In his most recent column, Thomas Friedman marshals ideas from Ron Suskind, Dick Cheney and Cass Sunstein in calling for action on climate change. By the end of his column, Friedman has reminded readers of decades of research showing that greenhouse gases make the planet warmer, with the "potential to unleash 'catastrophic' warming." Which risk should we take, he asks? Should we increase our efficiency and mitigation efforts, then in the unlikely event that climate change weren't critical, "as a country we would be stronger, more innovative and more energy independent"? Or should we risk not preparing, then if climate change were a catastrophe, "life on this planet" would become "living hell"?
Before we get to these arguments in "Going Cheney on Climate", though, you must grapple with Friedman's interpretation of Dick Cheney, Rons Suskind and Cass Sunstein. It's unclear why Friedman chose them, perhaps to convince the GOP, or any deniers, or those who are swayed by deniers, to support climate change action? Anyhow, using their ideas makes his argument confusing.
The One Percent Solution and Climate Change
Friedman refers to Ron Suskind's book "The One Percent Doctrine", titled after a comment Dick Cheney made in 2001:
"If there's a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping Al Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response..."
That part Friedman gets right. But Suskind was actually extremely critical of Cheney and the "Cheney Doctrine". Why? Here's the rest of Cheney's comment:
"...It's not about our analysis, or finding a preponderance of evidence...It's about our response""
As Suskind wrote, Cheney's new world order demanded action despite evidence:
"Justified or not, fact-based or not, 'our response' is what matters. As to "evidence", the bar was set so low that the word itself almost didn't apply." If there was even a one percent chance of terrorists getting a weapon of mass destruction- and there has been a small probability of such an occurrence for some time -- the United States must now act as if it were a certainty. This was a mandate of extraordinary breadth...
Cheney's new US policy direction meant commitments from citizens and libraries as well as all levels of government -- the the CIA, the Army, the NSA, the Treasury. The costs were stupendous. As Suskind wrote:
"all parties took a vow of sorts on Sept. 12...vowed to work each day and every night...They'd stop at nothing...Global accords on everything from greenhouse gases to international courts...now were seen as constraints...Such agreements were for lesser countries. They were to be shaken off...
Suskind criticized the Cheney Doctrine precisely because its framers willfully disregarded evidence about the negligible risks of Al Queda gaining nuclear capability. They charged into war despite the evidence.
The situation with climate change is the opposite, the evidence for climate change is substantial. A cartoon in the Atlantic Constitution this week summarizes the folly of the deniers. A woman, speaking sometime in the future, says: "The North Pole melted. Polar bears are extinct. Asia's under water. Africa's a desert." The guy next to her responds: "Hey I never said the global warming hoax wasn't elaborate."
Adding to the confusion of Friedman's line of persuasion, the Cheney Doctrine leaves no doubt about that administrations sentiments on climate change, since according to Suskind the US took greenhouse gases off the negotiating table under the Cheney Doctrine.
Friends or Foes? Friedman's Folly
In addition to Suskind and Cheney, Friedman pulls in Cass Sunstein to wrap it all up, saying
"Sunstein wrote in his blog: 'According to the Precautionary Principle, it is appropriate to respond aggressively to low-probability, high-impact events -- such as climate change. Indeed, another vice president -- Al Gore -- can be understood to be arguing for a precautionary principle for climate change (though he believes that the chance of disaster is well over 1 percent)."
Here, Sunstein was actually criticizing the Precautionary Principle, and by extension the Cheney Doctrine, and most likely Cheney and company would bristle at being compared to Gore. According to Sunstein the Precautionary Principle muddles and stalls appropriate action on climate change. ideas he spelled out in papers, articles and books like Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle", and "Risk and Reason: Safety, Law, and the Environment", his 2002 book.
Sunstein uses social science research to show that individuals are susceptible to faulty conclusions based on irrational fear and errors in judgement like "availability heuristics". Sunstein argues that instead of the Precautionary Principle, the risks and benefits of action on suspected perils should be evaluated empirically. On global warming, he suggests cap-and-trade agreements and incentives to motivate players to make choices to limit emissions, rather than regulation. In a 2008 Boston Globe essay, Throwing Precaution to the Wind, Sunstein specifically uses the example of Bush's Iraq War as a precautionary tale for dealing with global warming:
"the Bush administration justified the war on explicitly precautionary grounds - that even the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iraq was so threatening that it demanded action. Indeed, the idea of "preemptive war" articulated by President Bush is a kind of precautionary principle. The nation went to war on the chance that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. But this precaution is imposing a heavy price and creating serious risks for the future."
Sunstein warns against regulation, saying that regulation can invoke unforseen risks or even death -- banning DDT he says caused deaths from malaria -- a spurious argument, but one he uses along with others to warn people off the Precautionary Principle.
The "Cheney-Thing" on Climate - Something to Get Behind?
In the end, Friedman says:
"When I see a problem that has even a 1 percent probability of occurring and is "irreversible" and potentially "catastrophic," I buy insurance. That is what taking climate change seriously is all about.""
Cheney might use the one-percent argument to go to war, but he did so to invoke fear in the American public in order to gain their support. Suskind did not support the Cheney Doctrine, because it wasn't based in evidence and fact. Sunstein also criticized the Cheney Doctrine, comparing it unfavorably to the Precautionary Principle. Now Friedman incongruously corrals the whole mix to support: "doing the Cheney-thing on climate -- preparing for 1 percent." I'm not sure quite what to make of this kind of endorsement.
Leave a comment