Opinion

Climate change deniers full of hot air

The Clean Power Plan is far from perfect, but it is far cheaper than what is to come under a business-as-usual do-nothing alternative. Its benefits, based on the fact that it addresses the worst polluting energy production, reach from avoided air pollution, thus improving public health, to possible reductions in energy costs. less The Clean Power Plan is far from perfect, but it is far cheaper than what is to come under a business-as-usual do-nothing alternative. Its benefits, based on the fact that it addresses the worst polluting ... more Photo: David J. Phillip /Associated Press Photo: David J. Phillip /Associated Press Image 1 of / 1 Caption Close Climate change deniers full of hot air 1 / 1 Back to Gallery

Re: “Clean Power Plan much pain, but little gain,” by Bill Hammond, Other Views, Feb. 8:

The comment about the Clean Power Plan, or CPP, demonstrates how far a large section of Texas political and business leaders are removed from reality.

Using a far-flung analogy to “world peace,” the author sets impossible expectations of what the CPP can achieve or even set as a goal (reduce carbon emissions from the highest polluting source). Next, the author contradicts himself by alleging that reducing carbon emissions through the CPP would result in “self-inflicted wounds” since the U.S. would be the “only company that has taken this action,” followed by questioning the Paris agreement that achieved exactly the opposite — namely, virtually all countries on Earth pledging to take action to reduce emissions.

By pulling out of the agreement, the U.S. would forfeit its international leadership, further diminishing already fragile chances of slowing climate change.

To dismiss the goals of the CPP, the author cherry-picks one number, a low percentage of greenhouse gas emissions reductions that a successful CPP would achieve.

Upon a closer look, that straw man number is completely irrelevant since it compares U.S. man-made greenhouse gas reductions to global total emissions, instead of global man-made emissions (about 37 gigatons in 2015). The correct number thus is around 2.4 percent, or a 32 percent reduction of U.S. electricity production sector-only emissions by 2030 as compared to 2005.

That still is way below what would be necessary to address either historical or current U.S. contributions to increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. But it is a start.

For good measure, climate denialists similar to this author never fail to throw in a comment denying the global consensus on climate science (“the science of climate change is anything but settled”) and to attack their opponents as “alarmists.” They tend to present absolute truths in form of logical fallacies, such as false dichotomies (“The only real answer to reduced emissions is reduced power consumption”) or red herrings (“We must advance our development of improved nuclear power technology”), designed to illicit us-versus-them responses in their followers. The only denialism characteristic missing from this comment is a conspiracy theory alleging wrongdoing on the part of scientists whose work EPA rule-making is based upon.

The displayed denialism, unfortunately common in Texas leadership, has delayed U.S. action on climate change for more than 20 years. While the delay has benefited the fossil fuel industry, which helped launch it, delay is increasingly responsible for economywide losses such as those from extreme weather events. Meaning, contrary to the author’s assertions, there is an increasing consensus among economists that the earlier we address climate change, the cheaper it will be. The further the delay, the more costly climate change will become.

The CPP is far from perfect, but it is far cheaper than what is to come under a do-nothing alternative. Its benefits, based on the fact that it addresses the worst polluting energy production, range from preventing air pollution, thus improving public health, to possible reductions in energy costs. Political and business leaders ought to engage with it, not dismiss it.

Gunnar Schade, Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M University at College Station.