Partisan Debate over Climate Change and Scientific Information in Congress

• In Event: Donors, Lobbyists, and Democracy

Abstract

It is well-known that Republicans in Congress are more likely than Democrats to doubt mainstream climate science as well as the utility of combating climate change. A growing body of research traces Republicans’ stance on climate science and policy to a lobbying and misinformation campaign by the fossil fuel industry, similar to the “tobacco strategy” that undermined evidence linking smoking to cancer decades ago. In this paper, we investigate the extent to which Congressional hearings on climate change—Congress’ formal mechanism for gathering and sharing information on the topic—reflect the tobacco strategy. To do so, we leverage text analysis of digitized records of committee hearings on climate change going back to 1997, paying particular attention to micro-level witness data. Initial findings indicate that Democrats hold far more hearings on climate change than Republicans; however, both sides are equally likely to call expert witnesses. In this next stage of our project, we investigate whether Republicans are more likely to frame hearings around the costs of climate change action (rather than inaction) and whether they are more likely to call expert witnesses who challenge scientific consensus on climate change and/or are affiliated with organizations funded by industries threatened by climate regulation.

Authors

• Sara Shahmirzadi Yeganeh, Stony Brook University

• Nathan Ross Lee, Stanford University

• Elizabeth Suhay, Government, American University