Mistrusting Science
by Chris O'Falt

Imagine the world's major cities completely underwater. Imagine storms so violent that parts of the world became unlivable. Theses are images that one would expect to find in movie house, but environmental scientists tell us what is now a good setting for science fiction could soon be reality due to global warming. Environmental scientists warn that humans are not only making the Earth inhabitable for animals and plants, but that if humans continues with their current practices, the Earth will soon be inhabitable for humans as well. Environmental scientists warn that if the Earth's citizens do not act swiftly and decisively the damage maybe irreversible for humans. 
American politicians have consistently rejected proposals for environmental reform. When President Clinton took office in 1993, he promised to become an environmental leader both internationally and nationally, and the proposals that he put to the floor of congress seemed to be the United States's first positive step toward reversing environmental policy. Unfortunately both his call to reduce greenhouse gases and to protect the world's biodiversity were blocked by Republicans in Congress. Since the Republicans have gained control of both the House of Representative and the Senate they have dramatically slashed and or eliminated the little environmental regulation that has taken place in the United States. 1 
There clearly is a rift between environmental science and the Republican party, and it is this ideological divide that that is the largest threat to the future of environmental policy in the United States. Opponents of the GOP argue that Republicans are against environmental regulation because of their desire to protect businesses, while others argue that Republicans simply don't care about the environment. The problem is that these two arguments do not fully explain Republicans vehement and almost unilateral rejection of environmental regulation, including those policies which seem to make financial as well as environmental sense. Republicans do not simply favor economics over the environment. The real problem is that Republicans mistrust environmental science, and nowhere is there a clearer example of this mistrust than the hearing held by the Subcommittee on environmental regulation in 1995.

"SCIENTIFIC COURT" 

A large component of the Republicans' Contract with American was to establish a new paradigm for environmental policy and environmental law. Republicans believed that the environmental regulation that had happened in the United States lacked sound scientific evidence. They believed that in an effort to pass environmental regulation Democratic Congressmen, Senators, and the President had suppressed those scientists whose views undermined environmental science. As Democratic Congressmen George E. Brown stated, "they (Republicans) allege that science, particularly environmental science, has been distorted to serve political purposes." 2 This Republican conviction became apparent when Republicans took over Capitol hill in 1994. No other event more clearly demonstrates Republicans opinion of environmental science than the 104th Congressional Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment hearings in 1995. 
Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), chairman of the Subcommittee in Energy and the Environment, in 1995 indicated that his committee would be looking into "charges that political pressure was put on people to make scientific decisions." The subcommittee would hold hearings to expose if such behavior on the part of politicians had taken place. In total Rohrabacher's group held three hearings, they were on 1) the 1992 decision to accelerate the ban on chlorofluorocarbons to protect the stratospheric ozone layer, 2) proposals to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to slow the Greenhouse Effect, and 3) and proposals to regulate dioxin-containing chemicals to protect human health. The hearings consisted of witnesses who would testify that the "scientific community and environmental activists have systematically exaggerated the gravity of these problems to the public, the media, and policy makers and had ignored, even actively suppressed, contrary scientific data views."3 Essentially the Republicans would invite scientists to testify against one another during these hearings, and the Subcommittee would play the role of the judge, in what Democrats referred to as "scientific court."
The actual results that came from the hearings were in support of the scientific community. The hearings showed that scientists had actually gone to great lengths to show Congressmen the complexity of the environmental issues, and had also clearly laid out the counter arguments. But the results of the hearings are not what is interesting, what is interesting about the hearings is they reveal how Republicans feel about science, and in particular environmental science.
Many of the scientists that testified at the hearings were what is referred to as "skeptic" scientists . These scientists call into question the common beliefs of the scientific community. Skeptic scientists do not subject their views to the scrutiny of the scientific community, instead their views are presented in opinion pieces aimed at policy makers, the media, and the general public, instead of first being brought to fellow scientists. They do not subject their work to the "peer review" process in which scientists, whose specialty is the field the author is writing about, examine the science behind the work. Skeptic scientists are also known to expand past the boundaries of their particular field, and fail to distinguish between what is their personal views and what has been proved by scientific experimentation. Many of the witnesses at these hearings fit qualifications this description of a skeptic scientist, most noteably Fred Singer, president of Science and Environmental Policy Project, and Sallie Baliunas, chair of the Science Advisory Board of the George C. Marshall Institute.4
Democrats quickly pointed out that Republicans favored the "skeptic" scientists because in their five minute testimonies they disagreed with "peer review" scientists views. But Democrats didn't need to point out what Republicans made clear for themselves. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) openly admitted he rejected the "mumbo-jumbo of peer reviewed documents" and preferred "skeptic" science. Chairman Rohrabacher stated, "I am not swayed by arguments that here's a big list of scientists that are on my side and you only have a smaller group of scientists that are on my side and you only have smaller group of scientists on you side. I'm just not sway by that at all.". While the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Science said, "my experience in 18 years of watching science policy being made is it is often those small groups of scientists, though, who differ with conventional wisdom that in fact are always producing the scientific judgments of the future." One Congressman went as far to compare the skeptic scientists to another scientists whose views were not widely excepted in his day, Galileo.5
Both the skeptic scientists and Republicans continually emphasized the need for empirical information. They both disregard theoretical models in favor of pure observer facts. Yet this belief, much like the rejection of peer reviewed scientists, works directly against the scientific method, which calls for theoretical models based on data, and which in turn will be tested again, and continually altered by data. 
To demonstrate how dependence on pure empirical information and skeptic science discredits both legitimate environmental science and policy it is helpful to examine one of the environmental concerns that Republicans attacked in their hearings. 

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS & GLOBAL WARMING

Global warming, or the Greenhouse Effect, is one of the biggest and most publicized concerns in the environmental community. Yet despite its almost universal acceptance by peer reviewed scientists around the globe, Republicans put little stock in the theoretical model. One Republican Congressman has even been quoted as saying that money invest toward global warming is "money thrown down the drain."6 The theoritical model of the Greenhouse Effect is so widely accepted that it has become an integral part of most science textbooks, but because Republicans believe in purely empirical data legislation of global warming has been nonexistent. 
Of the solar radiation that enters the Earth's atmosphere only 45% of that radiation reaches the Earth's surface. The Earth though needs more than double that amount of solar radiation to maintain its 14 degree Celsius constant. The Earth reflects a majority of the solar radiation back out. Of this reflected radiation, 45% is reflected back towards Earth by Greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases absorb and reflect the radiation back toward the Earth, in effect rewarming the Earth, and helping it maintain a fairly constant temperature.
The most significant of the greenhouse gases is water. Water, in vapor form, hovers above the Earth, and absorbs, then reflects the radiation back toward the Earth. Because the concentration of water particles in the Earth's atmosphere are a constant, the Earth's temperature has maintained constant.
Unfortunately humans have created a number of greenhouse gases, mainly by burning fossil fuels. By adding to the natural balance of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere, more radiation is being reflected back toward the Earth, therefore increasing the greenhouse effect. This increase will inevitably result in a rise in the Earth's temperature. Scientists agree that a rise in the Earth's temperature will result in a rise of the ocean level and a change of the Earth's climate patterns and temperature zones. The effect of such change would be radical. Cities could flood and a significant northerly migration of plants and crops to name two of the biggest fears.7 So far the scientist's do disagree as to how much of an effect the greenhouse effect has had on the Earth. Many believe the harsh winter experienced last winter was in fact part of the storms predicted by the greenhouse effect, but all agree the effect will be severe if the Earth's inhabitants continue at their current rate of putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Of the greenhouse gases humans have put into the atmosphere none is more significant than carbon dioxide. Since the nineteenth century, the burning coal has been the primary source of energy. Burning coal, like burning any fossil fuel cause the release of carbon dioxide into the Earth's atmosphere. The United States today gets 90% of its energy from burning fossil fuels.8 The effects of burning fossil fuels has caused a drastic change in the Earth's atmospheric level of carbon dioxide. For thousands of years the Earth's atmosphere maintained an 280 parts per million (ppm) level of carbon dioxide, and in a thirty year period that has risen to 350ppm.9
The Earth has the ability to absorb this increase in carbon dioxide. The ocean for one can absorb this increase, but only over a slow period of time, and human activity far out does the ocean's effect. The photosynthesis process that plants and trees goes through also has the ability to absorb this increase in CO2 levels, but humans are cutting down forests, not building them. According to the Greenhouse Effect, humans are not so much endangering the Earth, but are endangering human's inhabitancy of the Earth.
The major piece of empirical information that scientists had in creating the theoretical model for the greenhouse effect was the noticeable increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Through experiments scientists have created an effective and unchallenged model for how greenhouse gas molecules work to reflect radiation back toward Earth. They then have made estimates as to how drastic the effect of the Earth warming would be. "Peer review" scientists around the world plead to world leaders to start reducing greenhouse gas emissions, before the effects are beyond human control, yet Republicans still insist that money invested toward the eliminating the greenhouse effect is waste Based on Republicans need for purely observed information, the right time in their minds to act on the Greenhouse Effect would be when dams start breaking, and severe weather pattern make area of the Earth unlivable.
Unfortunately, though a real effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions was stopped by Republicans in 1993.

CLINTON AND THE FCCC 

In 1993 President Clinton committed the United States to meeting the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The goal was rather simple: reduce the United States greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. This step made by Clinton was an attempt to restore the United States position as an international leader on climate change. The goal, a reduction of 1.46 billion carbon-equivalent tons, itself was nothing radical, "only about 7 percent below the emissions level (1.57 billion tons) that would have been expected for the year 2000."10 Although the reduction didn't seem radical, the Energy tax Clinton proposed to meet this goal was soundly defeated by a strong Republican campaign. 
To meet the goal he had promised to achieve to the FCCC, Clinton proposed a broad based energy tax. This proposal called for a tax on all forms of energy, but also had an additional surcharge on energy that came from burning fossil fuels. The energy tax was buried in Clinton's deficit reduction plan. The White House favored a broad based tax, and a none active campaign for the tax so as to not call attention to the environmental issues behind the tax. Another issue was losing regional support: "Clinton had decided that Congress would never enact a pure carbon tax because it would hit the coal using states, especially those in the Midwest, too hard."11 But eventually what happened was exactly what Clinton was trying to avoid. Regions that specialized in fossil fuel production and Republicans put on a massive campaign against the energy tax that claimed: "that the tax would undermine the economies of fuel-producing regions, damage the international competitiveness of US. industry, and cause widespread job loss."12 The campaign raised public concern, and the White House remained silent in its defense of the energy tax which resulted in the energy tax transforming into small increase in the gasoline tax before it was finally passed by the Senate.
The biggest fear surrounding global warming is the world's dependence on fossil fuels. The rate of increase in the last thirty years of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere is alarming, and is destined to go up based world's dependence on burning fossil fuels. The energy tax would have done more than curb emission levels, it would have made it financially profitable for industry in the United States to seek out alternative energy resources.
The campaign against the energy tax claimed that the energy tax would hurt the advantage the United States gains by its low energy prices. This though would certainly not be true if all the countries that agreed to meet the FCCC goal had implemented similar energy taxes, as was proposed in many countries. Tables 1-3 show that in fact the United States would gain an advantage over European countries, and would stay close to the status quo with their other big competitors. 13
Not only would meeting the FCCC goal save the United States large problems and money down in the future, it would appear that it have little if any effect on the countries immediate economy. Yet economics is only thin veil, as well as an effective campaign technique, for Republicans to hide behind. Republicans have openly admitted that they do not support the theories behind the Greenhouse Effect, and therefore it seems logical that they would try and defeat such a measure. Republicans believe they are protecting America from faulty science, not economic decay.
The example of Republicans disagreeing with science could be particularly costly. As scientists tell us, the Greenhouse is something that needs to be dealt with currently because greenhouse gas emisssions are rising radically and in fifty years humans will not have the resources to combat global warming
A large problem is the effect of Republicans mistrust of science has carried beyond the United State's borders. 

INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS 

Unfortunately though President Clinton was forced to publicly admit that the United States would not meet the FCCC goal after the energy taxes defeat in the Senate, which clearly place the US. in the position of observer as oppose to the environmental leader: "The Clinton administration's inability to put a credible climate change policy in place at home badly undercut its reputation and capacity for international environmental policy leadership."14 Yet what is perhaps even more discouraging is that the defeat of the United States energy tax made it near impossible for foreign politicians to pass their own energy tax. The U.S.'s lack of leadership especially played a large role in the lack implementation of Europe's progressive energy tax.15 Countries were unwilling to go forward with a tax if the US was not going to have a similar energy tax.
The United States has become one of the biggest deterrents at the FCCC meetings since the energy tax's defeat. The US. has opposed, and in many cases played a big role in stopping, many of the groups most exciting proposals. As Dick Forrister, a senior official at the US Department of Energy, said about the 1997 climate change convention in Kyoto, "We want an outcome from Kyoto that we can get through the Senate."16 The United States has been forced to support weaker regulations because they are the only regulations that have a chance of passing through a Republican Congress.
What is terrifying is that the climate control conventions failure to create targets for developed countries, has stood in the way of setting emission targets for developing countries. The NEW SCIENTIST magazine projects that within 25 years developing nations will produce most of the global emissions. For an example of how serious this threat is, South Korea today emits more carbon dioxide per head of population than Spain, while Saudi Arabia emits more per head than Japan.17

CONCLUSION 

Since the industrial revolution, humans have altered the Earth's surface and atmosphere, and scientists now warn that if humans do not change the way we treat the Earth, the Earth will no longer be a suitable home for humans. Global warming is just one of the many concerns scientists have, but like global warming maintaining biodiverstiy, protecting the ozone layer, ending deforestization, and maintaining a usable water supply (just to name few) have all been rejected by Republicans.
Environmental scientists follow the same scientific method used by all scientists. They first examine how humans have changed the Earth, and then they created theoritical models which project what wil happen to the Earth if these practices continue based on what they observe. The scientific method and the process of peer review have proven to be effective practices for scientists. By calling into question these practices, and defending "skeptic" and unproven science, Republicans are endangering humans across the globe.

NOTES

1. In 1995 10 out of 11 environmental bills were killed by a Republican Congress. That same year the Envirnmental Protection Agency was significantly cut, and regulation was eliminated on mining, protecting endangered speciec, and National Parks.

2. Brown, Rep. George E., ENVIRONMENT: "Environmental Science Under Siege in U.S. Congress." March 1997, pg. 15.

3. IBID, pg. 17.

4. IBID, pg. 15.

5. IBID, pg. 16.

6. Sease, John, Chemistry 117: Chemistry, Consumer, and Environment . Spring 1996, pg. VII-28.

7. IBID, pg. VII-25.

8. IBID, pg. VII-26.

9. IBID, pg. VII-29.

10. Paarlberg, Robert L., ENVIRONMENT: "A Domestic Dispute: Clinton, Congress, and International Environmental Policy." October 1996, pg.18.

11. IBID, pg. 19.

12. IBID, pg. 18.

13. Charts #1,2, & 3 are from ENVIRONMENT: "Mitigating Climate Change: The Case for Energy Taxes." March 1996, pgs. 19-21.

14. Paarlberg, Robert L., ENVIRONMENT: "A Domestic Dispute: Clinton, Congress, and International Environmental Policy." October 1996, pg.18.

15. Muller, Frank, ENVIRONMENT: "Mitigating Climate Change: The Case for Energy Taxes." March 1996, pgs. 19-21.

16. Pearce, Fred, NEW SCIENTIST: "Chill Winds at the Summit." March 1, 1997, pg. 12-13.

17. IBID, pg. 12-13.


Bibliography