Ryan Lizza has an amazing piece in this week’s New Yorker that traces how the Senate version of the climate bill – the one backed by John Kerry (D -MA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) – really came to an unnatural, totally unnecessary death. It is a really sad story in that the bill did not have to die. But it is also the story of stunning incompetence from the Obama White House, which sold the bill down the river just at the moment the three senators might have been able to marshall the votes. I disagree with Lindsey Graham on all kinds of stuff, but to be honest he comes out looking the best in this piece. The poor man got hosed. Kerry comes off looking like a statesman, too. Even Lieberman seems forgivable for his past behavior. But the Obama administration looks to have completely blown this one, and both the US and the larger world will suffer greatly for it.
But one thing remains unresolved for me. How could the White House, run by an experienced legislative dealmaker like Rahm Emanuel, screwed these negotiations up like this? Incompetence? An alternative agenda? I simply don’t get it . . .
Well, my theory is that they no longer believe in it themselves, have a wary eye on the future history books, but can scarcely go against their own base that openly just yet.
I have noted for many years the high-rolling lifestyles of conspicuous consumption of many of those stars and celebrities most vocal in lecturing the rest of us on cutting down. People with big houses, or multiple houses, or boats, or SUVs, or fleets of SUVs to carry around all their staff, or private jets… or people who crank up the heating to the max. (“He’s from Hawaii, OK?”)
Do they really believe? Do people who jet constantly around the world to climate conferences, or to give PowerPoint shows, really believe what they’re saying? Do they think none of it applies to them?
Do they think we don’t notice?
But it’s not the only explanation possible. I don’t know. But I agree that it’s an interesting and important question.
I disagree with your initial premise, but think you raise a really good point about the cognitive dissonance associated with behavior versus political belief. I see a lot of evidence to suggest they do still believe quite strongly that this is a real problem that is really happening due to human activity. But you are absolutely right about the issue of behavior – just getting solar cells on the roof of the White House was a struggle, which speaks to another issue – the fact that nobody takes “little acts” seriously. Will those cells save the world? No. But they help a little, and are a visible symbol of what could be. Would inflating our tires to their proper levels matter? Yes, a hell of a lot, as it turns out (Obama wasn’t nuts when he said that). Will the shift to florescent light bulbs make a difference? Yes, though they do create new waste management problems. With relatively minimal effort, we could solve a lot of our problems by picking the lowest hanging fruits of efficiency. But you are right, so many who preach do not walk the walk – or anything even close.
And the dissonance does, indeed, apply to those of us who attend these conferences and meetings. On one hand, there is no replacement for face-to-face contact to get real work done, especially with regard to negotiating. That said, we could cut down dramatically on the number of trips by focusing on one or two meetings where such negotiation is crucial, and do the rest by videoconference. This is starting to take hold, I think . . . I was in a briefing from the West Africa Mission of USAID on a food security program the other day, and they were presenting by videoconference from Ghana. It went fine – the powerpoint was shown at this end on a separate screen, and we could see them talking. It was a presentation, so this was more than adequate. And it saved us the money and emissions for three or more non-refundable fare tickets from Ghana to DC. There is hope . . .
We can do better – we can justify the trips we do take, and cut out the ones we don’t need to take. We can try to capture the low hanging fruit in our own lives, not to be self-righteous, but to show that it is easy and everyone can do it. That is a form of leadership on this issue we’ve not seen anyone take up, which is a pity.
And can you measure those benefits in degrees C, or metres of sea level rise?
I take your point that it is not necessarily conscious hypocrisy. Holding meetings by teleconference is a good move, and it is true that face-to-face is different, and might make all the difference in a negotiation. But some of the things they do is beyond accident and necessity. As a human thing, I can certainly understand it, but I’m sure you’d admit it doesn’t look very convincing.
Yes, I think the benefits are measurable in that manner. And yes, I agree that the optics are horrible – it does not look convincing. The scientists are just figuring out that appearances matter as much as data – climate change is not merely a technical issue, but a political one, as it involves hard choices. We’ll see if anyone learns . . .