In his May 27 commentary Fred LaSor says he finds climate change “unknowable” and lists various arguments to make it appear there’s still considerable debate amongst climate scientists the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate, and the current warming is human caused — primarily by the burning of fossil fuels.
The arguments he lists have been investigated, reviewed, and debunked. The percentage of climate scientists who think the current warming trend is primarily human caused is in the high 90s. The commonly accepted number is 97 percent, but the exact number doesn’t matter — the point is there’s overwhelming consensus amongst climate scientists about this. If my favorite sports team was beaten 97 to 3, I wouldn’t insist the result was “unknowable.” To do so would require a blinkered “belief” somehow 3 points are pretty close to 50 points.
As in any scientific research, climate scientists continue to gather more data, conduct more analysis, and improve and refine climate prediction models. As they do this it becomes increasingly clear the effects of global temperatures rising are going to be significant and extensive. Can the current models predict exactly whether sea level will rise by two feet or three feet by 2050? Maybe not, but if you live in Miami Beach, New York, or San Francisco, the exact time frame really doesn’t matter, because a significant portion of these cities, as well as many coastal communities around the world and some island nations, are going to be under water unless planning and action to deal with sea level rising starts now. (Miami Beach is currently raising the level of their major streets by three feet to keep them above rising sea levels — recognizing that eventually the first floors of many buildings are going to have to be abandoned).
Mr. LaSor gets to the heart of his opinion when he says he won’t “believe” in global warming as long as it depends on “consensus science,” comparing science to lighting incense or sacred writing. He claims it shuts down discussion. But pretending 3 is close to 50 is not productive — serious action is required right now if we’re going to avoid the worst impacts of global warming and the discussion needs to be about the best actions to take.
This is a hard step for some people. Accepting global warming is real and is having serious detrimental effects on the environment and causes suffering for millions of people around the world, comes with an understanding we really should do something about it. And doing something about it requires change — change in how we produce electricity, how we fuel our cars, how we use water, how we farm, where we live, to name a few. Acknowledging the need for change can be personally uncomfortable. Averting and adapting to climate change disrupts some industries (the coal industry is already in rapid decline) and the livelihood of those who work in those industries. But it will also provide opportunities for other industries and agricultural practices, such as clean, renewable energy sources and drought-adaptive farming. Workers in declining industries need to be retrained in other skills, sustainable agriculture practices need to be implemented, coastal communities need plans to adapt to rising sea levels, we need to be prepared for new diseases — the list goes on.
To achieve the necessary changes within a time frame in which they will be effective will require not only scientific innovation but government policies and regulations. Some people are not in favor of addressing climate change through government policy because they distrust the federal government (and looking at the current gridlock in Congress this is an understandable concern). However, policies and action are required now because, to quote everyone’s grandmother — an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Except we’re not talking pounds; we’re talking trillions of dollars and a lot of human suffering.
On the technological innovation front, Bill Gates and other high-tech billionaires have pledged to invest $2 billion in clean energy start-ups, and a coalition of 20 governments have committed $20 billion in energy research over the next five years. This is an opportunity for the U.S. to become a leader in clean energy technology.
On the policy front one of the most promising ideas is a carbon fee and dividend, proposed by the bipartisan Citizens’ Climate Lobby. Placing a fee on carbon would account for the fact the price of carbon-based fuels doesn’t currently include external costs to society such as the additional health care costs of fossil fuel extraction, increased flood and drought disaster relief, and environmental cleanups. A fee on the carbon content of fuels would be collected and rebated to American citizens and thus be revenue-neutral. The money would stay in the economy. Studies show this would lead to an increase in GDP and jobs over a do-nothing scenario. Find out more details at the Citizens’ Climate Lobby website: www.citizensclimatelobby.org.
Roughly two-thirds of the American public think it’s time to take some serious action on climate change, so the discussion needs to be about what that action should be. It’s well past time to claim a lack of scientific consensus as an excuse to do nothing.
Chas Macquarie is a civil engineer, outdoor enthusiast, and a resident of Carson City.
