What Does the Republican Scientific Community Think of Climate Change?

You don’t have to know much about the climate change debate in our country to recognize phrases such as “science denier” or “climate change denier” used to describe Republicans who oppose certain government environmental programs. It’s almost as bad as being called a “Holocaust denier”: you’re not only evil for “destroying the planet,” but you’re also dumb for not caring about science.

It happened today, for instance, when EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler suggested unsafe drinking water is likely to harm Americans before climate change can. He was slammed for not calling climate change a “crisis” and “downplaying the threat” of global warming.

But is the climate change conversation really about science? Republican researchers don’t see it that way.

I had the privilege of knowing a professor and epidemiologist at my alma mater who did extensive research on carbon emissions and air pollution. Dr. James Enstrom, a graduate of both Stanford and UCLA, conducted the most comprehensive peer-reviewed study on small-particle diesel engine fuel emissions in California and the first major study on the long-term effects of second-hand smoking, among other things. More interestingly, Dr. Enstrom was a Republican. It was strange to me at the time, especially since Republicans at UCLA were either closeted or nonexistent.

I’d often ask Dr. Enstrom about his views on climate change and global warming. Both a Republican and a global warming researcher, Dr. Enstrom challenges the status quo from a nuanced perspective. Climate change is real and protecting the environment is important, he’d tell me. But it has become gravely politicized, dominated by left-wing activist groups and blown out of proportion.

Dr. Enstrom said American programs aimed at reducing carbon emissions may work in the very short-term, but that doesn’t mean carbon emissions won’t travel across state lines. Nor does it mean reducing carbon emissions is worth the weight of government expenditure.

“It is important but it’s not something that America should try to solve on its own. It’s not in perspective with the other economical needs,” he told me. Dr. Enstrom says he “strongly agree[s]” with Wheeler, and believes some of our current environmental regulations are already having “negative economic impacts.”

When I met Dr. Enstrom four years ago, he was in middle of a legal battle with UCLA. After about 35 years of conducting public health and environmental research at the university, he was suddenly fired because his research was “not aligned with the academic mission” of the school. I found this very telling, as he was very likely the only researcher at the university who was willing to go places with his research where nobody else dared venture.

Dr. Enstrom taught me a few things about the Republican perspective on climate change. Aside from the few kooky theories you may have seen on television, it actually has very little to do with science denial.

First, the environmental science community is heavily dominated by one-sided, left-wing political interest groups; Republicans see that and don’t trust it. Second, Republicans are generally less trusting of government expansion programs, especially since, like we just mentioned, all of these programs are leftist-dominated. Why spend so much taxpayer resources and increase so many regulations on every aspect of our lives when it does little-to-nothing to help our overall climate health? There are so many other issues we’re likely to crash from before carbon emissions combust the planet. According to Republicans, this is something that should be dealt with on an individual level, perhaps through cultural awareness or private programs.

And finally, as with many other global issues, Republicans don’t want America to be the doormat that other countries rely on to do the dirty work for them. If we are going to place the burden of planet health our taxpayers, it had better be with other countries’ weights pulled. (I’m assuming this is heavily hinted at the Chinese.)

In any case, the Republican perspective on climate change is largely misunderstood, in my opinion, because of the lack of debate on the issue. After all, who wants to be a “science denier”? Not I. But science is all about debate and challenging the status quo. And no thanks to political activist groups, climate change debate is close to dead.

[image via screengrab]

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.