Dear Climate Change Deniers and Failed Policymakers

               I am discovering the purpose of these posts as I write them.  The topics upon which I muse have a common theme.  They are issues which have led to increased worldsuck.  In most cases (and today’s topic falls squarely into this category), I feel an overwhelming sense of helplessness to make any significant difference, but it is because of the daunting nature of the task that I become determined to try.  That’s what these posts are.  They’re attempts at making the world a better place.  I figure if people read what I write, maybe these ideals I hold will spread to others.  Maybe I’ll change a reader’s mind about something, or maybe a reader will be able to change someone else’s mind after taking in my opinions.  I feel like the world can be changed, but the change depends on, ultimately, the will of the people (with a heavy influence from the portion of people with the most money and power first, but that’s another post).  The part I hope to play in the grand scheme of things is to contribute towards the public opinion shift necessary for these changes to occur, and today, I hope to help reverse climate change.

               The first step in shifting public opinion on climate change in a way that will save the world, is to convince the public that climate change is real and world-threatening.  This battle has been waged for years, and that upsets me.  As you may be aware, I have little tolerance for scientific illiteracy in this day and age.  That means that when reports like the latest update from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) come out, and folks flat out deny the results, I become infuriated.

               Climate change deniers have a set of “evidence” supporting their position.  The quotes are there because included in this arsenal are some unscientific items.  They can find scientists who hold a position in line with their own, and by hosting a debate between a supporter and a denier, make it seem like the reality of climate change is a debate.  According to NASA, 97% of climate scientists are in agreement that it is real and human-caused.  I’m not saying that we shouldn’t listen to the minority in disagreement.  I am saying that the whole story is truer than 3% of it.  It is misleading to project an air of disagreement within the scientific community when there is virtually none.

               Another tool climate change deniers use is misinterpretation of data.  If you’ve ever been witness to a comment on a cold day such as “global warming my ass” and didn’t wish they were eligible for the Darwin Awards, it’s time for school.  Climate change (formerly known as global warming) is, in fact, a global phenomenon.  A cold snap in the place where you live has an influence on the mean annual global temperature, but does not dictate whether or not the annual global temperature has increased or decreased.  In fact, this winter’s (2013-14) extremely cold temperatures in the northern hemisphere could be a result of climate change.  Remember the phrase “polar vortex?”  A polar vortex is “a persistent, large-scale cyclone located near either of a planet’s geographical poles.”  If it is very cold, the vortex is strengthened, and if it is not that cold, the vortex weakens.  This weather phenomenon was unusually weak, due to warmer-than-usual conditions in the northern hemisphere this winter, which allowed the cold air to escape its usual bounds and freeze Texas (barely).  Climate change is a process that occurs on a global scale over time, and those few cold weeks this winter absolutely do not disprove it.  They may in fact be evidence for climate change.

               My final point to de-bunk climate change myths is perspective.  Reader, I urge you to always question the source of information.  Scientific evidence and the consensus of the scientific community are the most infallible sources of information available by definition.  As long as there is adequate competent research, the scientific method will always lead us towards the truth.  On the other hand, there are persuasive words and misleading or cherry-picked evidence not in line with the scientific consensus.  When we ask why a set of arguments denying climate change exists, I conclude that it is in some people’s best (short-term) interests.  It is currently more lucrative in the short term to deny climate change and continue greenhouse gas emissions than it is to invest in solutions, and herein lies the rub.

               Cheap access to energy through fossil fuels has done great things for civilization while taking a toll on our environment.  This exchange has been going on since the middle of the 19^th century, has decreased in some places, and is just starting in others (looking at you, China).  So far, the money we’ve saved and made by our progress through greenhouse gas emissions greatly outweighs any cost we’ve had to pay for wreaking havoc on the global climate.  There will come a point in time, however, when our debts will become due.  According to the IPCC’s latest report, the longer we wait to implement solutions, the higher the cost will be.  Furthermore, the future surface temperature of our planet will be largely determined by cumulative CO_2, meaning that climate change will continue even if CO₂ emissions are stopped.  We have gone so far that even if we stop our greenhouse gas emissions completely, we will not be able to stop climate change without further action.

               Here’s some more context from this latest IPCC report, in case you missed the recent headlines.  The warming of atmosphere and oceans is unequivocal.  There is a clear human influence on the climate.  It is extremely likely that humans are the main source of greenhouse gas increase since 1950.  It is virtually certain that ocean temperatures have risen, and there is high confidence that this increase accounts for 90% of the energy accumulation from 1971 to 2010.  There is high confidence that the sea level rise since the middle of the 19^th century is more than the trend from the past 2000 years.  Greenhouse gases in our atmosphere have increased to levels unprecedented on Earth in 800,000 years.  The difference in radiant energy (sunlight) received by Earth and that released back into space, relative to 1750, is now positive (more energy is coming in than is being let out), and an increase in CO₂ is the most significant driver.  The report predicts that by the end of this century, temperatures are likely to increase by 1.5^o C in most scenarios, and 2.0^o C in many scenarios.  The global water cycle will change, resulting in an increase in disparity between wet and dry regions (increased drought, desertification, and floods).  Oceans will continue to warm, and the heat will permeate to deeper depths.  It is very likely that there will be decreases to surface ice and snow cover responsible for much of the Albedo effect, reflecting solar energy.  Global mean sea levels will rise at rates greater than those over the past four decades.  These data and predictions are based on rigorously scrutinized scientific evidence and consensus, and we would best be served if we all treated them with the respect they deserve.

               As in all my blog posts, I hope my lens on this issue will be adopted (or at least considered) by others.  The scientific approach is the best approach we have, and as a result of taking this approach, it has become apparent that our activities are threatening, have been threatening, the wellbeing of life on our planet.  The preceding is an attempt to sway public opinion on the legitimacy of climate change science (a task I wish was not necessary).  What follows is my take on implementation strategies for a solution.

               Our solution to climate change must by two-tiered.  We must reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to zero as well as place into operation systems which actively absorb existing greenhouse gasses.  We already know how to start these processes.  Renewable energy sources (wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, and arguably nuclear) are the key to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, and photosynthesizing plants, coupled with some industrial solutions are probably the most effective catalysts for global CO₂ absorption.  Although we know how to slow and eventually reverse climate change, the current short-term economics of the issue are acting as a road block to progress.  In the ideal instance, due to the finite nature of fossil fuels, green energy would become the best, cheapest, and most abundant form of energy, and the market would naturally shift us away from greenhouse gas-emitting fuels before it’s too late.  However, as stated above and in the IPCC report, even reducing our emissions to zero will not be enough.  Trends indicate that drastic changes to our environment will continue much faster than any foreseeable economic drivers for green energy can keep up with.  Therefore, policymakers must put into place penalties and/or incentive programs to promote climate change solutions in order to counteract the unfortunate disparity between the environmental and market demands for climate change mitigation and reversal.  There will continue to be much debate over the ways policy should intervene for climate change solutions.  I would like to throw my two cents in with a proposal that might have the potential to please all parties while accomplishing climate goals.

               I work in the affordable housing industry, and am firsthand witness to a public/private partnership structure that works.  As an affordable housing developer, our company gets government financing in the form of tax credits, builds apartments, and then leases them at lower-than-market-rate rents to tenants with incomes of a certain level or lower.  In this process, the tax credits we are awarded are bought by an equity provider, usually a bank.  FDIC insured banks are required through the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 to offer credit in all local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation, in order to get permission for mergers, open new branches, and other regulated activities.  If a bank does not meet its CRA needs, the bank will not have access to some of these business-building methods.  Investing in Low-Income Housing Tax Credits is one of the easiest ways banks meet their CRA requirements.  The beauty of the industry is that big banks, housing advocates, for- and not-for-profits alike come together, and everyone leaves happy.  Banks get a good investment, developers make a profit, and housing advocates’ goals are achieved.  A similar system could work towards ending climate change.

               Just like in the affordable housing world, the first ingredient to this policy must be a penalty for the people or entities whose actions or inactions further climate change.  They are the polluters, and the pollution mainly comes from: energy supply (26%), industry (19%), forestry (17%), agriculture (14%), transport (13%), and residential and commercial buildings (8%).  Implementing a penalty fine will mean that products from each of these activities will become more expensive if they continue to contribute to greenhouse gas emissions; the companies will pass the extra cost along.  In an attempt to lower demand for greenhouse gas emitting goods and services, the buck should stop as close as logistically possible to the activity where greenhouse gasses are produced.  For each area, respectively, the penalty would apply to: fossil fuel combusting energy companies, polluting industrial companies, deforesters, livestock farmers without methane capture systems, and emissions-based fuel providers (coal, gas, and oil companies).  Based on the severity of the penalty, which should be calculated in depth, the demand for greenhouse gas emitting goods and services will decrease to the point where green alternatives have an economic advantage.

               With that penalty system in place, incentive is ripe for avoiding it, and therefore furthering the mission against climate change.  Take the aspect of the affordable housing industry that produces affordable housing, and replace that activity with green energy supply, green industry, reforestation, green agriculture, green transportation, and green residential and commercial buildings.  People should be able to be awarded some sort of credit (maybe a tax credit, maybe a carbon credit, maybe some other system) for these and other green endeavors that may be used to offset the penalties for greenhouse gas production.  As has been mentioned, going to zero emissions is not enough.  Though emission-neutral activities would avoid the penalty, they would also not be eligible for the credit.  They will, however, benefit via the higher economic demand for that type of good/service.  The credit should be proportional to the amount of greenhouse gas emissions absorbed from the climate.

It might be that the company doing the green work has no penalizable activities of their own, so they can sell the credit to a party who would be subject to the penalty.  The economics of this exchange can be set such that the same amount of greenhouse gases (either produced or captured) is worth more in penalties than it is in credits.  For example, burning enough coal for electricity production to release a ton of CO₂ into the atmosphere could be penalized at, say, $1,500.  The credits for planting enough trees to absorb a ton of CO₂ from the atmosphere could amount to $1,000.  The company facing the penalty would therefore have to invest in 1.5 tons of CO₂ absorption to counter their 1.0 ton of emission (please note that these numbers are made up and probably don’t make sense.  It’s just an example).  The difference must be significant enough so that if a company does not invest in the credits, their penalty can pay to offset more emissions than they’ve produced.  In this way, the overall effect of the penalty/credit system is positive for the climate.

A sudden shock to the economies involved in this proposal could be difficult to manage.  Therefore, the penalties should be implemented gradually and predictably, with 100% transparency in the process.  If industries know what will happen within their economies beforehand, they can better prepare for the changes to come.  This is me playing fair.

The arguments against such a system are limitless, but they are all founded on 19^th and 20^th century values, which place Capitalism and the Free Market on pedestals, with little to no regard for the environment.  People might say that artificially altering the economic landscape is no different from the government choosing the winners and the losers, implying that this is an activity that must be avoided.  My counterargument points skeptics to the Clean Air Act, wherein those out of compliance with the law of the land are penalized with a fine.  Without this action, the free market was driving a trend towards more and more pollution, because it was costly to be environmentally responsible (mostly driven by the lack of demand for clean technologies, I’m sure).  The government is picking winners (those in compliance with the Act) and losers (those who are not), and the system has worked to incentivize polluters to stay in compliance, and to keep the air clean for all who breathe it.

People might say that my system of penalties and credits would end up doing more harm than good.  The companies that would be penalized under my proposal fuel the economy, and we must not interfere with their business.  Furthermore, those companies subject to fines will likely pass the cost along to consumers, and that can’t be allowed.  To these skeptics, I direct your attention to the IPCC’s latest report.  The cost of mitigation and reversal of climate change is high today, but it will only become higher the longer we wait to implement changes.  This proposal intervenes both on behalf of life on our planet, and on behalf of the responsible parties, asking them to begin paying now to avoid a higher price later.  As for the consumers bearing the brunt of these fines, if the policy is structured well, and the implementation gradual and transparent, there will be more opportunity for competitive green companies to bridge the gap and provide cheaper goods and services.

I’m no expert.  I’m only well-informed.  This proposal is only one of probably thousands out there, and has a low statistical chance of being the best option.  However, as is my goal in all of these writings, I just wanted to contribute what I have to offer.  In my proposal, economies are changed, and the potential for price increases is real.  Nobody has had to pay the price of climate change yet, and I presume that there will be plenty of opposition once our bills become due.  Is it fair to have everyday people at risk to bear interim cost increases for our emission-heavy lifestyles?  I say yes.  We have built our modern world with the advent of fossil fuel combustion.  The way we live our lives is detrimental to the environment, and there are currently no penalties.  If you are reading this right now, your carbon footprint has increased.  Knowing full well that someone will have to pay the price, and knowing that the price increases with time, I volunteer our generation to step up and really do something about this problem.  It’s the cheapest, and most responsible thing to do.

It is embarrassing to me that we have been on this unabated path of industrial progress at the expense of our environment for so long.  I am ashamed that members of our species put their own profits above the wellbeing of life on our planet, of the livelihoods of their descendants.  I am disheartened to know that the profit-hungry polluters have a firm grip on our policymakers.  The one weapon can be of any effect in such a lopsided conflict is public opinion, and it’s about time the public’s opinion were informed by science rather than rhetoric.

Today, I take a stand against climate change deniers.  I name them destroyers of our world, and I hold them accountable for the delay in implementing real solutions.  Today, I display one of many possible ways we can begin our long fight towards fixing our problem.  This proposal was dreamt up by me, a 26-year-old guy with no background in politics or climate science.  If I can come up with a plan of action, it’s clear that something is stopping our policymakers from attempting the same.  That something is the unbalanced power polluters have over them compared to their constituents.  I hope, my dear readers, that through these words, at least some small change can be done to shift that balance in favor of our planet, and all us living things on it, today and throughout our future.