Left as an Exercise

So my friend Ian at Terahertz has some choice words aimed at DeSmogBlog over political bias. For what it’s worth, if you know me personally, then you probably know I share many of Ian’s viewpoints; he’s just much more outspoken than I am (not to mention less shy), and usually ends up speaking for me. However, since I’ve had a history with DeSmog, I’m weighing in.

This started out as a comment on that post, but it grew overlong and overlinked, so it migrated here. Check below the fold for background info and details.

A quick summary. DeSmogBlog is a PR group led by Jim Hoggan and Kevin Grandia that has long been involved in issues of climate change spin. It’s no secret that inactivists have been very good at using PR to get their message out. The world of PR is, by its very nature, under the radar (they want you to pay attention to their clients, not themselves), so critical concepts such as astroturfing and echo chambers are often completely unknown to the general public. That’s where DeSmog stepped in — in their own words, “The blog exists to identify unethical PR tactics and to expose the PR people who are trying to confuse the public about climate change.” By highlighting the PR spin, the aim was to cut off their primary weapon, forcing them to fight on terms of science and policy. By many accounts (my own included) they’ve done a spectacular job on this front — for instance, check out Hoggan’s interview on HowToBoilAFrog to see just how interlinked the PR business is, and how useful an insider is to understanding it. They also occasionally tackle other areas, such as their investigation into the mothballing of DSCOVR.

However, it’s also no secret that most of DeSmog’s Canadian contingent (particularly the leadership) has a strong bias to the Liberal party, and the blog doesn’t always stay exclusively focused on PR. Occasionally, they’ll praise or attack policy positions (they’re particularly brutal against Harper), but whenever they opine about Canadian party politics, they’re more likely to slam the NDP even if the NDP is ahead on climate terms, and give passes to the Liberals even if they’re acting irresponsibly (and due to strong ties between the Greens and the Liberals at the federal level, they often give the Greens support even if there’s no chance of a Green victory). Most recently, they’re doing this over the BC carbon tax — the BC Liberals (in name only; they’re more right-of-center than any other Liberal group I know) imposed a light carbon tax last year, and on this election the BC NDP are taking aim at the tax as a campaign issue. In a nutshell, DeSmog’s recently been attacking the NDP over this and apparently defending the Liberals’ version.

I’m deliberately being superficial here, as much more in-depth discussion can be found at Terahertz and the links therein. Take the time and read that; the following is, in essence, a reply. I’m not going to focus on my thoughts on the tax - Ian’s criticism of the BC Liberals’ tax is essentially mine as well - but I’ll instead focus on the attacks and defense of the BC NDP position.

Full disclosure: I’ve worked with Richard Littlemore for some time, and would like to note that he’s apparently operating “on-message” now, as his older piece during the federal election critizing both parties’ positions (the Liberals as missing the point, the NDP for not going far enough) would illustrate.  There are other members of the DeSmog staff (Mitchell Anderson, Page van der Linden, Emily Murgatroyd, Jeremy Jacquot, Ross Gelbspan) who haven’t been involved in the BC carbon tax fiasco and don’t have anywhere near Hoggan or Grandia’s connections to the Liberals.

DeSmog’s expertise is PR, not politics, which Ian appropriately illustrated with his criticisms over VoteForEnvironment (although they did make the correct call in Edmonton Strathcona, for exactly the right reasons, that doesn’t excuse their kowtowing to unelectable Greens and unfavorable Liberals in other ridings). Their best work lies in discussing spin, uncovering spin machines, and calling attention to the often-unnoticed lobby scene. There are times I wish they’d focus on that and avoid using their site as a platform for political statements, and this is definitely one of them — partisan hackery dilutes the strength of one’s other messages, and as I illustrated above, DeSmog’s main focus is a very important one (they’re pretty much the only PR specialists on our side — the dearth of public communication skills among scientists is partly Why Reason Loses. (Separate, and worthwhile, links)).

That said, I think Ian’s being only slightly more partisan than they are, and thus his whole criticism risks devolving into its own hackery. The BC NDP aren’t pressing anything close to his presented ideal scenario (their plan exempts too many emitters), and would potentially drive the issue of paying full-price for carbon from the public eye (or, worst-case-scenario, villify it in the eyes of the electorate), and yet he would claim electing them would be “climate progress”. (This isn’t saying the BC Liberals are any better, because they aren’t, but getting elected on a platform based on “axe the tax” certainly isn’t progress.) For one (correctly) accusing DeSmog of being short-sighted and partisan, you seem to be on shaky ground with your own endorsement.

Despite supporting the NDP, we can still be critical of them when they deserve it — and indeed, I would say we have a duty to be critical of politicians we favor. (Challenging your own biases is one of the critical components of the rationalist mind. Nothing is sacred, beyond critique.) Adam Rawlings, whom Ian was responding to in the first place, seems to understand this as well — check the last paragraph. The BC NDP climate initiatives are lacklustre at best, and they haven’t done a good job of raising the debate we should be having (well, one of them — BC was the perfect place in Canada to spark a national cap/trade vs taxation debate, which the NDP doesn’t seem to be encouraging, instead framing the Liberal plan as an evil gas tax).

Essentially, Ian’s critique of DeSmog only barely avoids falling into the same ruts he accuses them of. I maintain DeSmog’s attacks are poorly guided and short-sighted, but if you look at it, both blogs here are criticizing opponents of their preferred party while giving their preferred party a pass on the critical issue.

Bottom line: Carbon reduction has to happen. The sooner, the better for all involved. By focusing on the parties and not the policies, and (critically) by turning a blind eye to one’s preferred party’s policy, all we’re doing is squabbling amongst ourselves and pressing the required action further and further from the public’s attention. This is NOT good foresight. This is essentially the exact same “divided left” that has allowed the Conservatives to seize and hold power and marginalize the NDP, and seeing an NDP supporter like Ian fall into it is disheartening.

I’ll inform Littlemore via mail (though we don’t correspond frequently enough to be on a casual basis, I do have his personal e-mail) of my position and see what happens. I don’t claim to hold much sway, but it’s more than a comment can do.

For the record, I prefer economy-wide taxation to cap-and-trade as it’s simpler to predict for both government and industry (meaning it can be budgeted for and is thus less likely to be opposed by bean counters), can be ratcheted up or down depending on the need for responses, and (arguably) has fewer loopholes to goose the system. (I also support switching from a gas tax to a more appropriate mileage tax in the transport sector, but the current fiasco is ostensibly about economy-wide intervention.) This does not mean I support any given tax over any given cap-and-trade (the BC Liberal tax is a great example of this: It’s definitely not economy-wide), nor is the tax my ideal system: That would be revenue-neutral cap-and-dividend with 100% permit auctioning (which is actually a close relative to a cap-and-trade). This provides equal per-ton responsibility on all citizens and corporations, helps the low-carbon folk while encouraging everyone (including governments and corporations) to reduce, provides a buffer zone from price trickling to the poor, and automatically acts like a progressive fee in the same way cap-and-trade homes in on market pricing, while inheriting most of the benefits of both progressive taxation and cap-and-trade. As a result, this system produces a strong market signal for low-carbon products and can more readily dovetail with the cap-and-trade system that Obama’s been promoting, allowing for a continental market. It’s also essentially the same position James Hansen has been advocating for, and despite him being a self-described ‘middle of the road Republican’, he’s actually been called a ‘communist’ over this position.

(Aside: If you just read that and went “huh?”, it’s further evidence of my point that the debate we should be having isn’t happening. Follow my next set of links and all will be explained.)

However, much like the secrets of the PR gig, there are several elements to carbon pricing discussion that people should know about but simply do not — permit auctioning, offsets or lack thereof, the significance of the number 350, allocation of raised funds, etc. The people to blame for this ignorance are the folk who keep marginalizing climate discussion. The BC NDP aren’t doing a good job breaking that trend, focusing on abolishing carbon taxation rather than refining it (by focusing on ‘axe the tax’ instead of, say, ‘polluter pays!’, they do the equivalent of sweeping pricing under the rug, regardless of what their actual position is. This is a different flavor of the same trick Harper used on Dion’s Green Shift — labelling a revenue-neutral tax as higher taxes on everything to draw attention away from the details and score political points). For that matter, with an over-focus on spin rather than policy improvements, DeSmog isn’t bucking the trend either. You’d have to look at places full of energy/environment/policy insiders like Grist or Climate Progress for that — go ahead, I’ll wait. You’ll notice that knowledge of details on these methods tend to be restricted to specialists, and actual progress on getting any emissions reduction strategy implemented is mind-numbingly slow.

Enough with the politics. We desperately need a working carbon-reduction policy in Canada, and given the general dickishness of the Conservatives, it’ll have to stem from the progressives. The NDP are the natural choice in theory (the Greens lack political capital to actually get elected, and if the goal is reduction policy, election is kind of a prerequisite), but, even in BC, the NDP seem to have fixated on traditional progressive economic policies as their major focus, with climate as an afterthought. This has to change — and even though I can’t support the Liberals, I do agree with DeSmog on challenging the NDP on turning carbon pricing into political, rather than policy, capital. Finally, despite standing with you on pretty much every issue of import, Ian, I’m apalled at your apparent partisan blindness, particularly as a prominent skeptic: you’re better at seeing past your own biases than this.

Appendix: I had to add qualifiers throughout this post after reading this. Assuming it’s accurate, I may end up falling closer to the DeSmog position than I originally thought (as this suggests it’s nowhere near as pro-liberal as implied). Their discussion on Green voting patterns is interesting: if the Greens are as unelectable in BC as they are federally, by challenging the NDP to green up their act, DeSmog may actually be helping their cause by stemming a vote split. (I’d have to see numbers to be certain of this.)