Most readers are probably already aware of the report issued Monday by the United Nations’ scientific panel on climate change. It predicts that we have only about 12 years before global warming will reach some critical "tipping points" that will accelerate the increase in global temperatures, and that we ought to strive to keep the global temperature rise to no more than 1.5° C. if were are to avoid the worst of the effects. This is much more ambitious than the 2° C. that was the goal in the recent Paris Climate Agreement.
Assume for the moment (a) that these predictions are accurate, and (b) that the technological fixes proposed (reforest an area the size of Australia, cease using coal anywhere in the world, drastically reduce or eliminate the consumption of beef and dairy products worldwide, replace most cars worldwide with public transportation, heavily tax carbon emissions, drastically reduce the amount of energy used worldwide, etc, etc) would achieve this goal. The report estimates that it would require approximately 2.5% per year of the world's total economic output (about $3 trillion per year) to implement these changes, though I think that is probably a gross underestimate when one looks at the steps proposed and thinks of all the follow-on ramifications.
The central question then becomes whether there is any practical way to actually make governments and populations agree to these profound changes in lifestyle, or to pay the costs involved. I doubt it. It is not just a question of the US making these changes; places like China and India would have to essentially give up their goals of modernization, and probably face massive internal problems as a result. Many, perhaps most, corporations would have to drastically change their business plans or even go out of business (think, for example, about the profound worldwide impact to car manufacturers, to chemical companies, to the agricultural sector) and produce massive unemployment.
Could any government, even if it had the political will to do so, actually enforce these changes on their populations without getting voted out of office or overthrown by revolutions? And could any political party, anywhere in the world, ever get enough political will to even attempt it? Certainly I don't think either the Republican or the Democratic party in the US could do so. Oh, Democrats might talk the talk, but I doubt they would attempt more than token moves in that direction (like slightly raising the mileage requirements on some small subset of motor vehicles), and if they did do more than token moves I doubt they could hold political power very long.
Yes, it might be wise and rational to make these changes, even if there is a possibility that the predictions might be overly pessimistic, but practically I think we need to prepare to live with the climate change and accommodate to it, because human nature being what it is I doubt the world can summon the will to make the changes proposed in time to make a difference. Yes, if the predictions are even half accurate the results will be profound, and million or even billions of people will be displaced, economies will be profoundly changed, and food worldwide may get short. But getting humans to bear pain now for a future benefit that they can't really see yet is incredibly difficult.
Wars are incredibly destructive, as everyone can see, yet we haven't yet managed to eliminate wars. So why does anyone think we can get people to be rational about this issue?
Could any government, even if it had the political will to do so, actually enforce these changes on their populations without getting voted out of office or overthrown by revolutions? And could any political party, anywhere in the world, ever get enough political will to even attempt it? Certainly I don't think either the Republican or the Democratic party in the US could do so. Oh, Democrats might talk the talk, but I doubt they would attempt more than token moves in that direction (like slightly raising the mileage requirements on some small subset of motor vehicles), and if they did do more than token moves I doubt they could hold political power very long.
Yes, it might be wise and rational to make these changes, even if there is a possibility that the predictions might be overly pessimistic, but practically I think we need to prepare to live with the climate change and accommodate to it, because human nature being what it is I doubt the world can summon the will to make the changes proposed in time to make a difference. Yes, if the predictions are even half accurate the results will be profound, and million or even billions of people will be displaced, economies will be profoundly changed, and food worldwide may get short. But getting humans to bear pain now for a future benefit that they can't really see yet is incredibly difficult.
Wars are incredibly destructive, as everyone can see, yet we haven't yet managed to eliminate wars. So why does anyone think we can get people to be rational about this issue?
Posts
