Lead researcher Dan Kahan explained the results: “Positions on climate change have become symbols of whose side you are on in a cultural conflict divorced from science.”
“Those whose cultural commitments predispose them to be concerned about climate change become even more so as their level of science comprehension increases,” the study reads. “Those whose commitments predispose them to be less concerned become all the more skeptical.”
Kahan’s solution is not to stop talking about the science, but to stop talking about the science the way advocates have been — for example, by repeating the fact that nearly all scientists agree that humans are to blame. “We need even more research on how to communicate climate science effectively so people can make informed individual and collective decisions,” he said.
A more useful option than simply doing more research is for Republican politicians who know better to start behaving more responsibly. Opposing even the simplest, most market-oriented climate policies has to stop being a signifier of conservative tribal allegiance. But it will be very tough for those outside the GOP tribe — independent scientists, climate activists, Democrats — to fight the cultural politics that have made the climate debate intractable. Their efforts might even deepen the divide.
There are plenty of national Republican leaders who appreciate the risks of unabated greenhouse emissions — but not enough for them to make climate policy a public priority, especially lately. They are the ones best positioned to create space on the GOP side for dealing with greenhouse emissions, perhaps by focusing less on whether to do something and more on what to do — less on the interminable rhetorical wars and more on offering workmanlike policy that responds to climate risks.
Bob Inglis, a former GOP congressman from South Carolina, has been trying gamely to sway Republicans on climate policy for several years in a language that doesn’t alienate them, running republicEn, a group that aims to build “a community of energy optimists and climate realists changing the conversation about climate change.”
“Do you want to build a new national vision of prosperity, free markets and clean air?” the group’s Web site asks.
George P. Shultz, one of the most decorated members of Ronald Reagan’s cabinet, has also been pressing Republicans to consider market-based climate policies, arguing for “a level playing field” in the energy business. “We should seek out the many forms of subsidy that run through the entire energy enterprise and eliminate them,” he wrote in a 2013 Wall Street Journal 0p-ed.
But Inglis and Shultz can’t be the only ones. They need more help from Republicans still in office. In other words, Republicans need a Nixon opening China moment — or, probably, many such moments — on global warming. Otherwise, piling up yet more scientific evidence might not matter much, and the GOP will continue favoring reaction over action, tantrum-throwing over governing, recklessness over prudence, on an issue of signal importance to future generations.