How a Libertarian Think Tank Is Trying to Correct the 'Degenerate' Climate Science Debate in Washington, DC

authordefault
on

There are lots of attributes that seem to work as reliable predictors that a person orย group will reject the science of human-caused climate change and the risks that come fromย it.

In recent years, for example, being a Republican or a Tea Party member has gone hand in hand with branding the science of climate change as a giantย scam.

If youโ€™re one of those conspiracy theorists like Britainโ€™s David Icke or Infowars founder (and apparent President Trump influencer) Alex Jones, then youโ€™ll also be placing climate change into the file marked โ€œilluminatiย hoax.โ€

But perhaps the largest, most active, and influential group pushing climate science denial is Americaโ€™s collective of so-called free-market conservative โ€œthink tanksโ€ that want to cut the size of government and claim to be defending your freedom and liberty โ€” examples include the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

President Donald Trump has been drawing heavily from this collective as he fills hisย administration.

So when one Washington, D.C.โ€“based libertarian think tank released a briefing paper on climate science earlier this month, casual observers might have expected the same messages of doubt, denial, and conspiracy.ย But they would haveย beenย wrong.

Degenerateย Narratives

โ€œWe find a lot of degenerate narratives about climate science amongst libertarians and conservatives in D.C.,โ€ said Joseph Majkut, director of climate science at the Niskanen Center.

Majkut, a Princeton graduate in atmospheric and ocean sciences, has written a dispassionate paper explaining the common myths held as true by manyย conservatives.

โ€œThe climate science debate that you see occurring at fairly high levels of government in the United States is decades behind real climate science,โ€ Majkut toldย DeSmog.ย 

He says with his briefing paper, he wanted to subject some of the common arguments to a โ€œdurabilityย test.โ€

โ€œHow might a policy maker think about climate science,โ€ he asked.ย  โ€œHow might you view the sort of conclusions that you can take from the climate science community โ€” are they durable, what are the common objectives that you cede to them from experts that might lie outside the consensus and might challenge it and how do those objections holdย up?โ€

The paper notes the world is warming, global temperature records are reliable, and there has been no compelling evidence offered that the cause of warming is anything other than human activity.ย While none of this is news to climate scientists, it will be news to manyย conservatives.

In summary, Majkutโ€™s paper concludes that โ€œeven at the lowest reasonable values,โ€ the risks of human-caused climate change are โ€œso largeโ€ that they easily explain the concerns of the so-often disparaged โ€œclimateย advocates.โ€ย 

โ€œIf you are committed to the politics of liberty, then that should have very little to do with what you think the conclusions of climate science are,โ€ saidย Majkut.

The paper does not offer suggestions on policy, but Niskanen thinks there should be a revenue-neutral tax on fossil fuel energy โ€œat the point of productionโ€ โ€” a policy proposal not a million miles away from the kind backed by former NASA climate scientistย James Hansen and a growing (but still tiny) group of Republican members of Congress.

Climate Change as a Libertarianย Cause

Niskanen,ย Majkut said, focuses its efforts on members of Congress and people working in the government administration, โ€œand the people who influence how they think about these issues โ€ฆ the staff and policyย analysts.โ€

He said: โ€œPart of our effort is to say that, as a libertarian organization, we are not in the business of growing the government and we are not in the business of picking winners and losers in energy policy, but we actually think this is a legitimate issue and a lot of the narratives that you rely on areย wrong.โ€

Niskanen was founded in 2014 by Jerry Taylor โ€” a once-staunch opponent of action on climate change who spent more than 20 years at the Catoย Institute.

Taylor, whose younger brother is the Heartland Instituteโ€™s James Taylor, has explained how his views on climate change went through a slow but fundamental change.

As the evidence for human-caused climate change got stronger, Taylor said it became โ€œharder and harderโ€ for him to dismiss it, particularly as a risk managementย issue.

Majkut saidย what convinced his boss was โ€œsimple messages coming from trusted messengers and him then realizing that the scientific narratives that he had embraced were wrong and faulty andย weak.โ€

He says now, the issue of climate change should be seen as โ€œa massive exercise in riskย management.โ€

โ€œIn no other context โ€” national security or whatever โ€” would [Jerry] think it acceptable to just entirely ignore a large scale planetary non-diversifiableย risk.โ€

Majkut argues that when it comes to the protection of property rights and peopleโ€™s freedoms โ€” basic tenets of libertarian and conservative ideology โ€” too many get their analysis back toย front.

โ€œOur world view is sympathetic to the goals of restraining government and letting markets work themselves out,โ€ he said. โ€œBut part of letting markets work themselves out is not stomping on the property rights, the freedom and lives of people across our borders and people in the future.ย We think climate change is informative, we think itโ€™s real, and we should do more about it and climate change puts at risk thoseย things.โ€

Majkut admits the Niskanen Center is in a unique position.ย In many other areas, Niskanenโ€™s staff would share some common ground with advocates for liberty and smallย government.

โ€œOn climate we are distinct, but what we are saying is that accepting climate science as informative should not really affect your politicalย identity.โ€

This week, the Heartland Institute will be in D.C. to host one of its regular conferences promoting climate science denialism. Will Majkut be goingย along?

โ€œNo,โ€ he saidย before placing his tongue firmly in his cheek to add: โ€œIโ€™m on a fake newsย diet.โ€

Main image: Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C. ย Credit: Stephen Melkisethian,ย CC BYNCNDย 2.0

Related Posts

The EU and many member states have set limits for how much manure farmers are allowed to apply in their fields, but crucial oversight is lacking.

The EU and many member states have set limits for how much manure farmers are allowed to apply in their fields, but crucial oversight is lacking.
on

Robert Wilkie was speaking at a conference co-hosted by the group behind the radical Project 2025 agenda.

Robert Wilkie was speaking at a conference co-hosted by the group behind the radical Project 2025 agenda.
on

Scope of corporate influence underscores concerns the technology will be used to prolong demand for planet-heating natural gas.

Scope of corporate influence underscores concerns the technology will be used to prolong demand for planet-heating natural gas.
on

A 1961 oil and gas well is the suspected source of a geyser eruption in the region where Permian wastewater disposal is causing a flurry of earthquakes.

A 1961 oil and gas well is the suspected source of a geyser eruption in the region where Permian wastewater disposal is causing a flurry of earthquakes.