8. Examination of Climate Change: Voters and Political Parties Views

Note: I initially limited this examination of voter and political party views to climate change but expanded it to include nuclear power because my evaluation of the ability of the US to meet a goal of zero CO2 emissions by 2050 found US climate change mitigation and nuclear energy are inextricably tied together.

If you Google Republicans and climate change, you would see stories that some Republicans are moving towards accepting the scientific evidence for climate change and initiating action to mitigate climate change. If you Google Democrats and nuclear power, you would find stories that some Democrats are recognizing that nuclear power is essential to address climate change. Yet the Republicans are led by a President that denies climate change and two of the three top contenders for the Democratic nomination for President oppose any use of nuclear power. Democrats have a long history of a negative perception of nuclear power and a positive perception of the validity of climate change. Republicans have a long history of a positive perception of nuclear power and a negative perception of the validity of climate change.

8.1 Voters Views on Climate Change

A recent Pew Research poll shows the share of Americans calling global climate change a major threat to the well-being of the United States has grown from 40% in 2013 to 57% this year. But the rise in concern has largely come from Democrats. Opinions among Republicans on this issue remain largely unchanged with 16% in 2013 and 21% in this year calling it a threat.(https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/28/u-s-concern-about-climate-change-is-rising-but-mainly-among-democrats/).

and knowledge of science doesn’t seem to change Republicans opinion of climate change but does Democrat’s opinion.

Others reporting similar results are CBS (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-poll-climate-change-will-be-an-issue-for-most-voters-in-2020/) and Gallup (https://news.gallup.com/poll/248027/americans-concerned-ever-global-warming.aspx). The Kaiser Family Foundation/Washington Post Climate Change Survey (KFF/WP) poll conducted August 2019 shows 76% of adults say climate change is best described as a crisis or major problem but not crisis compared to 59% in October 2014 (https://www.kff.org/other/report/the-kaiser-family-foundation-washington-post-climate-change-survey/). Opinions among Republicans show 52% of adults say climate change is best described as a crisis or major problem but not crisis compared to 36% in October 2014.

8.2 Voters views on Nuclear Power

Americans are evenly split on the use of nuclear power as a U.S. energy source. Forty-nine percent of U.S. adults either strongly favor (17%) or somewhat favor (32%) the use of nuclear energy to generate electricity, while 49% either strongly oppose (21%) or somewhat oppose (28%) its use. (https://news.gallup.com/poll/248048/years-three-mile-island-americans-split-nuclear-power.aspx) Republicans have consistently supported nuclear power while Democrats oppose its use.

Americans' views on the use of nuclear energy to provide electricity for the U.S. have fluctuated since Gallup first measured them in 1994, seemingly in reaction to domestic energy prices. Support for nuclear power climbed as the price of oil spiked in 2010. However, Americans' interest in nuclear power since then generally has trended downward as the prices of oil and natural gas have decreased and domestic production of these energy sources has increased. In early 2016, amid a glut of domestic oil and a price plunge, support for nuclear power hit a record low in Gallup's trend.

The latest results show a modest increase in support for nuclear power, possibly in response to increased oil prices in 2019. Or perhaps some of the increase in support stems from the fact that nuclear energy generates emissions-free electricity.

A second poll conducted in March asked participants to rate parts of an overall plan to mitigate CO2 emissions including the use of nuclear energy.( https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/23/18507297/nuclear-energy-renewables-voters-poll)

The numbers on nuclear power are fascinatingly all over the place. More Republicans than Democrats support it, and more Democrats than Republicans oppose, but not by a ton in either case. The biggest split was not by party but by gender, with 62 percent of men somewhat or strongly supporting it and just 32 percent of women. The demographic slices with the highest levels of opposition? MSNBC viewers and people who have installed solar power on their homes.

8.3 Political Parties and Politicians Views on Climate Change and Nuclear Power

8.3.1 Republican position on Nuclear Power and Climate Change

The Republican party’s platform morphed from support of thermal nuclear power and fast breeder reactor (1972), to accelerated use of nuclear energy (1976 and 1980), to preserve nuclear power as a safe and economic option to meet future electricity needs (1988), to hasten development of the next generation of nuclear power plants (1992), to nuclear energy is the most reliable zero-carbon emissions source of energy that we have (2008), to we support lifting restrictions to allow responsible development of nuclear energy, including research into alternative processes like thorium nuclear energy (2016).

Fifty years ago, Republicans generally wanted to be in the forefront of fights to save the planet. Nixon established the EPA in 1970. The Senate voted 92-0 for Endangered Species Act, while the House approved it 390-12. Democrats were all on board for green legislation, as were almost all Republicans; liberals backed it, and so did conservatives. Republicans platforms through 1996 generally supported actions to reduce GHG.

At the start of the George H.W. Bush presidency, the Republican Party fretted about the dangers of climate change. By the end, it was focused on doubt and inaction. Since then, the party has drifted further away from the conclusion of scientists and from policies to address global warming. Bush embraced climate science in the 1980s and campaigned on protecting Americans from its dangers. "Those who think we are powerless to do anything about the greenhouse effect forget about the 'White House effect,'" Bush said in a 1988 campaign speech. "As president, I intend to do something about it." But as soon as Bush got into office, the administration started to work against meaningful policy on climate change even as it crafted strong positions on air pollution to defeat the threat of acid rain. Still Bush pushed forward with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was a meaningful step forward at the time, and one that President Clinton and the younger Bush neglected to push ahead. Bush's climate legacy is that he walked away from pushing a policy that would restrict greenhouse gases at the very moment that the top scientists in the world were saying it posed a crisis for humanity.

In March 2001, the George W. Bush Administration announced that it would not implement the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty signed in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan that would require nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, claiming that ratifying the treaty would create economic setbacks in the U.S. and does not put enough pressure to limit emissions from developing nations. In February 2002, President Bush announced his alternative to the Kyoto Protocol, by bringing forth a plan to reduce the intensity of greenhouse gasses by 18 percent over 10 years. The intensity of greenhouse gasses specifically is the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions and economic output, meaning that under this plan, emissions would still continue to grow, but at a slower pace. Bush stated that this plan would prevent the release of 500 million metric tons of greenhouse gases, which is about the equivalent of 70 million cars from the road. This target would achieve this goal by providing tax credits to businesses that use renewable energy sources.

The Bush administration has been accused of implementing an industry-formulated disinformation campaign designed to actively mislead the American public on global warming and to forestall limits on "climate polluters." The book Hell and High Water asserts that there has been a disingenuous, concerted and effective campaign to convince Americans that the science is not proven, or that global warming is the result of natural cycles, and that there needs to be more research. Papers presented at an International Scientific Congress on Climate Change, maintained that the climate change skepticism that is so prevalent in the USA "was largely generated and kept alive by a small number of conservative think tanks, often with direct funding from industries having special interests in delaying or avoiding the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions". The Bush White House pressured American scientists to suppress discussion of global warming and to tailor their writings on global warming to fit the Bush administration's skepticism, in some cases at the behest of an ex-oil industry lobbyist.

The only mention of climate change in the 2012 platform that a failed national security strategy elevates "climate change" to the level of a "severe threat" equivalent to foreign aggression.

The 2016 Republican party’s platform is dismissive of climate change

• Climate change is far from this nation’s most pressing national security issue. This is the triumph of extremism over common sense, and Congress must stop it.

• Information concerning a changing climate, especially projections into the long-range future, must be based on dispassionate analysis of hard data.

• The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political mechanism, not an unbiased scientific institution. Its unreliability is reflected in its intolerance toward scientists and others who dissent from its orthodoxy.

Donald Trump has rolled back some of the Obama-era regulations enacted with the purpose of combating climate change. He has questioned if climate change is real and has indicated that he will focus his efforts on other causes as president. He is rolling back regulations placed on the oil and gas industry by the EPA under the Obama administration in order to boost the productivity of both industries.

An Environmental Impact Statement (EIP) published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration acknowledges that, without a course correction, the planet is on track for global average temperature warming by approximately four degrees Celsius by the end of the century, compared with preindustrial levels. Such warming would be catastrophic for organized human life, according to scientists. The EIP supports the U.S. government's decision to maintain without increase fuel-efficiency standards for cars and other vehicles.

In his budget proposal for 2018, President Trump proposed cutting the EPA's budget by 31% (reducing its current $8.2 billion to $5.7 billion). Had it passed, it would have been the lowest EPA budget in 40 years even adjusted for inflation, but Congress did not approve it. Trump tried again unsuccessfully in his budget proposal for 2019 to cut EPA funding by 26%.

Trump is leaving the Paris Agreement because he actually intends to slow the global transition away from fossil fuels consistent with the actions of the Bush administration. “I feel that the United States has tremendous wealth. The wealth is under its feet. I’ve made that wealth come alive. ... We are now the No. 1 energy producer in the world, and soon it will be by far,” Trump told reporters when asked about his views on climate change. “I’m not going to lose that wealth, I’m not going to lose it on dreams, on windmills, which frankly aren’t working too well,”

In this late hour—well into the fourth decade of modern climate politics—it’s hard to believe that belief in climate change is the main obstacle to battling it. When Trump pulls America out of the Paris Agreement, he is responding to a different ideology: carbonism. For Trump, carbonism is a powerfully economic and cultural idea. Think of the carbon in carbonism as akin to the nation in nationalism: It implies a founding myth, a powerful worldview, a theory of value, and a prophecy. But it is, at heart, a simple idea. Carbonism is a belief that fossil fuels—which send carbon pollution spewing into the atmosphere, accelerating climate change and ocean acidification—have inherent virtue. That they are better, in fact, than other energy sources. For the president, carbonism is visceral. At home, Trump’s carbonist politics are prosperity-focused, locked in the postwar decades, and permeated with nostalgia for old-fashioned race and gender relations.

The deeper logic of carbonism is that carbon pollution imposes no hard limit on human flourishing, that through the exclusive magic of fossil fuels, society can effortlessly solve any problem. Sometimes these arguments are rooted in accurate understandings of historical progress. Energy production and consumption is a fundamental component to economic development, poverty alleviation, improvements in living standards, and ultimately health outcomes. Fossil fuels really did make modern life possible, improving the living standard of hundreds of millions of people.

Much of the political establishment perceive climate change chiefly as an environmental issue. They scratch their head at Trump’s insistence that he loves “clean air and clean water” even as he cuts rules on toxic air pollution. But there may be no contradiction in Trump’s mind, because he sees carbonism as an economic and cultural idea. And in a way, he is right. Climate change will wreak havoc across the natural world, but its origins—and its worst consequences—will strike at human society. To fight climate change, to decarbonize, is to remake the metabolism of the global economy.

( The Atlantic November 5, 2019 https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/11/ideology-behind-donald-trumps-paris-withdrawal/601462/ )

8.3.2 Democratic View on Nuclear and Climate Change

The Democratic party’s platform morphed from support of nuclear power (1972), to dependence on nuclear power should be kept to a minimum (1976), to retire nuclear plants in an orderly manner (1980), to reduce reliance on nuclear power while insisting that all plants are safe, environmentally sound and assured of safe waste disposal (1988), to supporting energy efficiency and R&D for renewable energy (1992), to support for renewable energy such as wind, solar and geothermal batteries and clean coal (2008). The 2016 the platform does not mention nuclear energy and throughout the platform the phase “clean energy” as it relates to wind and solar power is used.

Upon the start of his presidency in 1993, Bill Clinton committed the United States to lowering their greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2000 through his biodiversity treaty, reflecting his attempt to return the United States to the global platform of climate policy. Clinton's British Thermal Unit (BTU) Tax and Climate Change Action Plan were also announced within the first year of his presidency, calling for a tax on energy heat content and plans for energy efficiency and joint implementations, respectively. The tax was opposed by the energy-intensive industry, who feared that the price increase caused by the tax would make U.S. products undesirable on an international level, and thus was never fully implemented.

Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol on behalf of the United States in 1997, pledging the country to a non-binding 7% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. He claimed that the agreement was "environmentally strong and economically sound," and expressed a desire for greater involvement in the treaty by developing nations.

In 2009 President Obama established a new office in the White House, the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, and selected Carol Browner as Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change. Browner is a former administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The American Clean Energy and Security Act, a cap and trade bill, was passed on June 26, 2009 in the House of Representatives, but was not passed by the Senate. The 2010 United States federal budget proposed to support clean energy development with a 10-year investment of US $15 billion per year, generated from the sale of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions credits.

On March 31, 2015, the Obama administration formally submitted the US Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) for greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). According to the US submission, the United States committed to reducing emissions 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025, a reflection of the Obama administration's goal to convert the U.S. economy into one low-carbon reliance. In 2015, Obama also announced the Clean Power Plan, which is the final version of regulations originally proposed by the EPA the previous year, and which pertains to carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

8.3.3 Views of Democratic Presidential Candidates

Some Democratic Presidential Candidates support the use of nuclear power. All candidates support rejoining the Paris Agreement.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_the_2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primary_candidates)

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) compared Democrats who oppose nuclear energy to Republican climate science deniers, highlighting a growing rift in the party over the nation’s biggest source of emissions-free electricity.

In a wide-ranging interview with HuffPost, the Democratic presidential hopeful said he once shared progressives’ skepticism of nuclear power but became convinced that reaching net-zero emissions from the utility sector by 2030 was impossible without the source that generates more power than all forms of renewables combined. “As much as we say the Republicans when it comes to climate change must listen to science, our party has the same obligation to listen to scientists,” Booker said. “The data speaks for itself.”

The remark ― one of the most pointed critiques of the anti-nuclear position in the Democratic primary so far ― grazes a particularly sensitive nerve in the climate policy debate. (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/cory-booker-nuclear_n_5d8299bae4b0957256b0ad04)

8.3.4 The Green New Deal

The concept of climate change being a near term existential threat seems to have originated with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in introducing the Green New Deal (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/01/22/ocasio-cortez-climate-change-alarm/2642481002/) who stated "the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change." This statement seems to be based on “cherry picking” information from a report prepared by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Global Warming of 1.5 oC (https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/) released in October 2018. The report concluded global warming will have far more severe consequences if temperatures are allowed to creep past 1.5°C by 0.5 oC of warming. The report found the differences in impacts between 1.5°C of warming and 2°C, or 3.6°F, of warming are significant:

• There would be less of a risk for irreversible changes, including ecosystem losses and the destabilization of parts of Greenland and Antarctica, at 1.5°C of warming compared to 2°C.

• By 2100, sea level rise is expected to be about .1 meter, or 4 inches, lower under the lower global warming amount compared to a 2-degree scenario.

However, the UN report does not conclude a near term existential risk exists.

The substance of the Green New Deal remains relatively vague, since the proposed legislation would only create a committee that would then be tasked with crafting the actual policy. But the core ideas seem to be mostly in line with what most climate advocates and moderate Democratic policymakers have endorsed for years. A federal mandate for 100% renewable electricity is a form of a federal Renewable Portfolio Standard, which was proposed in Congress as early as 2007, but without nuclear power. You cannot reach 100% renewables with current technology other than nuclear power and it is extremely improbable you can reach the 2050 goal of zero carbon emissions if you count on developing new technology such as grid capable battery storage. A version of the policy that includes all zero-carbon sources, like nuclear and carbon capture, is discussed in an op-ed in The New York Times in August that proposed a federal Clean Energy Standard (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/opinion/how-to-cut-greenhouse-gas-emissions-without-taxing-them.html)). A leading report on the Green New Deal put out by the progressive policy group Data for Progress (https://www.dataforprogress.org/green-new-deal/)includes nuclear and CCS.

Most of the rest of the Green New Deal proposal also resembles Obama Administration priorities: building a smart grid, promoting energy efficiency, incentivizing decarbonization outside of the electric sector, funding research for carbon capture technology, and increasing federal support to drive green manufacturing and exports.

In total, the Green New Deal seems aimed to shape labor and capital markets to reduce emissions and meet climate goals. While the policies are less obviously market-based than, for example, a carbon tax or cap-and-trade scheme, the proposal still assumes that private actors will do most of the work of decarbonization. In historical experience, though, this hasn’t happened.

8.3.5 Why do most Republicans NOT see Climate Change as a Threat and Why do some Democrats NOT Support using Nuclear Energy to Mitigate Climate Change?

Implied in the title questions and in Booker’s statement is that “science” has objectively determined there is a significant risk associated with Climate Change and the risks associated with nuclear power are significantly less than the risks associated with climate change. This is succinctly captured in the following statement

Today the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates climate change causes 150,000 deaths per year (https://www.who.int/heli/risks/climate/climatechange/en/) while the WHO estimated death toll due to radiation exposure from Chernobyl is between 4,000 and 9,000 and 400 for Fukushima (https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/). The WHO estimates approximately 250,000 additional deaths due to climate change per year between 2030 and 2050 (https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/134014/9789241507691_eng.pdf).

Contrary to overwhelming scientific consensus, better educated conservatives who score higher on measures of basic science literacy are more likely to doubt the human causes of climate change. Their beliefs about climate science conform to their sense of what others like them believe, the dismissive arguments of conservative political leaders and media sources, and their sense that actions to address climate change would mean more government regulation, which conservatives tend to oppose. Conservatives are not uniquely biased against scientific evidence; other research shows that better educated liberals engage in similar biased processing of expert advice when forming opinions about natural gas fracking and nuclear energy. In this case, their opinions reflect what others like them believe, the alarming arguments of liberal political leaders and media sources, and their skepticism toward technologies identified with “Big Oil” and industry. (https://web.northeastern.edu/matthewnisbet/2016/09/01/the-science-literacy-paradox-why-really-smart-people-often-have-the-most-biased-opinions/) Another paper found that the effect of party identification on perceived scientific agreement and support for government action increased substantially from 2006 to 2012, evidence that rank-and-file Republicans in the general public are more strongly embracing the Climate Change denial espoused by Republican politicians in recent years. (https://www.academia.edu/35136526/Increasing_Influence_of_Party_Identification_on_Perceived_Scientific_Agreement_and_Support_for_Government_Action_on_Climate_Change_in_the_United_States_2006_12?auto=abstract)

Both liberals and conservatives respond more negatively to ideologically dissonant science communication, which indirectly leads to lower trust in the scientific community. Polarized media and political discourse have contributed to greater affective polarization between liberals and conservatives. ( https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0002716214555474), (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsos.170505) and (https://scicommjc.org/building-public-trust-science-communicating-science-partisan-divide/)

A surprising paradox is that studies show that in politically contentious science debates, it is the best educated and most scientifically literate who are the most prone to motivated reasoning. The intensity and proficiency with which really smart people argue against challenging evidence explains why brokering agreement on issues such as climate change, natural gas fracking, nuclear energy, evolution, and other issues is so challenging. There is no obvious solution to this paradoxical bind, and there is no easy path around the barrier of our inconvenient minds (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/pops.12244). But in talking with others, we can adopt specific practices that may at least partially defuse the biased processing of information, opening up a space for dialogue and cooperation (https://web.northeastern.edu/matthewnisbet/2016/09/01/the-science-literacy-paradox-why-really-smart-people-often-have-the-most-biased-opinions/ and https://psmag.com/environment/how-to-convince-a-conservative-that-climate-change-is-real)

8.4 Conclusion

Multiple studies show political orientation has the most important effect in shaping public perceptions about the timing and seriousness of climate change and the risks of nuclear power. Objective climatic condition data do not influence Americans’ perceptions of the timing of climate change. Objective data on the health effects of nuclear power do not influence Americans’ perceptions of the risks of nuclear power. Yet multiple studies show that achieving climate change mitigation goals and nuclear power are inextricably bound together. If the US is to move forward on addressing climate change the leadership of both parties must set the direction consistent with the objective evidence.