Learning to live with climate change vs trying to fix it

The reduction of emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to prevent the planet from warming to more extreme temperatures is called climate change mitigation.

The sad fact about climate change is that the carbon dioxide that we’ve placed into the atmosphere will stay there for hundreds of years. Even if we stopped all such pollution immediately, we’d still be left with the damage we’ve already caused. And of course, stopping all greenhouse gas pollution right away isn’t at all possible anyway. Yet we can’t give up; we still have to try. Zero net emissions still has to be our long-term goal. Picture a bathtub filled with water so much that it’s beginning to overflow. The problem is that water is still being added to the tub, even though it’s already full. If we reduce the inflow, it will slow the amount that’s spilling onto the floor, but it won’t stop it. The only solution is to shut the water supply off completely. But if we don’t at least begin to reduce emissions now, the earth’s warming will be that much worse. As we slow and hopefully stop greenhouse gas emissions, we will also need to develop new technology to remove carbon from the atmosphere. There have been some promising developments on this front, but the breakthrough needs to be in the area of scalability.

Thus climate change is a long-term problem without an easy fix. It’s exacerbated by some people and institutions who are resistant to change, often citing economic justification. Avoidance of short-term pain is understandable, but much of the resistance is fostered and sponsored by those with a vested interest in the status quo: those who profit greatly from the burning of fossil fuel.

Climate change adaptation means altering our behavior, systems, and sometimes ways of life to protect our families, our economies, and the environment in which we live from the impacts of climate change.

Now that climate change is finally accepted as fact, and it’s sad that this has taken so long, we will have to adapt or perish. Every part of the globe will have to take measures to minimize the effects, and it will take time, effort, and money. Lots of money.

Alternative facts regarding the climate

Until she said it, I had been under the impression that we were all stuck in a world with one set of unambiguous truths. Many of us were none too happy with the situation, especially when said truth did not fit our worldview. But then Kellyanne Conway changed everything when she said that then-President Trump was entitled to his own set of ‘alternative facts.’ Suddenly, I felt free to enjoy believing anything I wanted. And evidently, Trump felt even more free to do anything he wanted, regardless of laws or conscience. Isn’t it wonderful to no longer have to worry about whether something is a truth or a falsehood? Once you have alternative facts, you can say or do anything!

Take global warming. Please. (See, I can even make jokes about it. Those darn bleeding-heart nature lovers can’t, can they?) The environmentalists believe in something called ‘climate science,’ which claims that greenhouse gas emissions from burning good-old fossil fuels are causing the earth’s temperatures to rise. The climate scientists say their position is based on both theory and observation of ‘facts.’ They say that even though some refinement is always needed, there is near consensus on the basic premise that the earth is getting warmer, and that human activity is the cause. I don’t like these facts, and I don’t think too many of my friends do, either. That’s why we have our own special alternative facts about global warming. Here are a few of my faves.

Alternative Fact 1: Sure the climate is changing. The climate is always changing. (Don’t I sound smart when I say that?) Wait. You’re telling me that a few years ago, I was denying that the climate was changing at all, and this is now my fallback position? I deny this, too. Scientists

also tell us that the planet is warmer now than at any time in human history due to our greenhouse gases. I don’t like this fact either, so I’ll be sure to come up with an alternative one. When I get around to it.

Alternative Fact 2: What do scientists know? Back in the ‘70s, they were telling us that an ice age was coming. (Don’t I sound smart when I say that?) What? Out of the climate-related studies from 1965 to 1979, 62% predicted that warming would occur and only 10% predicted cooling, but the media hyped the latter ones more. Time for some better alternative facts, like my original smarty-pants statement above. Besides, scientists are just plain dumb. That’s what happens when you learn, think, or study too much about something: your brain gets all fuzzy. I know better because I haven’t studied the subject as much as they have, and I therefore have a clear head about such things. I’ve even heard scientists themselves say that their work isn’t perfect and that the scientific method itself is self-correcting. Why don’t they just use alternative facts, so that they can never be wrong?

Alternative Fact 3: Even if those original scientific facts about anthropogenic climate change are true (I’m not admitting that they are, and by the way, look at that big word I used), what about India and China? They pollute more than we do, and what good will it do for us to clean up our environment if they don’t? (Don’t I sound smart when I say that? And isn’t this the best whataboutism of all?) I know.

Former President Obama, and now current President Biden, want the U.S. to lead the world in clean energy, saying it will help, not hurt the economy in the long run. I don’t

like this fact, either, because it doesn’t suit the people who make a lot of money off coal and oil. Therefore, it doesn’t suit the Republican Party, former President Trump, or smart people like me. Our alternative fact to this one is that renewable energy will cause massive unemployment and disrupt our great economy. And don’t even get me started on cow farts.

The current spate of record high temperatures, heat waves, flooding, severe storms, rising seas, and wildfires are mere inconveniences. I’m sure they will all stop now. And alternative facts about such things just keep getting better.

Anyway. I could go on. The alternative facts coming from my side won’t stop, no matter what true facts you care to share. 

Dan Horvath is a proud member of the Flat Earth Society, which has members from all around the globe.

The Administrative State vs Pollution

There was a time when our air, at least in areas, was so polluted that it was nearly impossible to breathe. Our rivers and lakes were poisoned to the point of being devoid of life and even catching fire. President Richard Nixon and Congress created the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 to regulate industry such that the environment was protected. The EPA’s charter has been upheld by the Supreme Court on multiple occasions. The Supreme Court has even upheld the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change. Such protection is crucial to our ability to control such pollution.

Now, the activist and highly political Supreme Court has reversed itself once again. Its decision on West Virginia v. EPA limits the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court sided with the fossil fuel industry to strip the EPA of the power to do its job: protecting our people and the environment from the growing climate crisis. By limiting the EPA’s authority to regulate pollution from the energy sector (the sector is responsible for over a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions), the Supreme Court is putting our environment, our climate, and our health in increasing danger.

The court’s conservative majority explains their activism by referring to the EPA as the “Administrative State.” Okay, yes, their job, as defined by Congress, is to regulate polluters. The term is accurate, even if it is used in a pejorative way. More important are the words of Justice Elena Kagan: “Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change. And let’s say the obvious: The stakes here are high. Yet the Court today prevents congressionally authorized agency action to curb power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions.” Kagan also called out the court for designating itself as the rule-maker for such policies. “The Court appoints itself—instead of Congress or the expert agency—the decision-maker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening.”

Polluters can now join the Religious Right and the Gun Lobby; their bought and paid for Supreme Court is doing their bidding now as well. The “Administrative State” has kept our air and water relatively clean, and it has helped us fight the pollution that causes climate change. Until now.

The Supreme Court makes another political decision to side with polluters

Today, June 30, The Supreme Court, voting 6 to 3 along ideological lines, curbed the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to broadly regulate carbon emissions from power plants. Today’s decision on West Virginia v. EPA limits the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court sided with the fossil fuel industry to strip the EPA of the power to do its job: protecting our people and the environment from the growing climate crisis.

By limiting the EPA’s authority to regulate pollution from the energy sector (the sector is responsible for over a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions), the Supreme Court is putting our environment, our climate, and our health in increasing danger.

 
Justice Elena Kagan delivered a critical dissent to the court’s majority opinion in the case. In the decision, the court took away the president’s authority to implement regulations under the Clean Air Act to reduce carbon emissions at power plants. The majority opinion was delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts. Kagan, joined by fellow justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, called the court’s decision “all the more troubling” given the subject matter.

“Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change,” Kagan wrote. “And let’s say the obvious: The stakes here are high. Yet the Court today prevents congressionally authorized agency action to curb power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions.”

Kagan also called out the court for designating itself as the rule-maker for such policies. “The Court appoints itself—instead of Congress or the expert agency—the decision-maker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening. Respectfully, I dissent.”

 
It’s clear that we cannot continue to rely on an anti-regulatory Supreme Court that is in the pockets of industry to protect our families and our climate. We must become more radical and take action to work around and avoid such terrible decisions by this out-of-control court.

Short Term Pain vs Long Term Gain

It’s not surprising that so many want to mitigate the rising fuel costs by increasing fossil fuel production. No one enjoys paying increasingly high prices for fuel. But the war in Ukraine is also an opportunity. It’s a chance to double-down our commitment to reduce dirty fossil fuel use in favor of clean, renewable energy.

President Biden’s March 8 speech proved that he understands the pain we’re going through. I encourage everyone to watch it. Thankfully, we have a President who fully understands world events and how to respond by building coalitions. He is garnering support among our allies, and even our own opposition party. During the speech, he noted that the United States produces more fuel than it did during the first year of his predecessor. This was necessary to counter some of the lies and conspiracy theories put forth by the right-wing media. Most importantly, however, he understands that we can’t let up on renewables.

The conversion to sustainable energy will occur regardless of whether we want it to or not. The only question, of course, is the timing. If we invest now, we can guide the transition so that it will be less disruptive to our economy as well as the best solution for the climate. We can also help ensure our leadership in the global technological economy.

Some short term policies may help. A little. No matter what we do, it will be best for us to keep our eyes on the long term gain.

The Cost of Climate Change

Much to the delight of Republicans, the Democrats’ Build Back Better agenda appears to be foundering. The $1.7 trillion bill was to include $555 billion to combat climate change. This framework would set the United States on course to meet its climate targets, achieving a 50-52% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 levels by 2030. Although there were efforts to pay for the majority of the bill’s costs through various means, dissenters cite high cost as their primary reason for their opposition.

A half-trillion dollars to fight climate change? It sounds like a lot, doesn’t it? Compared with the entire annual U.S. budget of $6.8 trillion, it is. But BBB was to be spread over ten years, so it averages out to closer to $55 billion annually. And remember, most of that would be paid for, so relatively little would be added to the annual deficit. Even so, it’s all still a pretty good chunk of change.

When we regard such costs, however, we need to also consider the price of the alternative: to do nothing. What will climate change cost the U.S. and the global economy if all the warnings and concerns are ignored? These costs include more frequent and expensive weather disasters such as droughts, wildfires. Floods, hurricanes, and off-season tornadoes. Add to this the cost of increased disease, migration, and famine, and decreased crop yields. Most of these things are happening already, but the continuing disruption and impact to our economy are only at their earliest stages.

What would it add up to? According to an analysis by global insurance company Swiss Re, if countries succeed at holding average global temperature increases to less than two degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels as set by the 2015 Paris accord, the planet’s economic losses by 2050 would be no more than 5 percent smaller than would otherwise be the case. In today’s dollars, 5% of the current  U.S. GDP of $22 trillion is about $1.1 trillion.

What if we are not able to hold the average global temperature to less than two degrees? Most countries are well behind their Paris emissions targets, so this is a real possibility. Current projections are for the actual increase to be more like 2.6 degrees by 2050. Swiss Re considered this (and an even worse) scenario as well. The impact to the United States (and the world) would be closer to 7 percent of GDP, or $1.54 trillion. Comparing this figure and the 2-degree one, we can estimate that a half-trillion-dollar investment now could save us that much every single year by mid-century.

Like any long-term investment, the best time to begin was years ago. Stating that the United States has been substantially under-invested in climate action for decades, Rutgers University’s Robert Kopp says, “The longer we wait, the more damages we'll have to deal with, and the more costly it will be to lower our emissions in a way that avoids future damages.” Also like any long-term investment, it’s still better to begin late (like now) than never.

The current and future cost of climate change is more than just a monetary hit to the economy. Now we get to the most tragic aspect of a climate disaster. The cost of human lives and livelihoods lost and disrupted will be incalculable. It’s the same for the loss of global biodiversity; we’re creating a planet that none of us will recognize in our near future.

What will it take to mitigate the worst aspects of the coming climate disaster? The will to do what is right. And for that, we can start with investing in our planet’s future through Build Back Better.

Nuclear Power Needs to be Part of the Solution

For over 35 years, scientists have been telling us that our greenhouse gas emissions would cause climate change and that would lead to a climate crisis. Welcome to where we’re at now: the very start of a climate catastrophe that will only get worse. Had we listened and taken heed then, our present difficulties would be greatly reduced, and it would be much easier to further mitigate the problem. Perhaps we should listen to these scientists when they tell us that we now have to take even more drastic action to prevent complete disaster in years to come.

The fact is, we have to get to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. The burning of fossil fuels is the primary concern. Of course, it isn’t going to happen overnight, but zero needs to be the goal. We can get a great deal of the way with renewables. Wind and solar energy sources are clean and proven and must be further pursued. But these alone won’t get us all the way to zero. Fission-based nuclear energy (our current technology) has improved significantly; it’s now much safer, more efficient, and there is far less waste. It has the potential to take us the rest of the way.

In a Washington Post article, Jonah Goldberg argues that nuclear power must be part of any fight to take climate change seriously. Although Mr. Goldberg is wrong to criticize climate activists and politicians and their “periodic climate confabs that this is our ‘last chance’ to act or to save the planet” (they’re trying to save the world for our grandchildren, so cut them some slack), he is right to say that nuclear power needs to be a major part of the solution.

Nuclear power is safe, cheap, and carbon-free. It doesn’t cause any pollution in the usual sense. But like any source of energy, it’s not without problems. One is that no one wants them in their backyards, and partly as a result, they’re expensive and time-consuming to build. Another is that the source materials and fuel must be mined, and that’s a dirty, polluting business. Finally, there’s the problem of what to do with the waste.

Thanks to new technology, the waste from nuclear power is greatly reduced. But there’s still some; where do you put it? Mr. Goldberg is critical of President Obama for shutting the “perfectly safe” Yucca Mountain waste repository. That safety is debatable, but the current situation - nuclear waste is stored at more than 100 sites around the country – isn’t better. Other alternatives, such as recycling and other forms of storage, must be considered more seriously.

Regardless, there just aren’t any other solutions to climate change that will currently work for us. Think of it this way: nuclear power: it’s not just for Homer Simpson anymore.