politically influential fossil fuel industry. However, Canada and Australia serve as useful analogues.
With Australian coal reserves and Canadian tar sands, fossil fuels account for a larger share of both countries’ economies. Nevertheless, Båtstrand noted, "The [Republican] party seems to treat climate change as a non-issue ... this appears to be consistent with the U.S. national context as a country with large reserves of coal."
Fossil fuel funds + political polarization = climate denial
The answer may lie in a combination of fossil fuel industry influence, and increasing, record levels of political polarization. As shown by the Washington Post’s Christopher Ingraham, the conservative ideology score of House Republicans is the highest it’s been in over 50 years. And as Nate Silver recently noted, "The most conservative Republicans in the House 25 or 30 years ago would be among the most liberal members now."
And it’s clear from the language the Republican Party leaders use that they view climate change not as a scientific or critical risk management issue, but rather as a Democrat issue. Thus, Republican leaders simply can’t accept the need to address climate change, because that would put the on the same side of an issue as Democrats.
With the entire rest of the world in agreement about the need to tackle the threats posed by human-caused climate change, and with a rift forming in the Republican Party over the extreme stance of its leaders on this and other issues, it’s only a matter of time before we see an inevitable shift back towards moderation, realism, and real conservatism in the Republican Party position on climate change.
I can't share the author's optimism that "it is only a matter of time" before the GOP sees the light on climate change. Unless "time" includes 100 years from now when it is way past too late.
= new reply since forum marked as read