By: Robert Kandel
Cefic, 2009
Reviewed By Mark Pabst, Senior Correspondent
Depending on who is speaking, December’s climate change summit in Copenhagen, Denmark was either a qualified success or an unmitigated catastrophe. United States President Barack Obama hailed the talks as a “breakthrough” in global cooperation on greenhouse gas emissions. Swedish Environmental Minister Andreas Carlgren called the Copenhagen accord “a disaster” and “a great failure.” Both opinions were echoed endlessly throughout national capitals and media outlets in the days following the summit. However, while opinion may be split about whether Copenhagen is the first step towards comprehensive global action on climate change or simply a colossal failure, the summit did demonstrate that there is now a consensus among the world’s political bigwigs that climate change is real.
To be certain, climate change denial is not dead, especially on the political fringes and in the public imagination. There were a few climate change deniers on the margins at Copenhagen,Chopard Replica Watches and recent polls suggest that climate change denial is gaining popularity among the American public. Deniers have also been citing private emails, subsequently leaked to the public, sent between scientists from the University of East Anglia’s prestigious Climatic Research Unit as proof that climate change is not real. The emails, which contain embarrassing tidbits from climate change scientists like “I would like to see the climate change happen so the science could be proved right,” are a boon to climate change deniers. However, the use of the emails also indicates how climate change denial is moving away from its business friendly roots, and into the realm of conspiracy theory. Not only do many deniers now claim that scientists are conspiring to fudge temperature numbers in an attempt to prove “the science,” these scientist are also allegedly in cahoots with a shadowy cabal of businessmen hoping to profit from carbon trading schemes.
Given the increasingly conspiratorial basis for climate change denial, it is unsurprising that mainstream political discourse is focusing on the best methods for tackling climate change rather than debating the science. Somewhat more surprising is that some businesses making significant contributions to global greenhouse gas emissions are also proactively seeking climate solutions. Rather than fighting a delaying action by questioning the science behind global warming, some members of the business community are searching for a way to position their sectors in the vanguard on the fight against global warming.
An excellent example of this business strategy is Robert Kandel’s latest book Turing the Tide on Climate Change. Published in conjunction with The European Chemical Industry Council (known as Cefic), Turning the Tide is an unabashedly industry friendly work that focuses on the constructive contribution the chemical industry can make in the battle against global warming. The approach may be surprising, especially because the industry is often demonized by environmentalists for its heavy use of hydrocarbons, but it is also effective.
In many ways Kandel is as surprising as his book. The author has a PhD in astrophysics, a stint at NASA Goddard Institute on his resume, and rock solid environmentalist credentials. In the early 1970s he developed some of the first university level courses on the global environment, and has conducted his own climate change research since 1978. The first part of Turning the Tide is dedicated to the standard arguments employed by climate change scientists to convince a skeptical public that human action and climate change are linked. Kandel includes full color charts comparing carbon dioxide levels, methane levels, and global temperature levels. He employs maps tracking the retreat of arctic sea ice. He uses graphs showing just how much carbon can be absorbed by natural sinks. None of these techniques are new to anyone familiar with Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth or similar works by well known climate crusaders.
What is relatively new is Kandel’s insistence that industry, specifically the chemical industry, is in an ideal position to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit climate change. One of the more rational (and troublesome) criticisms aimed at Gore and his ilk is that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will disproportionately hurt the poor. According to this argument, low emitting countries are generally poor countries. Insisting that these countries not develop modern, carbon intensive economies is the equivalent of relegating them to the global poorhouse. Kandel points out however, that carbon intensity in places like Africa is very high. Put simply, Africans get less benefit per unit of greenhouse gas emitted than their European or North American counterparts do. According to the author proper dissemination of existing technology is far more important than draconian emission restrictions because this technology will allow Africans to lead better lives without increasing their greenhouse gas emissions.
Unsurprisingly, the chemical industry is responsible for much of the existing technology Kandel is referencing. Ultimately Turning the Tide, no matter how well intentioned, is a well designed defense of the chemical industry, a sector environmentalists love to hate. Kandel is certainly not subtle in his support for the industry. “In contrast to impressions one may get from some media and activist discourse,” he writes, “the chemical industry has demonstrated a capability of rapid response to environmental concerns and requests for sustainable development, once these come to light.” Cynics may wish to put down the book after reading such a sentence. However, those who are not put off by the unsurprising inclusion of self serving text about the chemical industry in a book sponsored by the European Chemical Industry Council will be rewarded.
Kandel successfully portrays the chemical industry as both part of the climate change problem (or “issue” as he diplomatically puts it) and part of the climate change solution. He notes how the industry has been both an integral part of the problem and solution in issues like ozone depletion and acid rain. He also dedicates significant space in the book to how products developed by the chemical industry actually reduce emissions. Such products, including thermal insulation, new lighting technology, and chemical fertilizers, are cited as examples of the industry’s potential to make modern life less carbon intensive.
Some readers will dismiss Turning the Tide as a clumsy attempt at greenwashing. Without a doubt, the book is meant to cast the chemical industry as a willing partner in the fight against climate change. Whether climate change activists will ever accept the industry as an ally rather than an enemy remains to be seen. However, the events at Copenhagen revealed that global leaders cannot even agree on what constitutes a successful intergovernmental response to climate change. With the global response to climate change filled with so much uncertainty, perhaps the time is right for the chemical industry to put in its two cents. At least the hard core climate activists can rejoice that the industry has decided not to cast its lot with the conspiracy theorists.