Excerpts from The culture and discourse of climate scepticism by Andrew J. Hoffman* (2011) which looks at the American experience:
The scientific community has concluded that human activity is a major cause of GHG emissions and that these emissions influence global warming (this author subscribes to this view, most notably stated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] and the National Academies of Sciences). However, there is clearly more than science at play in shaping the public and political debate on climate change. It is striking that one of the strongest predictors of an American’s beliefs regarding climate change is his or her political party affiliation. According to a 2009 Pew survey, 75 percent of Democrats believe there is solid evidence of global warming compared to 35 percent of Republicans and 53 percent of Independents (Pew Research Center, 2009b). This variance can only be explained by the presence of a deeper ideological and cultural influence on both the definition of the problem and consideration of solutions…………………..
I recently began a study onthe climate skeptic movement and climate skepticism more broadly to better understand the cultural and ideological issues at play by systematically analyzing the frames used to mobilize the counter-movement. As part of this study, several cultural themes have emerged as dominant among the skeptic movement (Hulme, 2009).
For skeptics, climate change is inextricably tied to a belief that climate science and climate policy is a covert way for liberal environmentalists and the government to interfere in the market and diminish citizens’ personal freedom. In the words of a conference speaker at a 2010 climate skeptic conference, skeptics believe ‘the issue isn’t the issue’ and ‘the environmental agenda seeks to use the state to create scarcity as a means to exert their will, and the state’s authority, over your lives’. Many skeptic conference presenters invoked the idea that ‘climate change is just another attempt to diminish our freedom’ and climate policies will decrease personal liberty. One went so far as to suggest that a binding international agreement on climate change would end with individuals being required to carry ‘carbon ration cards’ on their person.
A second prominent theme among the skeptic movement is a strong faith in the free market. Members of the skeptic movement consistently argued that climate legislation will hinder economic progress and that renewable energy is not feasible without large government subsidies. Another skeptic suggested that ‘doing nothing about climate change is doing something [because] it enables people to keep their money and invest it in the future’.
Finally, one of the most intriguing themes that has emerged from the study is a strong distrust of the scientific peer review process. Skeptics argue that public funding of science in the post-Second World War era through organizations like the National Science Foundation (NSF) corrupted the scientific process. In their view, ‘peer review’ turned into ‘pal review’, and establishment scientist editors only published work by their friends and those whose scientific research findings agreed with their own. This frame was particularly salient at the skeptic conference in the wake of the 4 Strategic Organization 9(1) 2009 ‘Climategate’ controversy, in which thousands of emails were leaked from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit. Skeptics argue that these emails support their claims that dissenting scientific papers have been suppressed, although multiple investigations have cleared the scientists………..
Some may argue that the climate skeptic movement is small and thus irrelevant to the debate on what to do about climate change, but as social scientists, we cannot endorse such flippant dismissal. If, as we suspect, skeptics invoke climate frames that resemble abortion politics, this has serious policy implications. As long as members of the skeptic movement are included in the policy debate and sway the opinions of some lawmakers, their discourse is critically relevant.
* Andrew J. Hoffman is the Holcim (US) Professor of Sustainable Enterprise at the University of Michigan; a position that holds joint appointments at the Stephen M. Ross School of Business and the School of Natural Resources and Environment. Within this role, Andy also serves as associate director of the Frederick A. and Barbara M. Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise. His research uses a sociological perspective to understand the cultural and institutional aspects of environmental issues for organizations. He has published eight books and over 90 articles and book chapters on these issues.
In January 2011 Australia had donated USD $13,047,051 to the Global Crop Diversity Trust’s Svalbard seed vault in Norway, with another USD $8.1 million.
