The inspiration for this post was a chart (p 298) in Not the end of the world: How we can be the first generation to build a sustainable planet. by Hannah Ritchie, in which she includes climate change deniers among “those who are opposing environmental action”. As Ritchie explains earlier in the book, the overarching goal of environmental action is to build a sustainable planet where it is still possible to live a good life and “let wildlife flourish alongside us” (p 288).
Granted climate change skeptics are unlikely allies in the fight against climate change, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be allies for other environmental causes. One can doubt the existence or seriousness of climate change and still care about protecting wild habitat and endangered species. Why not?
The same point applies to members of the Republican party, home to many climate change skeptics:
…as well as many individuals who care about the environment:
And often these are the same people, meaning that many climate change skeptics also care about protecting the environment..
A couple years back, Pew Research conducted in-depth interviews with climate change skeptics in the U.S.* In their report, Pew noted a “common call across interviews was for actions to protect natural lands and waterways.” For example:
“I think it’s very important to not overdevelop so there’s still space for natural habitats so animals like foxes and predators don’t start going onto people’s homes and businesses. To have more plants and trees, more biodiversity is very important.” –Man, 20s, Midwest
“I think we should conserve where we can. I think we should protect endangered species, do some of the things we are doing, but I don’t think that includes eliminating fossil fuels or anything like that.” –Woman, 40s, Mountain West
“And it is so very important that we take care of our planet. Let’s not litter. Let’s have good clean water. Let’s not do anything that’s going to hurt our planet that we live in.” –Man, 50s, Coastal Florida.
There is no good reason Republicans** and climate change skeptics can’t be part of a broader environment movement. Environmental activists and groups*** should reach out.
——
* Specifically, “adults who view climate change as a lower priority and do not think the Earth is getting warmer primarily due to human activity were conducted virtually in May 2023 across five geographic areas [in the U.S.]”.
** By “Republicans", I mean the people, not the Trump Administration!
*** At least those who can resist the urge to educate and “set straight” their new recruits. Find common ground and avoid commenting on the rest.
Reference:
In-depth interviews find some Americans consider crisis language overblown, leading to added skepticism of claims. By Giancarlo Pasquini, Alison Spencer, Alec Tyson and Cary Funk. Pew Research August 9, 2023
Additional reading (and one long excerpt):
Commentary on Plans for Environmental Programs under a Second Trump Administration, Part I: The USDA
Commentary on Plans for Environmental Programs under a Second Trump Administration, Part II: The Department of the Interior (on a chapter in Project25, written by a former Trump administration official, who clearly hates environmentalists: “4. The work of the Fish and Wildlife Service is the product of “species cartels” afflicted with group-think, confirmation bias, and a common desire to preserve the prestige, power, and appropriations of the agency that pays or employs them.”
How Democrat and Republican Views on Environmental Policy have Changed over The Last 30 Years
Behind the Headline: Majorities of Republicans and Democrats Agree on Nearly 150 Issues.
Planning for Climate Change under Conditions of Deep Uncertainty
Environmental Politics (Excerpt below)
There was a time when Republicans embraced the cause of environmental protection. Think Progress noted that “some of the greatest conservationists ever to take the oath of office were Republicans.” Both Greenpeace and the Union of Concerned Scientists rated Richard Nixon one of the greenest president ever. And we're not talking ancient history here: both Presidents Bush supported cap and trade policies to reduce pollution.
So what happened? What happened is that the environmental movement was taken over by anti-business purists who essentially vilified their detractors as amoral worshipers of profit and consumption willing to destroy the natural world in relentless pursuit of the almighty dollar. [To illustrate…]
“If you are the Sierra Club, what would you call a senator [John McCain] who: a) voted against oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; b) introduced legislation to cut greenhouse gas emissions; and c) co-wrote a 3.5 million-acre statewide wilderness bill? Answer: the enemy.” - - Joel Connelly, Seattle PI, “Sierra Club throws a sucker punch” March 2, 2008
“Civil disobedience is the response of ordinary people to extraordinary injustices,” the group said in a statement before the protest, casting the climate debate as akin to previous struggles over “slavery, child labor, suffrage, segregation and inequality for gays and immigrant workers.” - - Talia Buford, Politico, “Sierra Club goes Bolder” February 23, 2013
Here we have a message: if you don't agree with us, you're no different than an apologist for slavery and child labor. If you don't get with our program, there will be no future for our children.
Is it any wonder that a lot of Republicans soured on the environmental movement or came to doubt the "consensus" on climate change? Sure, as members of a pro-business/limited government party, it's not surprising that Republicans would be a bit less gung-ho about environmental regulation than Democrats. But that doesn't explain the change in Republican opinion over the last decade or so. …