On Global Warming, Should You Trust the Wall Street Journal, or Chevron, ExxonMobil and the Defense Department??

This is a guest post by Jamie Vernon, a 2011-12 AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow.

The Wall Street Journal has published a letter that makes an emotionally persuasive case about why we should not “panic about global warming.” The authors, 7 engineers and 9 scientists (4 of whom are climate scientists and 1 biologist), have assembled convincing arguments based on their opinions of climate science.  The question is, should we trust them?

We all care deeply about our planet and will do what we can to preserve it. Clearly, though, some of us have different opinions about how to interpret the science of climate change and whether it represents a real risk. Precious few of us are experts in climatology, so we are left to seek out information from those who we believe we can trust. Each of us appeals to different sources for our information. For whatever reasons, some choose not to side with the expert scientists. That leaves us in quite the conundrum. If not the scientific community and not the authors of this letter, then who should we trust when it comes to climate change?

Words are cheap. Therefore, if we are to look outside our personal trusted sources of information for an objective perspective on climate change, we might need to look at who is actually taking action to respond to the so-called threat of climate change. I believe we all can agree that someone who chooses to make a substantial commitment to curbing greenhouse gases has very likely examined the scientific evidence and reached the conclusion that the risks of inaction outweigh the costs of action. That is why it is important to consider who is responding to the projected threat of global warming and why they are doing so.

Here are some real-world examples that, in conjunction with the science, make a compelling argument for not only rejecting this Wall Street Journal article, but also taking the time to rethink whether the threat of climate change merits a response:

• In 2006 the Center for Naval Analysis convened a Military Advisory Board of eleven retired three-star and four-star admirals and generals to assess the impact of global climate change on key matters of national security, and to lay the groundwork for mounting responses to the threats found. The MAB released a landmark report, National Security and the Threat of Climate Change, that articulates the concept of climate change acting as a “threat multiplier” for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world and identifies key challenges that must be planned for now if they are to be met effectively in the future. Among many suggestions for “managing the security impacts of climate change,” the report recommended, “the U.S. should become a more constructive partner with the international community to help build and execute a plan to prevent destabilizing effects of climate change, including setting targets for long term reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.”

• In February 2010 the Department of Defense published its Quadrennial Defense Review, a legislatively-mandated review of Department of Defense strategy and priorities. The report stated, “Climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments.” As a response to increased global challenges posed by climate change, the Department of Defense has undertaken many contingency plans.  To address the causes of climate change, “the Department is increasing its use of renewable energy supplies and reducing energy demand to improve operational effectiveness, reduce greenhouse gas emissions in support of U.S. climate change initiatives, and protect the Department from energy price fluctuations.”

• The 2011 Carbon Disclosure Report S&P 500 analyzed the disclosures of 339 of the largest U.S. companies. The report revealed that corporate America is taking clear action to respond to climate change. UPS, Consolidated Edison and Dow Chemical were among the most active US companies, while companies with “best carbon performance” were Air Products & Chemicals, Alcoa, Bank of America, Cisco Systems, Clorox, Consolidated Edison, CSX, Ecolab, Lockheed Martin, Molson Coors Brewing and Morgan Stanley. The report also found that the proportion of companies that have senior executive or board members overseeing their climate change programs jumped from 68 percent in 2010 to 87 percent in 2011. There was also a doubling of companies reporting climate change policies as an integral part of corporate business strategy, up from 35 percent of respondents in 2010 to 65 percent in 2011.  Further, 64 percent of respondents are setting greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.

• As of January 2012, several of the major global petroleum producers have publicly acknowledged the negative effects of greenhouse gases on Earth’s atmosphere and undertaken steps to reduce CO₂ emissions. Below are a few quotes directly copied from their websites:
  

  BP: “Current forecasts underscore the size of the climate change challenge. BP’s analysis suggests that CO₂ emissions could rise by at least 27% by 2030, despite expected tightening in global climate policy. Even assuming that more aggressive policy changes are enacted, carbon emissions are likely to rise by up to 9% by 2030. We support policies that we believe can address climate change while also making it possible for society to meet growing demand for secure and affordable energy.”

  ExxonMobil: “Rising greenhouse-gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems. Since most of these emissions are energy-related, any integrated approach to meeting the world’s growing energy needs over the coming decades must incorporate strategies to address the risk of climate change.”

  Chevron: “We recognize and share the concerns of governments and the public about climate change. The use of fossil fuels to meet the world’s energy needs is a contributor to an increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs)—mainly carbon dioxide (CO₂) and methane—in the Earth’s atmosphere. There is a widespread view that this increase is leading to climate change, with adverse effects on the environment.”

A common rallying cry from “global warming alarmists” is that big corporations and oil giants are doing nothing to address the problem of climate change while doing much to contribute to it. The fossil fuel industry has specifically been accused of perpetuating skepticism of climate science for their benefit. It is true that many of the major climate skeptics have benefited from organizations historically funded by the oil industry. Now, though, even ExxonMobil is publicly acknowledging the risks posed to the planet by increasing carbon emissions. Further, Greenpeace U.S.A. recently has confirmed that ExxonMobil had significantly reduced its donations to groups known to promote such climate science skepticism. With Fortune 500 companies and the petroleum industry now responding to climate science, we are left to wonder just who are these climate science deniers and what is their motivation?

Look, we have made a mess of our planet. Scientists have determined that unnatural amounts of CO₂ have accumulated in the atmosphere for the last 150 years. Physics tells us that CO₂ in the atmosphere creates a warming effect. High levels of CO₂ also lead to ocean acidification, which is disrupting our marine ecosystems. All of these scientific facts should be sufficient to warrant action. And yet, many resist the evidence. Fortunately, some responsible people are taking action to curtail the problem, namely the U.S military, Fortune 500 corporations and even major oil companies.  Thanks to their investments, these and many other businesses are seeing increases in their bottom line from emissions reduction and energy efficiency programs.

We shouldn’t waste time debating why a few rogue scientists have chosen to step into the limelight by opposing mainstream science. Instead, we can clean up our mess. The IPCC tells us that if we act in a responsible way, we can stave off the worst effects of global warming. In fact, Google recently estimated that if we choose to aggressively invest in energy innovations, compared to business as usual (no major changes in energy policy), we could potentially grow the U.S. economy by over $155 billion in GDP per year (beyond normal growth) by 2030, while creating 1.1 million new jobs, saving U.S. consumers $942 per household per year, reducing U.S. oil consumption by over 1.1 billion barrels per year and reducing U.S. total greenhouse gas emissions by 13%. With major “Clean Policy” action, we could expect even more growth and less carbon emitted.

America has led on nearly every major scientific issue in the last 100 years. We will do it, again, on this one as soon as we choose to commit to it. So, let’s ignore this WSJ article and get to work.

Jamie L. Vernon is a 2011-12 AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow.  Follow him on Twitter @JLVernonPhD.

Comments on this article

By clicking and submitting a comment I acknowledge The Intersection Privacy Policy and agree to The Intersection Terms of Use. I understand that my comments are also being governed by Facebook's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.