In Behind the Curve, Joshua Howe shows that the connection between better scientific knowledge and climate policy is not as strong as many people think. Even as scientists grew more confident that CO2 emissions were warming the planet dangerously, politics did not follow what the scientists were saying. Instead of taking action, the political debates became more difficult and controversial. For example, the Bush Sr. administration hesitated to sign the Kyoto Protocol because it did not want to commit to policies that might hurt the U.S. economy, especially during a recession. The administration also worried about how binding rules might limit American power. They believed the agreement placed unfair burdens on the United States while letting developing countries avoid emissions cuts. The administration felt that this would give those countries an economic advantage. Also, with the Cold War ending, the U.S. began to shift its foreign policy, putting less focus on global leadership and focusing more on national self-interest. Because of this, President Bush only supported a nonbinding agreement at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit and did not push the Senate to ratify Kyoto later on.
Howe says that many U.S. scientists and environmentalists believed that more and better science would naturally lead to better policies. They thought that by showing the facts, like the rising CO2 levels shown in the Keeling Curve, governments would be forced to take action. But instead of building public and political support, this approach made the climate issue seem distant, complicated, and only for experts to deal with. Opponents of climate action used this gap to create doubt, not just about the science, but about the need for any political changes at all. Also, global warming was a hard sell because its effects were hard to see directly, and the solutions often meant changing people’s lifestyles and the economy. Politicians, especially conservatives, did not want to risk the economy or appear weak on industry. Instead, they started framing climate policies as threats to American jobs and freedom, especially if the rules were made by international organizations.
In my opinion, the U.S. government resists international climate agreements mostly because of politics and economics. Americans value their independence and often view outside rules as a threat. Fossil fuel companies spend a lot of money to influence laws, and they often argue that international climate agreements are unfair or harmful to the U.S. economy. Also, the idea of helping other countries deal with climate change does not always sit well with voters who think the U.S. should take care of itself first. It becomes even harder when developing countries don’t have to follow the same rules, even though the U.S. has released more carbon in the past. So, even if working together is the only way to solve global problems like climate change, the fear of losing control, money, or jobs often wins out. In the end, many American leaders would rather go slow or go alone than commit to strong, shared rules with other nations.
Will Wright 