Never say that the gods lack a sense of humor. I bet they\u2019re still chuckling on Olympus over the decision to make the first half of 2010 \u2014 the year in which all hope of action to limit climate change died \u2014 the hottest such stretch on record.<\/p>\n
Of course, you can\u2019t infer trends in global temperatures from one year\u2019s experience. But ignoring that fact has long been one of the favorite tricks of climate-change deniers: they point to an unusually warm year in the past, and say \u201cSee, the planet has been cooling, not warming, since 1998!\u201d Actually, 2005, not 1998, was the warmest year to date \u2014 but the point is that the record-breaking temperatures we\u2019re currently experiencing have made a nonsense argument even more nonsensical; at this point it doesn\u2019t work even on its own terms.<\/p>\n
But will any of the deniers say \u201cO.K., I guess I was wrong,\u201d and support climate action? No. And the planet will continue to cook.<\/p>\n
So why didn\u2019t climate-change legislation get through the Senate? Let\u2019s talk first about what didn\u2019t cause the failure, because there have been many attempts to blame the wrong people.<\/p>\n
First of all, we didn\u2019t fail to act because of legitimate doubts about the science. Every piece of valid evidence \u2014 long-term temperature averages that smooth out year-to-year fluctuations, Arctic sea ice volume, melting of glaciers, the ratio of record highs to record lows \u2014 points to a continuing, and quite possibly accelerating, rise in global temperatures.<\/p>\n
Nor is this evidence tainted by scientific misbehavior. You\u2019ve probably heard about the accusations leveled against climate researchers \u2014 allegations of fabricated data, the supposedly damning e-mail messages of \u201cClimategate,\u201d and so on. What you may not have heard, because it has received much less publicity, is that every one of these supposed scandals was eventually unmasked as a fraud concocted by opponents of climate action, then bought into by many in the news media. You don\u2019t believe such things can happen? Think Shirley Sherrod.<\/p>\n
Did reasonable concerns about the economic impact of climate legislation block action? No. It has always been funny, in a gallows humor sort of way, to watch conservatives who laud the limitless power and flexibility of markets turn around and insist that the economy would collapse if we were to put a price on carbon. All serious estimates suggest that we could phase in limits on greenhouse gas emissions with at most a small impact on the economy\u2019s growth rate.<\/p>\n
So it wasn\u2019t the science, the scientists, or the economics that killed action on climate change. What was it?<\/p>\n
The answer is, the usual suspects: greed and cowardice.<\/p>\n
If you want to understand opposition to climate action, follow the money. The economy as a whole wouldn\u2019t be significantly hurt if we put a price on carbon, but certain industries \u2014 above all, the coal and oil industries \u2014 would. And those industries have mounted a huge disinformation campaign to protect their bottom lines.<\/p>\n
Look at the scientists who question the consensus on climate change; look at the organizations pushing fake scandals; look at the think tanks claiming that any effort to limit emissions would cripple the economy. Again and again, you\u2019ll find that they\u2019re on the receiving end of a pipeline of funding that starts with big energy companies, like Exxon Mobil, which has spent tens of millions of dollars promoting climate-change denial, or Koch Industries, which has been sponsoring anti-environmental organizations for two decades.<\/p>\n
Or look at the politicians who have been most vociferously opposed to climate action. Where do they get much of their campaign money? You already know the answer.<\/p>\n
By itself, however, greed wouldn\u2019t have triumphed. It needed the aid of cowardice \u2014 above all, the cowardice of politicians who know how big a threat global warming poses, who supported action in the past, but who deserted their posts at the crucial moment.<\/p>\n
There are a number of such climate cowards, but let me single out one in particular: Senator John McCain.<\/p>\n
There was a time when Mr. McCain was considered a friend of the environment. Back in 2003 he burnished his maverick image by co-sponsoring legislation that would have created a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions. He reaffirmed support for such a system during his presidential campaign, and things might look very different now if he had continued to back climate action once his opponent was in the White House. But he didn\u2019t \u2014 and it\u2019s hard to see his switch as anything other than the act of a man willing to sacrifice his principles, and humanity\u2019s future, for the sake of a few years added to his political career.<\/p>\n
Alas, Mr. McCain wasn\u2019t alone; and there will be no climate bill. Greed, aided by cowardice, has triumphed. And the whole world will pay the price.<\/p>\n