Eco-nomics: Climate change and that elephant in the room

By Paul Roberts / For The Herald

In 1968 scientists examining ocean and atmospheric conditions concluded that "a doubling in carbon dixoide could increase average global temperature 1 to 3 degrees Celsius by 2050; 10 degrees at the poles."

Their report further stated:

• "Significant temperature changes are almost certain to occur by the year 2000 and these could bring about climate change … a number of events might be expected to occur including the melting of the Antarctic ice cap, a rise in sea levels, warming of the oceans and an increase in photosynthesis."

• "It is clear that we are unsure as to what our long-lived pollutants are doing to our environment; however, there seems to be no doubt that the potential damage to our environment could be severe."

These conclusions were consistent with findings of other scientific research conducted more than 50 years ago.

What is remarkable about these findings is that they are from a report prepared for the American Petroleum Institute (API), a trade organization representing the oil industry.

In a 1969 supplement report for API, scientists projected that based on current fuel usage, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations would reach 370 parts per million by 2000. As of 2000, the number was 369.34 ppm.

This information is from a case filed in U.S. District Court in November 2022: "Municipalities of Puerto Rico v. Exxon Mobile, et al," following hurricanes Irma and Maria in 2017. The information is also well documented in numerous books, articles and publications.

The oil industry knew of the damage their products were causing to the environment at the same time as the rest of the scientific community. Their response was to conduct a multi-million dollar propaganda and disinformation campaign over five decades to undermine climate science, planting doubt in the minds of the public. This campaign is straight out of the the tobacco industry's playbook, casting doubt on the science that tobacco smoke poses a health risk. In fact, some of the same scientists advised the tobacco and oil industries in these efforts.

Today the campaign of disinformation by the oil industry continues with some new players and strategies. The lead story in the July 15 Economist magazine is "Preparing The Way," about how MAGA Republicans are preparing to make a second Donald Trump term or a GOP victory in 2024 effective; in their view. It includes "a pledge to end the war on fossil fuels, by nixing policies designed to limit climate change."

The blueprint for this effort is outlined in a report titled "Project 2025" from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, championed by the America First Policy Institute (AFPI). The climate section was written by Mandy Gunasekara, former Environmental Policy Agency chief of staff during the Trump administration. It acknowledges climate change is real, but in an August NPR interview Gunasekara states: "A lot of the rhetoric that the public sees and experiences is based on a picture that's not consistent with what we've seen with observed climate data, and that the forecasts actually suggest a mild and manageable climate change in the future."

Gunasekara was asked to name the scientists she had consulted to conclude the outlook was "mild and manageable." She said she had heard from numerous scientists but would not name them. When pressed, she said: "We value their contributions and also respect their desire to provide this guidance in confidence."

For the record, the conclusion that climate change impacts will be "mild and manageable" is not supported by any credible science. The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the world scientific community have published extensively on the increasing frequency, intensity and severity of climate-related impacts if we continue a business-as-usual approach to burning fossil fuels.

Business as usual is the approach advocated by Heritage, AFPI and the Republican Party. It is a continuation of a 50-year disinformation campaign to undermine climate science, demonstrating willful ignorance and negligence.

The GOP was not always hostile toward the environment. The Nixon administration led bipartisan efforts, passing more environmentally friendly legislation than any previous U.S. administration. This included the creation of the EPA, National Environmental Policy Act (led by Everett's Sen. Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson), the Clean Air Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Safe Drinking Water Act and the Endangered Species Act.

The GOP reversed direction under the Reagan administration, attacking environmental regulations. Reagan turned to the Heritage Foundation for environmental policy advice rather than moderate Republicans. He appointed Anne Gorsuch to head the EPA. Gorsuch catered to business interests, abolished the Office of Enforcement and reduced staff by more than 20 percent.

The Trump-led Republicans are untethered from reality. President Trump called climate change a hoax, tried to withdraw from the Paris agreements, rolled back environmental regulations, supported increased consumption of fossil fuels and attempted to redirect hurricanes with a sharpie on a map.

The current crop of GOP candidates challenging Trump show little improvement. In the first debate, most dodged the climate issue, one repeated climate change is a hoax, and another conceded climate change is real but blamed the Chinese, even though China's per capita emissions are half that of the U.S.

Climate science is not a belief system. The laws of physics, chemistry and mathematics uniformly apply regardless of politics. Successfully addressing the climate crisis requires the political will to act. It's all hands on deck rowing in the same direction toward a clean energy economy. Only a functioning GOP grounded in reality can do that.

Paul Roberts is retired and lives in Everett. His career spans over five decades in infrastructure, economics and environmental policy including advising Washington cities on climate change.

Eco-nomics

"Eco-nomics" is a series of articles exploring issues at the intersection of climate change and economics. Climate change (global warming) is caused by greenhouse gas emissions — carbon dioxide and methane chiefly — generated by human activities, primarily burning fossil fuels and agricultural practices. Global warming poses an existential threat to the planet. Successfully responding to this threat requires urgent actions — clear plans and actionable strategies — to rapidly reduce GHG emissions and adapt to climate-influenced events.

The Eco-nomics series, to be published every other week in The Herald, is focusing on mitigation and adaptation strategies viewed through the twin perspectives of science and economics.

Read the series thus far at tinyurl.com/RobertsEco-nomics1, tinyurl.com/RobertsEco-nomics2, tinyurl.com/RobertsEco-nomics3, tinyurl.com/RobertsEconomics4, tinyurl.com/RobertsEco-nomics5 and tinyurl.com/RobertsEco-nomics6.