OPINION: Climate denial and Alaska’s energy future

Climate change denial has evolved. No one says anymore that the climate isn’t changing. Even the argument that humans aren’t responsible for it is heard less and less. (It’s often framed as “The climate’s always changing,” which, while true on long geologic timescales, is a red herring for the brief period since the start of the industrial revolution.)

Rather than debate the reality of global warming or its human cause, modern climate change denialism simply ignores the most important conclusion of climate science: the need to act as rapidly as possible to end our emission of heat-trapping gases.

In 2023, denialism tries to sound measured and reasonable. It claims that we should pursue an “all of the above” energy policy rather than one that eliminates fossil fuels. It says that because the transition to fully renewable energy will be challenging we must move slowly. And it calls those who acknowledge the existential threat of climate disruption “alarmist” or “extremist.” Essentially, the new climate deniers say, “Yes, climate change is bad, but we can keep doing business as usual” — and in fact, they usually don’t even say that first part.

Examples of this form of climate denial have appeared on these pages in recent weeks. John Curtis and Heather Reams (“Lessons from Alaska: Responsible energy production is pro-Alaska and pro-America,” April 17) gave a nod to “exploring new ways to embrace clean energy resources, including wind turbines, solar panels, geothermal, and small modular nuclear reactors,” but mostly they want to continue Alaska fossil fuel production. With the dubious claim that “American production of energy resources is among the cleanest in the world,” they want readers to imagine that “cleanly produced (fossil) energy resources” are close enough, at least, to being the same as renewable energy.

When Kay Brown wrote, “It’s past time to halt development of Alaska fossil-fuel megaprojects” (April 18) laying out the scientific case against further investments in fossil fuel infrastructure, she must have hit a nerve with Rich Whitbeck. His response (“Paying the price for climate extremism,” April 20) attacked her as an “eco-extremist” while, tellingly, making no effort to dispute the science she cited. He’d like us to believe that his Alaska LNG project remains unbuilt because of the climate-extremist lobby’s awesome political power, not because potential buyers don’t want to invest in it. But as Frank Richards, the head of the state pipeline company, said in November, “The market is going to decide.” Whitbeck even tossed in some old-school denial by referring to the “so-called ‘climate crisis,’” and he resorted to whataboutism regarding Chinese fossil fuel development (The U.S. can pursue an all-of-the-above energy policy, but China can’t?).

For Joe Schierhorn and Jim Jansen (“Alaska has a bright future if we keep oil taxes competitive,” May 2) the only climate worth mentioning is the investment climate.

I acknowledge that many concerns about climate solutions cannot be dismissed out of hand. Some constituencies oppose certain policies, not because they question climate science, but because they view the action as imposing unfair burdens on them. Distributional conflicts rooted in the fossil fuel industry’s long history of political dominance, unions’ legitimate fears for the disappearance of well-paying jobs, fossil-fuel-dependent communities’ prospective loss of revenue, rural residents resisting renewable energy projects, and the working class opposing higher energy prices all need to be addressed.

In addressing these constraints, however, it’s essential always to keep in mind the imperative, grounded in science, to complete the renewable energy transition and to do so swiftly. At this point, given all that we know, to say anything about energy resource investment without acknowledging the heat-trapping pollution from fossil fuel combustion is simply to deny the science. It’s fine to advance “yes, but…” arguments about policies, as long as we don’t forget the “yes.”

I don’t believe that the editors of this newspaper would print a commentary arguing that the Earth’s climate really isn’t changing, or claiming that variation in solar activity is actually what’s causing it. Let’s see an equally rigorous editorial standard applied to any submission suggesting that Alaska can live with more fossil fuel development.

Tim Hinterberger is a volunteer with the Anchorage chapter of Citizens’ Climate Lobby.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.