The Policy Institute, based in Helena, Montana, blends authoritative research and hands-on political engagement to create public policy based on economic justice, fair taxation, corporate accountability and environmental responsibility.

Climate Change Survey is a Wonk Way to Go

By Bob Decker, Executive Director

Public input is a noble and necessary element of democratic government. But beware what follows from a cherished idea turned awry.

Thus skepticism is warranted for the public opinion survey on climate change recently launched by Montana’s Environmental Quality Council.

The Environmental Quality Council (EQC) is comprised of 12 legislators, four public members, and a representative of the governor’s office. It meets between regular legislative sessions to address pressing environmental issues of the day.

In January, the EQC heard a presentation on the “Montana Climate Change Action Plan,” a report by Governor Schweitzer’s Climate Change Advisory Committee. The report contains an inventory of greenhouse gas production in Montana and 54 recommendations for reducing that production.

After the presentation, some EQC members (mostly Republican) expressed doubt about the importance of climate change and the quality of the report, while some members (mostly Democrat) expressed greater concern for the issue and an interest in developing public policy to address it. Because no compromise was in the offing, the members decided to poll themselves to measure collective support for each of the report’s 54 recommendations.

Not a bad idea. Then it was suggested that the survey be circulated for public input. Though the intent is admirable, the exercise will not produce an accurate picture of public opinion.

It’s a wonk survey – written by wonks, for wonks, in wonk language. To comprehend its content and complete it thoughtfully requires familiarity with a 453-page document. For EQC members, who have received the report and heard from experts, it’s a useful tool. For John and Jane Montanan, who don’t have the same intimacy with an arcane study, it’s something best left to, well, the people they elected to deal with such matters.

The survey-taker is asked to pass judgment on recommendations described in energy jargon. Some recommendations are understandable (“Consumer Information on Vehicle Miles Per Gallon”), while others are obscure (“Incentives and Barrier Removal - Including Interconnection Rules and Net Metering Arrangements - for Combined Heat and Power and Clean Distributed Generation”).

Remarkably, the survey presents recommendations without accompanying figures for expected decrease in carbon emissions, how much the recommendations will cost to implement, or the sizable economic benefit to Montana that many of the recommendations offer. Web links are provided to such details, but the curious must download and navigate voluminous files to mine the information.

Though John and Jane Montanan aren't likely to participate in the survey, advocacy groups and business interests aligned on various sides of the climate change issue will marshal troops in a reactionary effort to win an irrelevant skirmish that detracts decision-makers from meaningful deliberation on a subject of profound importance.

That meaningful deliberation isn't about whether climate change is occurring or whether human behavior plays a part in the phenomenon. Despite bluster from EQC members (mostly Republicans) and media coverage still infatuated with the is-it-happening-or-not? story line that left its moorings with reality long ago, no member of the EQC has yet put up an inspired case against the existence of climate change.

The real questions center on how much EQC members care about the impacts of climate change, whether mitigation is possible, what role state government should play in addressing the issue, and whether the Legislature should pursue the energy-conserving recommendations of the Climate Change report that offer BOTH reduced carbon emissions and significant economic benefit to Montanans.

The EQC could answer those questions through open debate of firm policy proposals, a majority-rules method of resolution, and the presentation of preferred actions in readily understood language and numbers. Then it would be a good time for public input.