An important question: Can the party of Reagan accept the science of climate change?

Sherwood Boehlert, a retired Republican congressman from upstate New York asks an important question in an op-ed in the Washington Post: Can the party of Reagan accept the science of climate change? He asks several questions that climate deniers cannot answer. For example: why do so many Republican senators and representatives think they are right and the world's top scientific academies and scientists are wrong? As Mr. Boehlert wrote in the op-ed, the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that "a strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems."

Mr. Boehlert continues by writing that the many prominent businesses agree with the National Academy of Sciences, including "General Electric, Alcoa, Duke Energy, DuPont, Dow Chemical, Ford, General Motors and Chrysler." As he points out, these are not tree hugging corporations known for their environmental activism. These are large corporations driven by "hard-nosed, profit-driven capitalists"

Another important question asked by Mr. Boehlert is: What is happening to the party of Ronald Reagan? Mr. Boehlert argues that Reagan "embraced scientific understanding of the environment and pollution and was proud of his role in helping the phaseout ozone-depleting chemicals."

While the last point (Reagan embracing scientific understanding of the environment and pollution) is debatable, it leads to an important point that is often overlooked in today's GOP.

Ronald Reagan signed an international environmental agreement called the Montréal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, which phase out the production of numerous substances responsible for ozone depletion, such as chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons. Reagan did accept the scientific consensus that developed over the years that CFCs and HCFCs were responsible for the breakdown of ozone in the atmosphere, which caused a hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole. Reagan accepted the evidence developed by numerous scientists that eventually became a strong case for a ban on CFCs and HCFCs.

As always, the industries that created these chemicals, such as DuPont fought back. A group called the Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy founded by DuPont resisted the regulations and the Montréal Protocol. However, President Reagan pushed back against the polluters, accepted the scientific consensus and signed the protocol into law in 1987.

Since the Montréal Protocol came into effect, "the atmospheric concentrations of the most important chlorofluorocarbons and related chlorinated hydrocarbons having leveled off or deceased." In 2006, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration stated that "The Montréal Protocol  is working: there is clear evidence of a decrease in the atmospheric burden of ozone-depleting substances and some early signs of stratospheric ozone recovery."

This leads back to the question Mr. Boehlert asked: Can the party of Reagan accept the science of climate change? As of now, all signs are pointing to one simple answer: no.

For the climate change deniers out there, here are links to some of the world's largest oil producing companies  and the largest consumer of coal in the United States that agree that climate change is happening and humans are responsible. Emphasis mine.

Shell Oil: "For us the debate on climate change is over. We are tackling the challenges of a new energy future. We continue to develop technologies to reduce CO2 from our operations and to produce more efficient fuels and lubricants for customers. We are calling on governments to establish policies that will encourage a reduction in CO2 emissions."

BP: "Climate change is a major global issue – one which justifies precautionary action in pursuit of a long-term goal along with a programme of action to deliver it. BP believes both governments and industry need to play their parts in achieving such a goal: governments by setting an appropriate policy framework and companies by investing within that framework to deliver a sustainable energy mix. The scale of change required can only be achieved through policy-makers acting to provide a clear, stable framework for investment."

Chevron: "Climate Change is a complex subject, one that is evolving now, and one that will evolve for years to come. However Chevron believes that taking prudent steps now to lower Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions is the right thing to do, which is why we acted in 2001 to implement our Climate Change Action Plan. Given the complexities involved in climate science, we look to the scientific community to provide consensus on the issue of global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was established by the U.N. in 1988 and which brought scientists from around the world together on the subject of climate change, released its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. The report stated that, "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.""

ExxonMobil: ExxonMobil is engaged in the public discussion to create national and international policies to address climate change risks. Recognizing the long-term nature of these risks, the climate policy debate has shifted from a focus on near-term emissions targets to include targets for longer-term stabilization of GHG concentrations.

Duke Energy: Duke Energy supports the creation of federal legislation mandating economy-wide regulation of greenhouse gases. We feel it is important for the legislation to incorporate principles and policies that will lead to real changes in how businesses, including ours, operate in the coming years.

Update: for those who are unaware of the basic science behind climate change, see the simple diagram that explains how the greenhouse effect works.