The Politics of Change (Climate Change that is)

When dealing with U.S. politics I always like to think of the quote from Otto von Bismarck about laws being like sausages, that it's better not to see them being made.  It implies a certain disgust that might come from the process, which for many is exactly where the politics around climate change is now. 

On Capitol Hill, the supposed crucible of honest political thought, climate change is viewed with such disdain that public debate on the issue is almost nonexistent.  Even the most progressive lawmaker who supports actions to address climate change avoids speaking directly of it lest some of its negative mojo stick to them.  In fact, the only Member of Congress that I can think of who has recently come out and spoken about climate change forcefully and publicly is Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island, who happens to also be probably the most eloquent person on Capitol Hill.  If you haven’t had a chance to see his speech you should, it’s on youtube of course: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6VQ0vYfrAw  Though as a warning to all those with a short attention spans, the Senator’s speech is 23 minutes long – eloquent but not brief.  

Why is climate change such a dirty word (or two words in this case) on Capitol Hill?  Put simply, any action to address climate change has become the victim of a political game and been branded as harmful to our American way of life.

As an aside, I’m always amused by the idea that the United States is perfect and we shouldn’t change anything.  I wonder if Apple had followed that same thought process whether or not all of us (and I do mean all of us) would still have some sort of i-product in at least one of our pockets?  One of the greatest things about this country I think has been our willingness to innovate and lead.

Is it true that addressing climate change through laws or policies will be harmful for our economy and our country?  I think this is a perfectly valid question.  Quite frankly I think this is the way all issues should be approached by Congress, with open and frank debate.  But to do this all facts must be put on the table, which is not the case with climate change.  If you listen to any of the arguments against taking action on climate change they all revolve on the short-term view (usually in the immediate 2 to 6 year range with is coincidently how long a Representative or Senator serves in Congress).  Climate change however by its very nature is a slow moving process that has serious long-term consequences.  Isn’t it human nature to consider both the short-term and long-term ramifications of any serious action we are contemplating?  Apparently this type of logic is unknown on Capitol Hill.  I once heard Tony Blaire say that while he was Prime Minister of Great Britain it would have been much more convenient if problems came one at a time so you could address them each in turn.  Yet it’s almost impossible to convince any lawmaker to not give all of their attention to short-term and immediate issues because of there is such a heavy skew of political gain or loss associated with that issue.  This has been true since the days of the first toga clad politician.  Yet I wonder if we should expect more than just a myopic political view from those that we put our trust in?

Politics as usual is just part of the problem around climate change.  Partisanship is the other.  Right now we find ourselves in a horribly frustrating time of strong partisan politics, probably the worst since the Hoover Administration (I actually don’t know if this is true but I just like saying Hoover).  And in times of partisan politics there is a deep seeded need to label everything as our issue or their issue and to support or go against the issue accordingly.  Climate change has been tabbed as a “liberal” issue supported by environmentalists that will harm American businesses and our economy.  It’s interesting that many of this country’s largest companies not only dispute this notion but actually advocate on behalf of taking action to address climate change and have been investing in related actions for years.  But partisan politics is about closed ears and open mouths.  Why address an issue honestly when you can paint it as evil and use as a weapon to defeat those Senators or Representatives who represent the “other side”?  The partisan environment is so toxic that even advocacy groups who normally support climate change action are leery to talk about it too much from fear they might have doors slammed in their face.

What all of this means is that climate change is unpopular because it can’t meet the test of two powerful political forces:  The politics of now; and the politics of us versus them.   

Should we pass laws or change policy to address climate change?  This question can’t possibly be answered unless we acknowledge the fundamental truth that climate change is real and should be open for debate.  Anything else is political theatre.  Make your case either way, but make it honestly.