David Andrews: On climate, we need common ground between 'hoax' and 'imminent doom'

Sustainability is a recognized virtue in natural resource management. The virtue of sustainability in legislation and government policy is less recognized but equally important.

Businesses and individuals make plans and long-term investments based on government regulations and policy. If the rules change every few years, bad decisions are inevitable and future investment is paralyzed.

U.S. climate policy is the poster child of policy instability. We joined and then left the Paris Climate Accords twice in the last 10 years. We passed a bill subsidizing renewable energy, then returned to a policy of subsidizing only fossil fuels. Recently carbon dioxide was declared harmless by the EPA, having been considered a pollutant the previous 16 years due to its climate impact.

Is it any wonder that in countries with more policy stability, India and China for example, companies are much better positioned to benefit from the ongoing global energy transition, a transition which continues unabated? (Indecision must be contagious. I can’t decide whether to laugh or cry!)

Policy dithering has not been motivated by changes in the science. Climate science has been consistent, even while the climate itself changes. Predictions of warming made by Exxon scientists in the 1970s describe the 2020s pretty well, as do predictions made by academic and government scientists.

The models ran slightly hot for a while, but more recently have been somewhat low. Predictions for the end of the 21st century have a lot of uncertainty, much of it from our uncertain policy response. But do we dare ignore them?

We know from our premiums that insurance companies are paying attention. We know that the past winter was exceptionally mild, and that Montana farmers are concerned about our drift toward Utah’s climate.

The public forum is not doing justice to the climate issue. Far too much of the “debate” is an unproductive all-or-nothing clash between “existential threat” and “hoax”. That poor framing is no doubt responsible for all the policy flip-flopping.

We should be discussing more nuanced questions. How will the new, emerging world order tackle a global problem? Will the U.S. lead, follow, or isolate itself? At what rate should we be phasing out fossil fuels?

Going too fast risks economic disruption. Going too slowly risks more severe environmental disruption. What are the best ways to incentivize fossil fuel phase-out in a capitalist democracy? Can decarbonization be successful without the inclusion of available-on-demand nuclear power?

None of these are easy questions, and reasonable people can disagree.

In July of 2025, a five-member panel of prominent climate skeptics hand-picked by the current administration’s Secretary of Energy Chris Wright produced a report entitled “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate”. While this report was much criticized by mainstream scientists for a variety of reasons, Secretary Wright included the following language in his forwarding message: “Climate change is real, and it deserves attention. ... Climate change is a challenge — not a catastrophe.”

This is an invitation for more productive discussion. Citizens’ Climate Lobby is one nonpartisan organization seeking such a dialogue. ‘

We are presently distracted by other public issues, but this one is not going away. It deserves thoughtful discussion in the election season that is getting underway, not partisan rhetoric.

Candidates from all parties should be judged by their ability to analyze complex issues, as this reflects on their ability to govern effectively in a complex world. There is plenty of room between “imminent doom” and “hoax” to find common ground.

That common ground could then become the basis of the sustainable climate policy we sorely need.