http://www.citizen-times.com/story/opinion/2018/01/19/opinion-solving-our-problems-together-and-science/1045614001/
John Hood, chairman of the John Locke Foundation, a self-described conservative/ libertarian think tank, has written several thought-provoking pieces for the Asheville Citizen Times over the past few months. Recently, Hood argued that Gov. Roy Cooper should approve the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline through North Carolina, and that progressives should stop fighting against work requirements for Medicaid. On Jan. 1 of this month, Hood lauded North Carolina politicians for their role in the recent tax overhauls in our state and at the federal level.
What has stood out to me from Hood’s recent columns is not the policy details — though I have read and considered them carefully — but the call he made in his Jan. 1 column for respectful discourse on policy matters. Hood writes, “… our political discourse suffers from the same malady evident in most of the rest of the country: a coarseness, a nastiness, an inability to argue one’s case forcefully and passionately without accusing the other side of evil intentions or rank stupidity…. Of course we are going to disagree. You may well think some of the policies I’ve just discussed in this column deserve condemnation, not praise. Fine. Argue your point. Don’t just hurl insults.”
I could not agree with him more! In my column of a few weeks ago (“Non-partisan communication in a partisan world,” Nov. 25, 2017), I argued that it is incumbent upon each of us to seek common ground with those seemingly from the “other side,” and that at heart, most of us want to listen, grow, and work together.
Extending the conversation, I believe that when debating important policy issues, we must be willing and eager to search for the best possible science available. In this context, “best possible science” cannot be a single scientific article or book published by one researcher working independently, or worse, from a think tank or other organization with questionable motives.
Take one area of most interest to me — climate change. If someone engages me in a discussion about climate change science or energy policy, and what he brings to the table is an argument from an “expert” from a biased organization with ulterior motives, then he is not coming to the table with an open mind or even with good intentions.
This not an abstraction. I recently saw what appeared to be a serious article about the aspirations of some North Carolina counties and municipalities to move towards 100 percent renewable energy, but the only climate change/energy policy “expert” quoted in the article is from the Heartland Institute, an organization clearly not wishing to pursue the best available science on climate change and energy. Not surprisingly, the “expert” presented a quite negative view on the aspirations of these counties and municipalities. Why did the author not ask a scientist from NASA or the Department of Energy, or seek information from the National Academy of Sciences? The reason is that he is not welcoming reasonable debate about the issue.
On climate change, there are numerous extremely credible summative reports available to the public. For example, the Climate Science Special Report was recently released by federal agencies under the Trump administration. Part of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, the comprehensive report was written by our country’s top scientists, including a couple of experts from NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information in Asheville. Quoting the report, “This assessment concludes, based on extensive evidence, that it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming [increase of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit] since the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.”
Given the overwhelming scientific evidence that man-made climate change is real and poses a serious current and future threat to human livelihood, the public debate should instead move toward mitigating the effects, and how to best transition away from polluting fossil fuels and towards cleaner sources of energy. Here again, we must be willing to seek the best available information and science. I have recently heard well-intentioned people railing against the Trump administration for killing the regulatory Clean Power Plan created under President Obama, but not wanting to listen to alternatives, such as solutions based on free-market principles. (To be fair, no alternatives have been offered by the Trump administration.)
The truth is, most of the world’s leading economists conclude that the most effective means for making the transition to cleaner fuels is a carbon pricing program, which is market-based. (The non-partisan Citizens’ Climate Lobby and the conservative Climate Leadership Council both advocate for carbon pricing, with the stipulation that all revenues collected are returned as dividends to American households.) Further governmental regulations, a non-starter with Republican leaders of Congress, is simply not the most effective means for doing this, anyway.
What I’m suggesting is that we must suspend our judgment and even set aside some of our deeply-held values, seek the best available science on the subject, and throw in a heavy dose of critical thinking. It is with these skills and an open mind that together we will solve our society’s largest problems.
Michael Hill, Ph.D., teaches mathematics and environmental science at Asheville School. He is a volunteer and congressional liaison with Citizens’ Climate Lobby.
No comments:
Post a Comment