I know there are lots of doubters. There also remain a large number of people who aren’t sure what to think about climate change and choose to largely ignore it as they go about their busy lives. The voluminous amount of information, misinformation, and disinformation on this subject doesn’t help the average person’s understanding either.
I believe climate change is a very serious issue. I don’t expect to change doubters’ minds overnight, but I ask them to consider a conservative precautionary approach.
My concern with climate change is the potential magnitude for harm it could have on our lives. If it’s as bad as many climate scientists believe, it will affect our economy, national security, and the water and food supply.
It’s impossible to know all of the affects of climate change – there are many uncertainties. If it’s true the consequences of climate change may not be as bad as most scientists are predicting, what harm has been done by efforts to mitigate it? It could be argued that resources spent as a precaution will lead to some valuable innovations in renewable energy and energy efficiency.
On the other hand, the affects of climate change might be much worse than predicted. There could be drought, famine, food riots, the collapse of societies and governments, and perhaps wars in the most adversely affected areas.
Our leaders need to assess and consider potential catastrophic events, and take judicious steps to protect our country’s downside risk. Prudent people do this by having several different types of insurance policies. We should look at a plan for dealing with climate change as an insurance policy.
We need to start working with scientists to develop a precautionary plan like we did for the ozone problem during the 1980s. Back then, President Reagan wasn’t sure the ozone problem was real, but believed there was enough of a risk that we couldn’t take a chance. This is why his administration took action which helped lead to the development of the Montreal Protocol, which is recognized to have been very effective and beneficial in helping mitigate the ozone issue.
We cannot delay starting on this plan. Many climate scientists believe the maximum threshold for parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere is 350 ppm. We are currently just over 400 ppm. Retired and distinguished NASA climate scientist, James Hansen, believes we may have already crossed a tipping point for CO2 in the atmosphere, and that we may have reached a threshold where the damage already done cannot be reversed.
As the world’s leader, the U.S. should take the point in addressing climate change. It is my hope that Congress will pass meaningful legislation soon, which can be a model used by the international community to address this important global challenge.
This legislation should include:
- Raising energy efficiency standards (as we have on autos) on appliances, air planes, home and commercial HVAC, etc. – to be phased in over time, not overnight.
- Federal government investing in research and innovation.
- A start on the path to utilize our abundant and cleaner burning natural gas to eventually replace coal.
- Supporting renewable energy programs.
- A tax on carbon, or a workable cap and trade program.
Taking these steps will lead to more private investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency. It will also help get creative juices flowing in the entrepreneurial community working on these issues, which could lead to innovations that can be scaled, and begin an upward virtuous cycle in energy.
We need to listen less to politicians and pundits on this subject, and more to the scientific community. Anyone with doubts would be wise to study it more by visiting the websites of two of America’s pre-eminent scientific societies: The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and the National Academy of Science (NAS).
No one can control Mother Nature. If we choose to ignore her, or not take appropriate precautionary steps to protect the atmosphere, it leaves us open to potential catastrophic downside risk, and all of its dreadful ramifications.
A precautionary climate change plan is the conservative thing to do. This should be a conservative issue.
I would think farmers and ranchers worried about droughts should be particularly concerned. Especially for their kids and grandkids who want to stay on the land.
Our country faces many challenges. But if the time comes when there isn’t enough food or water, it will make our other problems look very small.