Nigeria Content Online

Never say that the gods lack a sense of humor. I bet they’re
still chuckling on Olympus over the decision to make the first half of 2010 –
the year in which all hope of action to limit climate change died – the hottest
such stretch on record.

Of course, you can’t infer trends in global temperatures from one
year’s 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 “See, the planet has been cooling, not warming, since 1998!”
Actually, 2005, not 1998, was the warmest year to date – but the point is that
the record-breaking temperatures we’re currently experiencing have made a
nonsense argument even more nonsensical; at this point it doesn’t work even on
its own terms.

But will any of the deniers say “OK, I guess I was wrong,” and
support climate action? No. And the planet will continue to cook.

So why didn’t climate-change legislation get through the Senate?
Let’s talk first about what didn’t cause the failure, because there have been
many attempts to blame the wrong people.

First of all, we didn’t fail to act because of legitimate doubts
about the science. Every piece of valid evidence – 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 – points to a
continuing, and quite possibly accelerating, rise in global temperatures.

Nor is this evidence tainted by scientific misbehavior.

You’ve probably heard about the accusations leveled against
climate researchers – allegations of fabricated data, the supposedly damning
e-mail of “Climategate,” 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’t believe such things can
happen? Think Shirley Sherrod.

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’s
growth rate.

So it wasn’t the science, the scientists, or the economics that
killed action on climate change. What was it?

The answer is, the usual suspects: greed and cowardice.

If you want to understand opposition to climate action, follow
the money. The economy as a whole wouldn’t be significantly hurt if we put a
price on carbon, but certain industries – above all, the coal and oil
industries – would. And those industries have mounted a huge disinformation
campaign to protect their bottom lines.

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’ll find that they’re 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.

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.

By itself, however, greed wouldn’t have triumphed. It needed the
aid of cowardice – 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.

There are a number of such climate cowards, but let me single out
one in particular: Sen. John McCain.

There was a time when 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’t – and
it’s hard to see his switch as anything other than the act of a man willing to
sacrifice his principles, and humanity’s future, for the sake of a few years
added to his political career.

Alas, McCain wasn’t alone; and there will be no climate bill.
Greed, aided by cowardice, has triumphed. And the whole world will pay the
price.

(c) 2010 New York Times
News Service