The good news from America

Mark Lynas

Published 14 February 2008

Most environmentalists are indeed leftists who support the redistribution of wealth and believe in a simpler lifestyle

I'm in a darkened room, my face plastered with make-up, somewhere in Manhattan. With powerful lights on all sides, all I can see is the camera lens. My earpiece crackles and the first interviewer comes through, from a TV station in Minnesota. First the pleasantries, then the lead-in to the question: "Some scientists say this global warming is just another natural cycle . . ."

Welcome to the US climate-change debate. I was a guest of National Geographic, which has produced a 90-minute documentary film based on my book Six Degrees. Certainly, there was interest: I spent an exhausting 12 hours a day on the phone and on camera in a wide variety of radio and TV stations nationwide. I fielded callers on West Coast phone-ins, spoke to drivetime DJs in Midwestern cities and spent an hour webchatting on a social networking site. Every time, the same question came up: "Some scientists say . . ."

The answer is easy, but that is not the point. While scepticism about climate change is now a minority view - and in most interviews, once the obligatory question was out of the way, we had fascinating discussions - it is clearly a deep-seated social and political phenomenon, tapping in to a complex well of psychological fears and anxieties. One of the most persistent seems to be the identification of climate-change concerns with a "liberal" political viewpoint. You can see how this happened. Most environmentalists are indeed leftists who support the redistribution of wealth and think a simpler lifestyle would be better for all. Conservatives had nowhere to go. For them, global warming could not exist. The divide became rigid under the Bush adminis tration, whose rejectionist approach to climate change confirmed that you could be either an environmentalist or a conservative, but not both.

This may come to be seen as a grave strategic error by the right. By spending years in anti-scientific denial, this lobby has lost the chance to set the international negotiating agenda and advance free-market proposals for tackling greenhouse-gas emissions. Instead of wasting time arguing that nothing need be done about global warming, conservative economists should have been using their expertise to design trading systems to manage the problem efficiently and in a growth-oriented way. In the meantime, the general public got used to the idea that tackling carbon emissions was about piety and self-sacrifice rather than about being successful or aspirational.

This is why John McCain has been important. Despite being an out-and-out conservative on economic and social issues, he has a track record of advancing efforts to promote global warm- ing mitigation. In 2003, he and the Democratic senator Joe Lieberman introduced the first ever climate bill in the Senate. The legislation was voted down, but helped set the agenda for the great shift in US public opinion that has taken place since.

This is why the virtual coronation of John McCain as Republican presidential candidate is so important. Whoever wins the election (both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have policies on climate that are tougher than McCain's), there will be a decisive shift in US policy. Business is already preparing for a mandatory, US-wide "cap and trade" system; states such as California are competing to be the first to design it.

With Bush history, a new administration will be in place by the time the negotiating process launched in Bali completes in December 2009 in Copenhagen. Scientifically speaking, this is probably the world's last chance to set a long-term emissions-reduction path that will keep the planet within the target of a 2°C increase in warming. With the Americans onside, it will be possible to get that deal.

For the first time in years, I am optimistic.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

11 comments from readers

Carl Jones
14 February 2008 at 11:13

Mark: are you on another planet? The warmest US summer on record, was in the 1950`s...this fact was proven beyond doubt in a British court. Greater urbanisation has affected weather station data and this winter has seen greater snow fall all over the world bettering 50 and 70 year rocords.

Your usual rant about the majority scientific consensus fails to recognise where scientific funding comes from and what would happen to that funding, if scientists failed to support this NWO mantra.

You are facing extinction, time is running out for you.LOL

Carl Jones
16 February 2008 at 14:13

Mark, may I surgest you read these links and then ask yourself a question; Am I peddling a NWO global warming construct?

http://www.rense.com/general80/wilmce.htm

http://www.rense.com/general80/wilmce2.htm

If global warming were true and imminant, then NWO controlled US media, would be unrelenting with the global warming message....this is not happening. So it stands to reason, any changes in Earths climate, are not down to normal human activities. As I have stated before, "they" are messing with the weather, you just need to learn how they are doing it.:)

taghioff.info
17 February 2008 at 16:03

This is a good sign, but even carbon trading will not get around the need for redistribution and simple lifestyles.

It is not just carbon sinks that are a limiting resource, but also pretty much everything else, given the exponential growth in natural resource consumption that economic growth, as observed up till now, seems to involve.

Conservatives might just have to start thinking what it is that is worth conserving. If our current growth path implies rising prices for basic commodities, such as food, that are becoming scarce, this also implies that those who are not able to pay will go under.

So how many human lives are we willing to trade in for the sake of continuing our current way of life?

Carl Jones
18 February 2008 at 20:14

Hey Mark, better book your ticket.LOL

http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork08.cfm

Pat T
18 February 2008 at 21:42

There is no "need for redistribution and simpler lifestyles" - certainly no "need" for redistribution -the "gap" between the rich and poor is growing but (A) it's not the same rich and poor from one decade to the next and (B) both classes are richer than they were - one is simply richer by a greater amount.

As for lifestyles, the call to impose "simpler lifestyles" is no different from the call to impose "more moral lifestyles." The government has no more business limiting "consumerism" than it has limiting homosexuality.

Pat T
18 February 2008 at 21:44

But ultimately, the reason your agenda will fail is that you hung your hat on the weather, which for the last several years has stopped cooperating.

You can spin "warming causes cooling" or 'warming causes extremes" or "man-made global dimming offsets man-made global warming" which seems to be Hansen's excuse, or "the warming will pick up again after 2009" which seems to be Hadley Centre's excuse, but people are jumping OFF your bandwagon because they can see through it.

Cybertiger
18 February 2008 at 22:20

I think there are too many Americans, Catholics, and people called Pat - time for a radical cull.

Pat T
19 February 2008 at 14:06

You mean there are too many facts that don't reconcile with AGW.....

Brute
04 March 2008 at 20:26

“Most environmentalists are indeed leftists who support the redistribution of wealth and believe in a simpler lifestyle.”

Redistribute your collective wealth amongst yourselves and live a simpler lifestyle in a self imposed commune somewhere. We'll leave you to your own devices; fair enough?

A Friendly Seattleite
07 April 2008 at 02:53

I can't figure is how your article even reaches the stament “Most environmentalists are indeed leftists who support the redistribution of wealth and believe in a simpler lifestyle.” which btw is untrue.

Your idea is silly.

Peter Martin
21 April 2008 at 01:42

Mark,

I feel your opening line "Most environmentalists are indeed leftists who support the redistribution of wealth and believe in a simpler lifestyle" requires some comment.

It may well be true that the environmental movement is dominated by, often quite wealthy, people who advocate a simpler lifestyle, and usually for others not necessarily for themselves! However, I would question whether this viewpoint can be counted as 'leftist' . Traditionally, criticism from the left has been that capitalism , besides, being unfair, is also inefficient in that it condemns many to unemployment and poverty. Today that criticism is still valid in the developing world even if it isn't in the richer countries, but the economic storm clouds which are brewing worldwside may yet shortly bring the return of widespread unemployment to the USA and Europe too.

In any case, and under whatever political system, any attempt to force the adoption of a pre-industrial lifestyle on the world is bound to end in failure. For a start the world population is too high for that to be possible now. So, any solution has to be both low carbon and high technology.

Renewable sources of energy need to be utilised to the full. Solar, Geothermal, Wind. However I can't see that they are going to be enough, so we should aim to replace oil and coal fired stations by nuclear energy for electricity generation. There is enough Uranium 235 to keep us going for at least the next 100 years. More if fast breeder reactors are used. After that we can expect nuclear fusion to take over. There is enough Deuterium and Tritium in the sea to keep us going for ever if we can work out how to build fusion reactors.

People are scared of nuclear energy. But many countries have operated it safely for many years. No source of energy is risk free. We just have to make it as safe as it can be. The safety figures are comparatively very good, some would say excellent, even when you include the Chernobyl disaster. That shouldn't happen again with newer and better designed reactors.

The world's forests and oceons need to be managed scientifically to keep them and their ecosystems in good health. Forests can still be used as a source of timber, it's when the timber is burned that CO2 is emitted. So, we should look at using timber as a replacement for concrete and other building materials.

Oil is not so readily replaced for transportation. If we can develop good enough batteries, electric cars are a solution. If not, liquid hydrogen will work for cars and trucks. Other solutions are being promoted these days, e.g. compressed gaseous hydrogen, but I don't see anything but liquid hydrogen that will both avoid the emission of CO2 and give the range of petrol/gasoline/diesel powered engines.

Electrical batteries are progressing well. GM are planning to release a plug in hybrid in the next couple of years which will have a range of 100km or so. Most drivers would only use petrol or gasoline on longer trips.

Hydrogen seems rather bulky for aeroplanes, although some experts think that the advantage of having less weight for given energy will outweigh the disadvantage of having more bulk per unit energy. Most likely, we can continue to use oil, probably synthetic, for the indefinite future. If aeroplanes become the only major source of putting CO2 in the atmosphere, then the earth can cope with that.

Its all going to require some money. I would suggest by diverting some of the trillions of dollars spent on military technologies towards the development of these newer technologies. No jobs need be lost - the guys we need to develop nuclear fusion etc are, by and large, currently working on 'defence' based work. They need to do something a bit more useful.

I would suggest that those who are making these sort of arguments are the true leftists rather than those who advocate economic impoverishment for the emerging world.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

You may enter up to 2000 characters (about 300-350 words)

Characters left:

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

About the writer

Mark Lynas

Mark Lynas is a climate change writer and activist, author of the acclaimed book 'High Tide' and fortnightly columnist for the New Statesman. He was selected by National Geographic as an 'Emerging Explorer' for 2006, and blogs on www.marklynas.org

Read More

Vote!

Will China rule the world?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker