Blog post

Green economy ‘deniers’?

Oct 16, 2011 by | 2 Comments

In a speech to the annual Renewable UK conference in Manchester this week, the climate and energy secretary Chris Huhne launched a spirited defence of the renewable energy industry and the government’s commitment to supporting its growth.

In what has been widely interpreted as a direct response to the decidedly unsupportive rhetoric of George Osborne’s speech at the Conservative party conference, Huhne hit out at the “climate sceptics and armchair engineers” who sought to derail progress towards a low-carbon economy based on renewable technologies.

Huhne even went as far as labelling opponents of investment in renewable technologies ‘green economy deniers’ in a press release accompanying the speech.

For the vast majority of the public who consistently report highly favourable attitudes towards renewable technologies such as wind and solar energy, Huhne’s passionate speech is likely to have resonated.

But although Huhne’s support for renewables will be widely welcomed, he is playing a dangerous game by labelling those who oppose government investment in renewable technologies as ‘deniers’.

Although some see the word ‘denier’ as an unacceptably loaded term to use in climate change debates, its application to those who refuse to accept the scientific evidence of human impact on the climate is justified. On the basic question of whether man-made emissions of carbon dioxide are causing temperatures to rise, the science really is settled.

But the use of this term to describe people opposed to subsidies for renewable technologies is much more problematic – the politics of climate change are (and in some sense will always be) up for grabs. Of course, those who deny the science of climate change are also likely to oppose taking action to mitigate it. But it is perfectly possible to be opposed to a particular climate policy without disputing that something needs to be done.

If Huhne can’t make the argument for renewable technologies without labelling those who oppose their use as ‘deniers’, then it opens the door for anyone to use (and abuse) this approach. The obvious example is nuclear power: to its advocates, it is a tried-and-tested method of generating low-carbon energy. Proponents of nuclear power could use the term ‘nuclear deniers’ to denigrate their opponents, but they would be no more justified than Huhne.

There is a strong argument that the reason climate change has become such a politically divisive issue in the US is that ‘action’ on climate change has become synonymous with the policies and ideas of Al Gore, who was responsible for bringing the issue to the forefront of American politics over the last two decades.

For those who oppose Al Gore, opposing his policies comes naturally. The problem arises when the scientific case for climate change comes to be seen as indistinguishable from Al Gore’s policies to mitigate it.

It might be a bitter pill to swallow, but it is – perversely – in everyone’s interests for ‘alternative’ climate change policies to be developed and debated.

When the conversation about climate change pits progressive-policy against conservative-policy (rather than progressive-policy against science denial), the battle for moving forward on climate change has already started to be won. Everyone is talking about what to do about climate change, not whether it is real.

If government investment in renewable technologies is the progressive policy option of choice, then opponents to it should be taken on using the extremely strong evidence for renewables, not dismissed as deniers.

Perhaps one reason that the obfuscation of groups like the Global Warming Policy Foundation has been able to capture so much of right-leaning thinking on climate change is that those on the left have been too quick to label policy-sceptics as science deniers.

Of course, some science deniers use ‘policy sceptic’ as a convenient smokescreen – their preferred policy alternative is ‘do nothing’.

But a recent paper by Wouter Poortinga and his colleagues at Cardiff University shows that when people express scepticism about climate change in opinion polls, they often mean very different things. Poortinga and his colleagues found that although uncertainty and scepticism about the potential impacts of climate change was fairly common, both trend (i.e., ‘is it getting warmer?’) and attribution (i.e. ‘are humans causing it?’) scepticism were far less prevalent.

Most people are highly favourable towards renewable technologies, and the arguments in their favour are persuasive. But it is critical that climate policy stays distinct from climate science. Otherwise, opposition to the former becomes denial of the latter – exactly the problem we need to avoid in the first place.

First published on 27-10-11 on Left Foot Forward.

2 Comments + Add Comment

  • “Although some see the word ‘denier’ as an unac­cept­ably loaded term to use in cli­mate change debates, its applic­a­tion to those who refuse to accept the sci­entific evid­ence of human impact on the cli­mate is jus­ti­fied.”

    here we go again..

    de·ny Pronunciation (d-n) tr.v. de·nied, de·ny·ing, de·nies
    1. To declare untrue; contradict.
    2. To refuse to believe; reject.
    3. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disavow.

    Pointing out there is not one single measurable piece of evidence to suggest the actions of man have resulted in the increase of global temperature does not make someone a denier, it makes them an adherent to scientific principal. The Met Office own data shows no warming in 15 years, despite increased CO2 emissions.

    If you wish to be taken seriously you must ditch this rhetoric immediately otherwise you will be rightly dismissed as another front of the Bob Ward Association.

  • Mr Hobbes, I checked again and the Met Office Hadley Centre data does show an increase (and they comment that it cannot be explained by natural variation) but you may decide to put that down to their or my interpretation.

    So what data would convince you, with say 95% confidence? Of course you may set a very long timescale to be persuaded of an upwards trend, with the consequence that it would be too late to mitigate the effects but at least we would know what your measure was and could judge whether it was sensible. In its absence you may just look for evidence or comment to support a belief and be considered, oh I don’t know, a denier?

Make a comment

Creative Commons 2011 - 2016, Talking Climate
A project by COIN & PIRC.
This website has moved and is now part of Climate Outreach



This website, a project of Climate Outreach (COIN), has been integrated into the new Climate Outreach website. Any updates since 21 October 2015 have been made to the new website only, not here, and this website will soon be deleted. Please bookmark our new website – we look forward to continuing to share the latest in climate communication research with you. We are now tweeting from @climateoutreach so please follow us there.