Can’t we have an honest debate about climate change?

I grew up in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. My father was a Lutheran pastor, whose parishioners mostly worked in now-silent steel mills. My grandfather was a coal miner and later a steel worker in Pottsville, Pennsylvania. My social roots are very much working class, giving me great empathy for those whose economic plight has been the focus of so much recent political attention. So I understand why many people are looking for new political frontiers.

Even as a climate change researcher, I can understand why many people want to deny that climate change is happening. Our fossil fuel-intensive past is what created good jobs in heavy industry and was a primary source of American economic strength. Looking fondly at continued reliance on oil, gas and coal as drivers of economic revitalization also is understandable, especially when we think there are jobs to be created in places such as Pennsylvania, West Virginia and the upper Midwest.

What I have greater difficulty understanding are those who spin conspiracy theories about a climate hoax. Most policy areas are informed by science, but the climate debate generally focuses on those who “believe” in climate change versus those who do not. Science isn’t about belief; it’s about examining evidence and coming to conclusions based on that evidence. With climate change, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that climate change is real and made significantly more problematic by human action.

One reason for the hoax conspiracy is grounded in purely cynical politics: Climate change seems far off, while the need for jobs and economic recovery for segments of the working class is not. Spinning conspiracies simply for political gain feeds further into the arena of fake news that is so worrisome for the future of our democracy and our ability to make informed decisions.

A more productive public debate about climate change would center on efforts to develop a comprehensive American energy policy. While there would be disagreement about a path forward, the discussion might be an honest one. It would need to address issues of scale that have been challenging for clean energy sources such as wind and solar and help determine how soon we really could expect to have large-scale renewable energy supplies in place. It would also likely recommend continued reliance on fossil fuels as an essential resource until the scale question can be solved for renewables. And it would grapple with the implications of nuclear power that continue to divide the environmental community.

Too many of our political leaders, new and old, have chosen an easier, though less honest approach, to understanding the climate-energy problem. This dishonest debate has been renewed in recent weeks with threats of an American withdrawal from the United Nations climate change process and actions such as the appointment by President-elect Donald J. Trump of climate denier Myron Ebell to head the Environmental Protection Agency transition team. That decision can best be spun as the new administration sticking its collective head in the sand.

A healthier, honest debate would center on what steps should be taken to become more competitive in the global economy, which certainly includes fossil fuels. Most environmentalists will concede that point, especially in the context of a comprehensive energy strategy.

The less honest approach urges citizens to ignore the realities of climate science. It also urges citizens and policy-makers to ignore the demands of climate adaptation that we face immediately and jeopardizes our ability to develop resilience and adapt to our new climate reality. Whether the impact of storms like Sandy or Irene on the eastern United States, rising sea levels or impacts on agricultural production, ignoring climate change threatens our economic and physical security for years to come.

An honest debate on climate and energy needs would allow our country to work toward balancing the demands of economic health with the realities of climate change. It would also be a step toward planning for an inevitable post-fossil fuel future. It will also buy time for economic and labor transitions to take place in the areas where I grew up. Let’s move beyond the falsehood of climate hoaxes and science deniers and onto a real, honest debate about how to solve the challenges that face us economically and environmentally.