Climate Denial - Part 1 - Journey to Zero Carbon

To accuse someone of being a climate denier means they refuse to believe in what is proven, not just beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond all doubt. The non belief is therefore more than simple ignorance it represents an underlying bias that borders on malevolence.

The scientific consensus (1) developed over the past 20 years is embodied in the work of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This work, authored by a wide cross section of the relevant international scientific community, has become increasingly confident in making the link between increased anthropogenic CO2 emissions and changes to the global heat balance. In simple terms, rejection of the consensus on climate science means believing in either a world wide academic conspiracy or that the scientific community has endorsed a totally flawed hypothesis.

If we ignore the potential for a global conspiracy theory (for the record I have a very strong anti conspiracy bias) then is it possible that the IPCC has got it completely wrong? In terms of the basic science – the theory that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 drives increased global heat retention – there is no credible suggestion that this does not occur. There are arguments, which are incorporated in the IPCC reports for the most part, around how much warming is associated with each new increment of CO2 emission but no serious opposition to the thesis that CO2 traps heat. When one turns to the required actions to prevent the worst impacts of climate change, there is actually quite a deal of dissention, including among advocates for climate action. The role for nuclear power and the need for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) both endorsed as important decarbonisation mechanisms by the IPCC are rejected by many climate activist groups. An example of this is the climate action plan proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. Sanders has called the use of nuclear and CCS “false solutions” that should be rejected (2). There are other dissenters who argue for adaption rather than mitigation – effectively treating climate change as inevitable and claiming action to make the world resilient to future change is a more practical approach.

Notwithstanding the divergence of views around how best to prioritise climate actions, if the IPCC position on the science behind climate change and the need for rapid decarbonisation is the consensus position then who are the groups rejecting this position and is it justifiable to label them climate deniers or is this too pejorative a description?

The key groups in the developed world typically branded as climate deniers are fossil fuel producers and conservative groups, many of whom have advocated (and in some cases continue to advocate) against the acceptance of climate science and the actions that flow from its conclusion. Those who believe real action on climate change is being held back by these influential individuals and groups will view the climate denier characterisation as both an accurate description and an important tool in driving decarbonisation. One way to effectively mute an opponent is to disqualify them from the discussion – the more important the topic and the more passionate the advocacy the greater the driver to question the credibility and legitimacy of the opposition.

At a professional advocacy level branding these groups as climate deniers is the counterpoint to conservative groups labelling their opponents as climate alarmists – at one level it is all just the cut and thrust of political debate. Following this logic, those following the debate (and voting in upcoming elections) will decide who is engaging in deliberate obfuscation and whether calling for balancing decarbonisation progress against a need for economic stability is really just denier-speak or political pragmatism. Some will clearly decide that the time for pragmatism is long gone and the nation needs to act.

My view would be that most western fossil fuel producers now grudgingly accept the reality of decarbonisation and are seeking to find the best way to survive in this environment. Evidence of change is a little harder to see among anti climate political groups – perhaps the result of needing to satisfy a voting base that doesn’t accept the climate message or the language in which it is couched. It could also be the result of corporate funders being happy for them to run counter climate arguments in an attempt to hold back what they see as more extreme activist suggestions. One could digress into a discussion of whether real action on decarbonisation will come from a sweeping victory by progressive forces or a centrist coalition that rejects the extremes of both denialism and radical economic transformation – again a topic for another day.

Interestingly, the battle for moral legitimacy on climate within western democracies like the US and Australia downplays the critical role in producing and promoting fossil fuels played by China, Russia and the middle east. Are the climate positions of Putin and Xi more important than those of Exxon Mobil or the Australian coal lobby? From a global perspective, I believe that the answer is yes but suing Exxon is a more convenient political target. The role of totalitarian states in the production of anthropogenic CO2 and the rate at which they decarbonise is yet another interesting topic for a later post.

So what about non influential, ordinary citizens who reject climate science and the need for decarbonisation? Let’s start with those for whom there is no obvious ulterior motive for their views – how is it possible for them to have formed personal views at odds with the scientific consensus?

My strong view is that very few non scientists can logically form a personal view on climate – either in support or rejecting the scientific consensus. The reasoning is that while the fundamentals of climate science are pretty much established science, the bulk of the work involving complex modelling of global climatic parameters is way outside the grasp of anyone who is not actively working in the field. Believing in or rejecting climate science, like many other areas of science and maths, is really a proxy for believing in or rejecting the IPCC and the expert scientific community or perhaps believing in the views mounted by high profile climate deniers.

One simple reason that the evidence in the IPCC reports does resonate with everyone (aside from the fact that very few have read the reports) is that unanimity and consensus are not instinctive human responses. We have been conditioned to value freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of opinion. These are fundamental to the creation of western democracies. It is a basic human right that we can’t be forced to accept the views of civic and church leaders and in the case of the former if we don’t like their views we can replace them.

It is also human nature for those in minority, dissenting positions to coalesce around common points of logic and opposition. This is the fertile ground for those seeking to promote alternate climate theories – of both the conspiracy variety and those with a sprinkling of science. The same applies of course to climate zealots. Denying the scientific basis for what some fear as a climate inspired progressive takeover of western society is just as much a standard human response as the eager embrace of a looming climate catastrophe by many who were once members of a counterculture, anti establishment fringe.

Finally there are those deniers who see themselves as obvious losers in the energy transition. If you are a coal miner and the IPCC decides your job will be lost, your community will cease to exist and your house will lose most of its value then you are likely to reject the consensus view and seek solace in alternative outcomes. We all like to think of ourselves as rational beings whose actions and views are made dispassionately based on evidence and fact. This is rarely the case as all sorts of cognitive bias theory proves.

So where does this leave us? Some level of climate denial is inevitable for a range of reasons – both emotional and driven by an opposition to some of the politics that surrounds climate action. As society struggles to move forward with decarbonisation actions – actions which the IPCC suggests need to have us at net zero carbon emissions by 2050 – the beliefs, motivations and voting patterns of Australians will continue to be scrutinised. Labelling conservative groups as climate deniers will continue to be a useful tactic, portraying them increasingly out of step with the constant stream of reports on extreme weather events and changes to natural rhythms. In all likelihood support for political groups who endorse a hard core rejection of climate action will erode, as supporters are peeled away by reports of more frequent bushfires and cheap renewables. Individuals who talk about sun spots, volcanos, plant food and lefty academic conspiracies will need some evidence or something new to maintain fringe relevance.

The climate debate is not static and it is shifting away from a simple belief and denier dynamic. We now focus on the trajectory of the nation’s annual emissions, growth of renewables and the roll out of electric vehicles. The inevitability of decarbonisation (even if at slower rate than many demand) will result in climate deniers looking for new ways to exhibit contrary non alignment. Key technical questions will be about the role for nuclear energy, the use of gas (and fracking) as a bridge fuel and CCS. On a broader societal level the link between climate action and issues like wealth inequality, white privilege and globalism will be made and rejected. There will be ample scope for disagreement and dissent and new definitions for denier and alarmists