It's Time to Change on Climate Change

I wasn’t surprised at Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s statement last month over the Environmental Protection Agency’s refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions: “Troposhere, whatever. I told you before I am not a scientist. That’s why I don’t want to have to deal with global warming, to tell you the truth.” Disappointed, yes. Surprised, no.

Frankly, nobody wants to deal with it. If we had our druthers, it would all blow away like a swampy summer DC afternoon when thunderstorms roll in from the Blue Ridge Mountains. I am disappointed, however, because want to or not, we must deal with it, and deal with it now.

Don’t take my word for it; take that of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international group of experts that spent years examining the research of hundreds of the world’s best scientists. Or that of the science academies of 11 nations (including our own). Or even that of the Senate, which passed 95-0 a non-binding resolution affirming the science of climate change and calling for mandatory limits on emissions. (For its part, the House of Representatives is also getting in the game with bills under consideration and a new global warming task force.) Don’t believe it when someone says the science is still out. The science is in. Human-produced greenhouse gases are changing the climate and endangering the world as we know it.

Most Americans realize this. In a Time/ABC News poll last March, 85 percent of people surveyed said global warming is probably happening and 88 percent said it threatens future generations. That’s good, if a bit timid. However, only 68 percent said government should do more to address global warming and a mere 52 percent favored mandatory solutions. Looks like our acknowledgement of the problem surpasses our willingness to fix it.

That’s true for government. Hence, the EPA case in which the agency argued it doesn’t have to regulate greenhouse gas--contrary to the Clean Air Act, which says it must. But it’s also true for you and me. Hence, our unwillingness to make real changes in our lifestyles (whether switching to compact fluorescent lights or ditching the SUV) and our unwillingness to demand governmental intervention. We’re just not big on sacrifice, even when an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

And it is. According to a report by former World Bank chief economist Sir Nicholas Stern, “the benefits of strong, early action considerably outweigh the costs.” It would cost one percent of world GDP per year, Stern says, to significantly reduce our emissions…if we start now.

And if we don’t start now? Reductions in worldwide per capita welfare of as much as 20 percent, he says, owing to rising sea levels, extreme weather events, flooded cities, spreading diseases, etc. All of which will be difficult or impossible to reverse.

Fortunately, this isn’t just about minimizing costs. As the report points out, the potential market for carbon-reducing technologies and ventures is huge. “Tackling climate change is the pro-growth strategy for the longer term, and it can be done in a way that does not cap the aspirations for growth of rich or poor countries…With strong, deliberate policy choices, it is possible to ‘decarbonise’ both developed and developing economies on the scale required for climate stabilization, while maintaining economic growth in both.”

The rural angle to all this lies in rural areas’ particular vulnerability to climate change. For starters, agriculture is the most climate sensitive of all economic sectors. Radical long-term changes in weather patterns will wreak havoc on farming. On top of that, rural areas have fewer resources with which to handle the effects of climate change and less political clout with which to garner outside assistance. Finally, rural folks have precious few transportation options to the car or truck.

On the upside, rural areas can benefit greatly from development and commercialization of climate-friendly energy supplies (like bio-fuels and wind) and carbon-capture schemes. Again, it isn’t just about minimizing costs; it’s also about innovating and creating new economic opportunities.

I once heard someone say, “the last four letters of American spell ‘I can.’” We can do this. We must do this. The question is will we?