Consider the report unveiled last week in the journal Science, which found that plant and animal species are disappearing so fast that a sixth “great extinction” is at hand, comparable to the one that wiped out dinosaurs millions of years ago. It used to take a meteor to get those kinds of results.

For non-scientists, the climate-change debate often comes down to whom to believe. Expert vs. expert. Study vs. study.

Lately, studies that affirm global warming have been coming thick and fast, challenging the deniers. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, organized by the United Nations, delivered its latest alarm in March. It ran to more than 2,600 pages, and warned that unless action is taken, the world is headed for great suffering.

We can expect new levels of disastrous storms, wildfires and droughts; scarce food and potable water; species destruction; increased poverty, illness and violence; a soaring number of refugees; and (are you listening, One Percent?) slower economic growth.

In another report released last month, the Union of Concerned Scientists warned that rising sea levels and worsening wildfires will threaten dozens of the most significant U.S. historical sites, including the Statue of Liberty, the historic district of Charleston, S.C., and a Gold-Rush era town near Yosemite National Park.

To round things out, the White House recently issued its own comprehensive report, the National Climate Assessment. It said most Americans are already experiencing climate change but worse is on the way. The effects — flooding from rising seas on the East coast; a tinderbox Southwest — are expected to be pretty special.

Non-believers scolded that the report was too alarmist. Of President Obama, Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell said: “I’m sure he’ll get loud cheers from liberal elites.”

He did not mention that this report had been ordered by Congress.

Still, McConnell underscored that for a lot of people, it is not about the science at all. It is about who’s on whose side. If “liberal elites” say the Earth is round, duty forces their antagonists to differ.

Reputable scientists have flocked overwhelmingly to the position that climate change is real, driven by human activity and in need of restraining. But with so many liberals on their side, who can stand to hear it?

Groups such as NIPCC insist that they too have reputable scientists in their corner. But they tend to be vague about their funding sources.

Not long ago, the Guardian newspaper reported that, from 2002 to 2010, wealthy conservatives channeled nearly $120 million to dozens of groups devoted to raising doubts about climate change. They were able to do so anonymously through two trusts, Donors Trust and the Donors Capital Fund.

These contributions dwarfed what the billionaire Koch brothers (David and Charles) have openly spent defending their fossil fuel empire.

It is possible that the Koch brothers were shadow boxing with themselves, and quietly bulking up the trusts. But a trust spokeswoman insisted that they have plenty of company. (For the sake of taking sides, it would be interesting to know who.)

At any rate, the Kochs have come to stand for climate denialism. In the opposite corner, as it happens, is just plain Coke.

A decade ago, this quintessentially American company noticed that droughts were hurting its ability to bottle soda. Water shortages can really spoil things when you are trying to get, say, all of India to drink Coke (a licensing deal that actually did fall through).

Today, Coke has a vice president for environment and water resources. He lobbies, along with a growing number of other U.S. business leaders, for action to curb global warming.

The parade of sobering reports may rankle conservatives. But in the end, doing something about climate change will be the pro-business approach. Or at least pro-some-businesses. Until then, the what-me-worry fawn will be a proud mascot of denial.




Submit an Op-Ed

Submit a letter to The Editor

Contact Us


Your car search Command Center awaits.
