Former Trump administration National Security Council staffer William Happer said that he regretted a controversial comment likening the “demonization of carbon dioxide” to the Holocaust, but defended the substance of the comparison.
A climate change science skeptic, Happer, 80, recently left the Trump administration after the White House killed his plan to create a panel to challenge government assessments of global warming.
As his idea received attention, media outlets drew notice to comments Happer made in a 2014 interview on CNBC that the “demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler.”
Happer, in an exclusive interview with the Washington Examiner, said the statement “was not meant to be in any way anti-Semitic” but that he was sorry he said it.
Nevertheless, he stood by the comparison, invoking his father’s service in World War II to say that he feels strongly about opposing “fanaticism.” His father was an officer with the Indian Army in the Middle East and North Africa, according to Happer’s Princeton website.
“That is part of the reason I feel so strongly about opposing fanaticism,” Happer said. “There is no better word to describe what we are seeing with climate now. For sure, it’s a demonization of CO2. Whatever you compare it to, to talk about a gas that is completely beneficial in every way as a pollutant is just outrageous.”
After leaving his NSC post, Happer has returned to Princeton, where he is an emeritus physics professor. He’s also rejoined the CO2 Coalition, an advocacy group he founded that claims rising levels of carbon will benefit the world.
Happer’s views go against the consensus of climate scientists, which is that human burning of fossil fuels that emit carbon dioxide is the dominant cause of climate change.
Robert Socolow, another physicist at Princeton, told the Washington Examiner that Happer’s comment makes it more difficult for society to “de-politicize the conversation in this country” around climate change.
He said the comment has contributed to the decision by many of their colleagues to avoid working with Happer.
“It seems important to distinguish climate activism from climate science,” said Socolow, who still communicates with Happer. “Will may sometimes loosely act as if they are the same. There is a political movement trying to bring action. But the climate scientists do not have their thumb on the scale. Climate scientists are doing the best job they can. I believe Will shares this view.”
