A while ago, Stuff ran an article that asked the question, “Why are climate change sceptics often right-wing conservatives?” The answer, unsurprisingly, comes down to confirmation bias, with the article suggesting that “conservatives may focus selectively on climate data that confirm their beliefs, leading to inaction on mitigating climate change.”
Of course, such tendencies are hardly the exclusive province of right-wing conservatives. While the matter would probably just never occur to someone in a newsroom, it is equally interesting to ponder the question of why it is that left-leaning liberals are so often such convinced climate change believers. This, of course, is an entirely different question as to whether climate change is real (for my views on that, see here).
The standard and self-flattering answer that liberals give is that they are just more receptive to science due to their superior rationality compared to dumber, more superstitious conservatives. But that really isn’t the case. There’s a long list of topics on which the leftwing position finds itself at odds with the observable facts. From questions about nuclear power, when human life begins, genetic modification, animal experimentation, the origins of human differences it is often the case that common left-wing answers find themselves ranged against science.
(This isn’t a criticism, by the way - the notion that the natural sciences are the only sensible means of thinking about the world and each other is dangerous and wrong).
If this all seems very anecdotal to you, consider this study from a few years back. Liberal and conservative participants were required to read about studies that either affirmed or disagreed with their views on a wide range of controversial issues. They were asked to interpret that information, were given the (correct) conclusions the studies’ authors had arrived at and were then asked to rate the authors on knowledge and trustworthiness.
The unsurprising result was that liberals and conservatives were equally likely to interpret the data in accordance with their preconceptions and to assess the interpretations based on those same views.
So, with that in mind, why are left-wingers so staunch on climate?
Let’s look at the Green New Deal, which is strongly associated with the hard left American political superstar Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Back in July, her then chief-of-staff Saikat Chakrabarti was reported in the Washington Post to have said the following in a meeting with Sam Ricketts, the climate director for a presidential candidate:
“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” Ricketts greeted this startling notion with an attentive poker face. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
In other words, it was an economic reform first - and a climate change mitigation proposal second.
This goes a long way to answering the question, I think.
It’s not that climate change stalwarts don’t believe in the imminent catastrophe being prophesied, but the fact that the proposed responses often involve stuff they would want to do anyway (like revive central planning, bureaucratize the economy and dismantle capitalism) probably helps a lot. If the solution to climate change somehow was to implement a flat tax and ban trade unions, you might find their zeal somewhat dulled.
All of this is to say that I have my doubts about the viability of the Sustainable New Zealand Party.
I could be wrong, of course, but I suspect that the “save the climate and capitalism” element of the electorate is a bit like the “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” element. That is to say that it has some purchase among the punditry but is vanishingly small as an identifiable segment of the actual electorate.