Originally published Monday, June 29, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Comments (173)
E-mail article
Print view
Share
Paul Krugman / Syndicated Columnist
The federal climate-change bill: Deniers commit treason against the planet
To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial, writes columnist Paul Krugman, you need to know about the latest climate research: The planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected. According to a number of recent studies, catastrophe is the most likely outcome if we continue along our present course.
Syndicated columnist
So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement.
But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.
And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn't help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.
To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial, you need to know about the grim turn taken by the latest climate research.
The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected: Ice caps are shrinking, and arid zones spreading, at a terrifying rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe — a rise in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable — can no longer be considered a mere possibility. It is, instead, the most likely outcome if we continue along our present course.
Thus researchers at MIT, who were previously predicting a temperature rise of a little more than 4 degrees by the end of this century, are now predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees. Why? Global greenhouse-gas emissions are rising faster than expected; some mitigating factors, like absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, are turning out to be weaker than hoped; and there's growing evidence that climate change is self-reinforcing — that, for example, rising temperatures will cause some Arctic tundra to defrost, releasing even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Temperature increases on the scale predicted by the MIT researchers and others would create huge disruptions in our lives and our economy. As a recent authoritative U.S. government report points out, by the end of this century New Hampshire may well have the climate of North Carolina today, Illinois may have the climate of East Texas, and across the country extreme, deadly heat waves — the kind that traditionally occur only once in a generation — may become annual or biannual events.
In other words, we're facing a clear and present danger to our way of life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify failing to act?
Well, sometimes even the most authoritative analyses get things wrong. And if dissenting opinion-makers and politicians based their dissent on hard work and hard thinking — if they had carefully studied the issue, consulted with experts and concluded that the overwhelming scientific consensus was misguided — they could at least claim to be acting responsibly.
But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn't see people who've thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don't like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they've decided not to believe in it — and they'll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds their denial.
Indeed, if there was a defining moment in Friday's debate, it was the declaration by Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia that climate change is nothing but a "hoax" that has been "perpetrated out of the scientific community."
I'd call this a crazy conspiracy theory, but doing so would actually be unfair to crazy conspiracy theorists. After all, to believe that global warming is a hoax you have to believe in a vast cabal consisting of thousands of scientists — a cabal so powerful that it has managed to create false records on everything from global temperatures to Arctic sea ice.
Yet Broun's declaration was met with applause.
Given this contempt for hard science, I'm almost reluctant to mention the deniers' dishonesty on matters economic. But in addition to rejecting climate science, the opponents of the climate bill made a point of misrepresenting the results of studies of the bill's economic impact, which all suggest that the cost will be relatively low.
Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn't it politics as usual?
Yes, it is — and that's why it's unforgivable.
Do you remember the days when Bush administration officials claimed that terrorism posed an "existential threat" to America, a threat in whose face normal rules no longer applied? That was hyperbole — but the existential threat from climate change is all too real.
Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it's in their political interest to pretend that there's nothing to worry about. If that's not betrayal, I don't know what is.
Paul Krugman is a regular columnist for The New York Times.
2009, New York Times News Service
NEW - 02:31 PM
Ryan Blethen / Times editorial columnist: Referendum 71 shows Washington's strategy for marriage equality is working
NEW - 02:12 PM
Ellen Goodman / Syndicated columnist: There's no democracy for Afghanistan without respect for its women
NEW - 02:02 PM
Guest columnist: Cut the South Carolina jokes, Seattle. Get ready to compete
NEW - 02:12 PM
Guest columnist: Seattle City Council should revisit Seattle Children's expansion plans
NEW - 02:02 PM
Paul Krugman / Syndicated Columnist: The economy is starting to look like Obama's Anzio

Mourners gather at KeyArena for slain officer's memorial
Mourners gathered at KeyArena for the memorial service of Seattle police Officer Timothy Brenton on November 6, 2009.
nwjobs

Post a comment

Michelle Goodman blogs about work/life balance.
How to tell your office you're gravely ill
Post a comment
nwautos

Choosing a new sedan? Weigh the impact of your choice on your wallet and on the planet.
Post a comment
- Flags were key link to cop slaying, bombings
- Suspect shot as city mourns slain officer
- Briefs | Soccer: New Mexico suspends hair-pulling player Elizabeth Lambert
- Bombs, guns found at home of suspect in Officer Brenton's slaying
- McGinn pulling away as late ballots come in
- Huskies suffer another heartbreaking loss to UCLA
- Using anti-shooter tactics, civilian Army police officer brought down gunman
- Heavy snow in Cascades shuts down roads
- How an underdog named Mike McGinn took City Hall
- Consortium on verge of owning Eastside railway land
- UCLA game thread
940 - Weapons, bomb-making materials found in suspect's apartment
334 - Troubling portrait emerges of Fort Hood suspect
292 - Decision day for health care in the House
200 - U.S. House passes health plan
199 - Bombs, guns found at home of suspect in Officer Brenton's slaying
125 - Huskies suffer another heartbreaking loss to UCLA
101 - Referendum 71 show's Washington's strategy for marriage equality is working
91 - Grading the game
64 - How an underdog named Mike McGinn took City Hall
49
- Suspect shot as city mourns slain officer
- Flags were key link to cop slaying, bombings
- 10 ways to take control of your health
- Danny Westneat | Lee the Horse Logger found slow wagon shrank tumor
- Guest columnist | Cut the South Carolina jokes, Seattle. Get ready to compete
- 10 investing missteps to avoid
- Bombs, guns found at home of suspect in Officer Brenton's slaying
- Consortium on verge of owning Eastside railway land
- McGinn pulling away as late ballots come in
- The birth of 'Grunge,' in photos by Michael Lavine









