Bipartisan support for the science of climate change

Once upon a time science enjoyed broad bipartisan support. The scare of Sputnik not only inspired American space exploration in the 1950s and 1960s, but also reinforced government commitment to basic research in many disciplines. This paved the way for development of technological applications far beyond the imagination of the original researchers. Current cell phone technology, for example, traces back to research and development for electronics needed to enable the Apollo mission. Today, those cell phones provide a convenience for baby sitters to inform parents that, “Houston, we have a problem.” They are also having profound economic impacts that benefit humanity in myriad ways, such as helping rural subsistence farmers in developing countries obtain agricultural extension advice and find the best prices for their produce.

{mosads}Despite a wealth of examples of how investment in Earth and space science has benefited society, a not-so-funny thing happened on the way to the modern forum on climate change science. The climate change topic has become deeply politicized, with “belief” in climate change science diverging widely between political party affiliations. I put “belief” in quotations to emphasize that understanding scientific evidence has become mixed up with ideological world views. The Republican leadership in Congress continues to try to undercut President Obama’s position both at the climate change talks in Paris and since his return by casting doubt on whether he could live up to any commitment he makes because Congress won’t go along with funding it.  I suspect, however, that many members of Congress of both parties are willing to make commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and spur accelerated development of green technologies.  Indeed, eleven Republican members of the House have signed onto a resolution acknowledging the science behind the need for climate change action, and more may be looking for the political cover to join in this serious and reasoned response.

Rep. Chris Gibson (R-N.Y.) recently led the charge in drafting a congressional resolution affirming that climate change is happening and that human activity is contributing to it.  Gibson, along with the help of Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), also recruited nine other Republican members of Congress to sign onto the resolution, which was introduced September 17. My organization, the American Geophysical Union, stands ready to assist Gibson by providing supporting scientific evidence to any other colleagues that might be persuaded to back the resolution.

Not surprisingly, both Gibson and Curbelo’s districts are highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, including intense flooding in upstate New York and sea level rise in south Florida.  Their strategy with outreach is to emphasize local impacts. The resolution also reminds conservatives that, “it is a conservative principle to protect, conserve, and be good stewards of the environment.

Although many Republicans are skeptical about the consequences of global warming, several polls over the past year have reported that more than half of Republicans support government action to curb global warming. In his press conference from Paris on December 1, President Obama cited a recently-released poll that found two-thirds of Americans support the U.S. signing a binding international agreement to curb growth of greenhouse gas emissions.   So, while the congressional resolution does not mention specific mitigation strategies, it does state that “negative impacts…are expected to worsen in every region of the United States,“ and “if left unaddressed, the consequences of a changing climate have the potential to adversely impact all Americans.“

In a Congress that finds many points of disagreement, it is good to finally see a focus from a growing group of members of Congress from both sides of the aisle in finding common ground around the fact that (1) there is a problem and (2) human influence cannot be ignored. Another area of agreement that should be shared by both parties and that is stated in the resolution is that Congress needs to “base our policy decisions in science and quantifiable facts on the ground.”  That statement would not have been remarkable back in the post-Sputnik days when there was bipartisan support for science, but sadly, it is seems like a breakthrough in today’s polarized climate.

Is this the beginning of a new type of discussion on climate change, based on apolitical support of and confidence in science? If so, it has arrived only in the nick of time to demonstrate that one cannot assume that there will be an automatic blocking of U.S. commitments made in Paris due to ideology back home.  I am not so naïve as to think that there won’t be fits and starts along the way, but I am convinced that scientific evidence regarding causes and impacts of climate change will eventually prevail as a rationale for policies supported by both political parties.

Davidson is president-elect of the American Geophysical Union. He is the director of the Appalachian Laboratory at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science and a professor.