It Is Time to Get Serious About Climate Change
This essay is written largely to those on the right of center on the political spectrum. I myself used to be sceptical on the theory of man-made climate change, but witnessing the proliferation and heightened intensity of extreme weather events over the last several years has made me rethink my position. Hopefully, my perspective as someone whose mind was changed can convince others to change their minds as well. Ultimately, this issue will not be effectively confronted unless a greater national consensus among the general public develops around the urgency of fighting climate change. A consensus is developed initially by changing the minds of sceptics.
The scientific community is largely in agreement that recent warming of the planet is largely a man-made phenomenon. Dr. Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science believes, “there is a 93 percent chance that global warming will exceed 4C by the end of this century.” Dr. Caldiera also believes that the most doom-and-gloom climate models tend to be the most accurate in predicting the earth’s future climate.
In terms of expert consensus, the American Association for the Advancement of Science claims, “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.”
The American Meteorological Society concurs with the words, “It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. Other expert bodies in agreement include the American Physical Society, the American Medical Association, the American Geophysical Union, the European Union, and various national academies of Science from countries including Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy and the UK conclude that climate change is a very real threat, that the planet’s temperature will rise and that humanity should address the threat of rising greenhouse gas emissions
The impacts of a warming planet are beyond scary. In 2015, heat waves in Pakistan and India killed thousands of people. In the summer of 2015, James Hansen, a former climatologist, voiced a dire warning that the scale of rising sea levels could be far greater than previous models predicted. The study concluded:
multi-meter sea-level rise would become practically unavoidable. Social disruption and economic consequences of such large sea-level rise could be devastating. It is not difficult to imagine that conflicts arising from forced migrations and economic collapse might make the planet ungovernable, threatening the fabric of civilization.
This summer was an especially daunting snapshot of our future in a warming planet. A heatwave this summer in North America killed at least 44 people in Quebec and 3 in the United States. Wildfires in Siberia of all places spread over 1,250 miles with temperatures around 40 degrees above average. As this goes to publication, California is experiencing its worst wildfire season in recorded history.
Not all of those in power really see the risks of climate change. President Trump tweeted out that it is a conspiracy theory created by the Chinese to make US manufacturing non-competitive If anyone needs to be on board in terms of fighting climate change, it is the political leadership of the United States since our energy consumption is unparalleled in the world. Furthermore, we have the opportunity through our massive economy, impressive human capital and track record of scientific innovation to affect change in an area that can globally benefit humanity for generations to come.
Many of those from the center-left and further left may roll their eyes at these arguments. They are pretty standard and have been articulated in one form or another in the national discourse for generations. This article however is meant to put on the record a plea to those on the right of the American political spectrum, many of whom reject the science of climate change, to carefully consider this challenge as a threat to national and global stability and security.
I can understand why many on the right deny climate change. Conservative Americans often feel a tinge of disdain and condescension emanating from liberals who discuss climate change. Moreover, they cannot resist “owning the libs” over their hypocrisy, which is key to an increasingly polarized national discourse. I admit that the optics of economic and political elites flying private jets halfway around the world to a climate conference table in Switzerland are quite toxic. These lectures on say the dangers of consuming too much red meat reak with hypocrisy from people with unparalleled wealth and power who have zero intention on making any sort of sacrifice for the planet themselves. That said, hypocrisy, elitism and condescension do not negate the reality of the threat we as humanity face.
While doing things such as driving less, carpooling, eating less red meat and countless other lifestyle changes can each contribute in their own small way to fighting climate change, we need to think far greater relative to the magnitude of the crisis we face. The tools we need to bring to this fight must go beyond simple left-right politics and must encompass coordinated action amongst governments, corporations, private individuals and multilateral institutions.
One particularly bold idea to fighting climate change is the concept of geoengineering. This concept-the idea of changing the earth’s climate to cool temperatures-is very out of left field, and much derided as a foolish way to end climate change given its negative effects on agriculture. However, a pithy analogy for solar geoengineering-the concept of releasing gases into the stratosphere to reflect away sunlight-was described by Berkley economist John Proctor as follows, “You’re in an arena with a big bear,” he told me. (The bear is climate change.) “And the question is: Should you throw a lion into the arena? You know, maybe they’ll fight and kill each other. Or maybe they’ll just both kill you.”
Geoengineering goes beyond scattering gases to reflect sunlight. In 2009, scientists came up with a $2 trillion dollar a year plan to geoengineer the Sahara desert by pumping desalinated water into the desert to irrigate fields, grow forests and fix carbon dioxide to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. While the cost is insane, and it carries negative consequences such as locust swarms, projects like this on a much smaller scale done across the planet could yield benefits.
Even the exploration, terraforming and settling of Mars has been floated by Elon Musk as a potential backup in the fight against climate change in case earth is beyond repair. Hopefully that will not have to be considered, but in an age of a rapidly boiling ecosystem, who knows what lengths of discovery, exploration and scientific development humanity will go to?
Of course, there is not one single magic bullet to solving climate change. I strongly believe that all sorts of radical ideas will have to be implemented given how grave our problems with climate change currently are.
Furthermore, renewable energy will also be key to our success in fighting climate change. The advancement of solar energy is particularly promising, as Chinese researchers have recently discovered that organic solar cells can be far cheaper in generating electricity than silicon cells. In 2017 alone, the world added “nearly 30 percent more solar energy capacity.” Furthermore, while controversial in some circles, nuclear energy is described as, “the most rapidly scalable form of carbon-free power invented. The 99 nuclear reactors in the United States generate about ten times the amount generated by solar power. Of course, this is no argument to abandon solar, wind or other forms of renewable energy, but rather one to explore all forms of energy that reduce our dependence on carbon energy sources. Michael Shellenberger of the pro-nuclear advocacy group, Environmental Progress, argues that nuclear power has proven to be the fastest way to decarbonize the global economy.
To be fair, nuclear energy is not zero-carbon, but rather its carbon emissions are extremely low. In fact, at median estimates, carbon emissions for nuclear power are pegged at lower than those for coal, gas, domestic solar pv hydro and offshore wind.
Invariably, many on the right argue about the question of jobs. What about the legions of Americans who work in coal and oil who would lose their jobs in a renewables-dominated economy? Hillary Clinton, in particular, got skewered for her comments that she explicitly intended to put coal miners out of work in the scheme of her energy policy as president.
This question, is of course, important. We should focus on retraining those who work in such sectors, or-for those on the older side-we should focus on providing generous pensions. This targeted assistance for coal miners is especially doable considering that in what is already a dying out industry, all coal mines in the United States employ fewer people in total than Arby’s does. We must look away from the past of coal and toward a new horizon of a long-term energy economy that can employ and benefits millions through clean, renewable sources that mitigate the worst impacts of climate change.
With all that said, America’s efforts alone, despite our resources and potential, will not be enough to combat climate change. This problem requires mechanisms of multilateralism which have received significant scorn in recent years. Indeed, Donald Trump become president largely out of American disdain for international institutions which failed to deliver promised levels of success in certain sectors. Admittedly, much of this disdain was well-deserved given that much dysfunction has emerged from what is termed “the global order of rules and institutions” in the last quarter century or so. Trump derides NATO allies for not paying their fair share of defense spending. His officials scorn at the UN. American and Canadian industrial workers, and millions of Mexicans, have been left reeling to this day from the atrocious effects of NAFTA. Trump gleefully ripped up the Trans Pacific Partnership upon entering office.
With these developments in mind, is there a place in today’s world order for an effective multilateralist group of nations to fight climate change? Maybe.
The answer to this question hinges on the ability to convince all nations that they have a stake in fighting climate change. Not one nation will benefit in the long run from a boiling planet that challenges the foundations of stability and civilization itself. Civil wars over scarce resources, massive refugee flows, heat-inducing drought and ensuing social instability have been countlessly documented by scientists as effects of climate change. If the policy-making elite of nations with high levels of resource consumption are convinced on these problems, and if they understand that other nations share their concerns, multilateralism has a chance of succeeding in this regard. In other words, these new developments would still hinge upon the realist school of geopolitics in the sense that nations always act in their own self-interest. The mitigation and control of climate change should be considered to be in every nation’s self-interest.
Even though that principle may be true in theory, is it true in practice? To answer this question, we should look at the evidence of China’s record on clean, renewable energy. China is right now unquestionably leading the world in the transformation to clean, renewable energy. In 2017, China added 53 gigawatts of solar energy capacity, over half of the global total added for that year. Chinese manufacturing drove down the cost of solar panel manufacturing significantly. China also built an enormous floating solar farm on the sight of a former coal mine. Such work reflects the progress China has made in clean renewables in terms of cutting air pollution by 32% in order to have clearer skies to curtail some of the worst air pollution in the world. China has a rational self interest in this energy shift as opposed to somehow weaponizing climate change as a hoax to force America’s deindustrialization as critics like President Trump have alleged.
Even other opponents of America in a new era of great power competition have made laudable progress in the fight against climate change. Known for destabilization in Syria and Ukraine, another factor of Russia’s foreign policy rarely makes the headlines: its manufacture of the world’s nuclear power plants. For now, the state company Rosatom has plans to build 33 nuclear plants, and many are under its construction from India to Hungary. For now, Russia has no rivals in introducing the world to a highly efficient source of energy that has the potential to decarbonize the global economy.
Of course, Russia does not have such an energy policy out of pure altruism (and much of its economy is still based on the export of fossil fuels), but rather out of its own self-interest. These projects bring in significant revenues and they can act as leverage over other nations’ internal affairs.
With all of these factors in mind, the evidence still shows that nations have a self-interest in taking paths that reduce climate change, even if long-term climate change is not the deciding factor in affecting such policies. If powerful rivals of America are demonstrably trying to tackle this problem, should not the United States trust that some common global policy in fighting climate change can come into effect? Of course, it will prove difficult. Any nations, in their self-interest, could deceive others on the impact that their policies are having in reducing climate change. Such difficulty should not discourage the United States from trying, given what little progress has so far been made in fighting climate change.
America was once the undisputed world leader in scientific advancement. That position is being challenged since China now publishes more science research than the US. That said, the airplane, the polio vaccine, the interstate highway system, Silicon Valley and of course, the moon landing were all achievements of science born in America. If President Trump really wants to “make America great again”, he should harken back to this era of leadership which benefited human discovery on an unprecedented scale. If he really wants to put “America first,” let America become first in the fight against climate change.
As a final note, the fight against climate change is ultimately greater than a competition between nations. It is ultimately about advancing common goals of humanity. If America somehow does not lead this fight, and by some miracle warming is halted and even reversed by the rest of the world, we should applaud such a development. That said, that future is highly unlikely as we begin to grapple with an era wherein no one in no nation can escape the most precarious aspect of globalization: mass environmental degradation. The famed political scientist Samuel Huntington once wrote that a clash between civilizations of the world could be overshadowed by a clash between civilization itself and “the image of an unprecedented phenomenon, a global Dark Ages, possibly descending on humanity.” These words did not concern climate change, rather the wave of destabilizing events of the 1990s. Still, they are relevant in understanding how we will face the unprecedented and to some extent unknown chaos of a future world. With that challenge comes the opportunity to face down one of humanity’s greatest challenges to date and emerge with a better mastery of science, development, communication and mutual understanding than we had before.
