I consider myself an optimist. I believe people are generally good hearted, honest and well meaning. I believe world
leaders will finally recognize that climate change must be addressed and must be
addressed quickly.
My optimism is validated by recent climate actions of President Obama, Pope Francis and others.
However, my optimism is tempered by the scientific reality and the persistent denial from leaders who know better.
The problem is that quick climate action is now defined
as taking steps that will limit global warming to about 2 degrees
centigrade. We're already at about a .8
degree increase and we're seeing impacts: more frequent and intense extreme
weather events; melting ice in the Arctic, Antarctica, Greenland and glaciers;
rising sea levels impacting low lying coastlines; increased droughts; and, the
first waves of climate refugees escaping climate impacted areas.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency
estimates that the 2 degree limit will help to mitigate sea level rise, but
we’ll still see an increase of a foot or more in my lifetime and over 3 feet by
the end of the century. That means a lot
more human, environmental and economic hardship could face humanity in the
coming decades.
The optimist in me believes we'll find ways to cope with
the changes, but we better not let it get any worse than a 2 degree
increase. Anything above 2 degrees and
the scientists tell us that we could get into an irreversible acceleration of
impacts that will ultimately raise seas to levels unseen in human history and
make large portions of earth uninhabitable. Some scientists are now questioning whether 2
degrees is the right number or whether the cap should be much lower to avoid
the worst devastation.
The potential for climate change has been known for many
years. In the 1980s, the science became
clear enough that our leaders should have taken steps to limit global warming
to a much lower level than 2 degrees.
But they didn't. In the 1990s,
then President George H.W. Bush and other Republican leaders took some
preliminary steps to begin to address climate change.
But then fossil fuel companies and their surrogates convinced some
politicians and opinion leaders that the climate solutions would hurt their
business interests. They funded some of
the same public relations and psuedo-scientists who were used to delay
regulation of cigarettes and toxic chemicals. They created doubt about the science
and provided cover to Congressional leaders who wanted to placate their oil
patrons. Their work was surprisingly
successful. According to polls, only
50-some percent of Americans believe there is a scientific consensus on climate
change or that we are already seeing impacts. And Americans are among the least informed on climate of the major industrialized countries. The reality is that over 99% of climate science studies agree there is a
problem and scientists are telling us it is already affecting us.
By the early 2000s, opponents to climate action convinced
the Republican leadership that climate could be used as a partisan issue. With some exceptions like Senator Lindsay
Graham of South Carolina and former Ronald Reagan Secretary of State George Shultz, most Republicans who previously believed action on climate
was needed, back-peddled. Then, one very
conservative Congressman, Bob Inglis of South Carolina, looked at the science carefully and realized earth was in big trouble.
He started advocating for climate change action and, as a result, conservative
activists rallied around a Republican opponent who soundly defeated him. The message to Republican members was clear
-- back climate science at your own peril.
Opinion polls in the U.S. now reflect a sharp partisan divide on climate, with Democrats much more likely to believe climate science than Republicans. The
Public Policy Institute of California released a poll last month showing California Democrats twice as likely as Republicans to believe climate impacts have already begun (73% vs. 37%) and more than twice as likely to see global warming as serious threat.
Climate deniers among the Republican Presidential candidates and in Congress have been emboldened and
continue in their efforts to dismiss scientific reality. Despite overwhelming irrefutable evidence,
they continue to resist needed action.
I was thinking about the future recently and wondered how
the climate deniers will be remembered in the future. The deniers have managed to stall climate action for several decades. I
believe their days of obstructionism are waning in the face of public and world
insistence for action – that’s the optimist in me coming out again.
But these climate deniers will be remembered in the future for their
tremendous success at obfuscation and delay.
And this remembrance will not be a positive one. I expect people in the future will look back
in anger at our failure from the late 1980s to 2015 to take steps to limit
global warming to a level lower than 2 degrees centigrade.
People in the future will want to know who was
responsible for inaction. And, for the
displacement, environmental damage and human suffering, those responsible will be remembered with disgust and disdain.
Others have used the phrase “traitor to humanity” to
describe leading climate change deniers.
Traitor is a harsh word, but I can think of none better to describe the
reckless disregard for our planet and the humans that live on it. For a bit of political self-gratification
now, the climate denial leaders are condemning themselves to be forever
remembered as betraying humans and the planet.
