We’re grateful that our call for a climate change reckoning elicited so many comments on LinkedIn. Most of the comments were critical and nearly all of them were constructive and raised some important points. Instead of responding to all the comments, we’ll focus on five issues. And as our work continues, we’re confident the other issues will be addressed.

First, we’re not proposing a new target for global average temperature increase, nor are we disputing the science behind the 1.5°C target from the Paris Agreement or that every 0.1°C of increase counts. Our call is to acknowledge the reality of climate change, which also requires recognition that:

• We’ve exceeded 1.5°C of global warming;
• Greenhouse gas emissions and concentrations in the atmosphere continue to increase;
• The rate of warming will almost certainly continue to increase; and
• We’re on track to exceed 3.0°C of global warming by 2100.

We didn’t propose a new target, but we strongly believe that future climate policies must be based on and respond to this reality.

Second, we encourage less criticism of companies (including markets and capitalism) in the climate change debate. We acknowledge, as some pointed out, that some companies contributed to denialism of climate change and the delay to address it. And we’re not absolving them. But accountability must be shared, as it’s human demand for goods and services, driven by a desire to improve quality of life, that’s the underlying driver of energy consumption and GHG emissions.

Practically speaking, humankind will need fossil fuels forever, and we need to manage the carbon they emit through both technological innovation, such as carbon capture and storage, and public policy, such as pricing carbon. As developing countries seek to improve the lives of their citizens, fossil fuels will play an essential role and will never be completely replaced by renewable and clean energy sources. Ironically, fossil fuels are essential for a just transition in developing countries and within developed ones for those who can’t afford the transition.

Third, we must recognize that Republicans are no longer climate change deniers. There are lifelong Republicans working to address the issue, and there’s a growing “Ecoright” movement. These people and organizations have different views than those embedded in the currently dominant finance-centric theory of change, which is now coming under some thoughtful criticism. So, Democrats will have a choice: engage with Republicans or double down on their current approach. (We doubt the long-term efficacy of the latter.)

Fourth, every country needs to develop a strategy to address climate change based on their resources, capabilities, and political systems. What works in China may not work in Europe or here. The United States is a highly polarized country with an uncertain theory of change. We need a strategy that is stable and durable, which means it must be bipartisan and transcend changing administrations.

Finally, Alan Hayes was struck by our view that “the proclivity for a better life is universal” and that “we’re hopeful that the same proclivity for a better life will eventually spur our determination to address climate change.” He said that he “can see no conditions which will prompt this shift.” And he asked a profound question: “Can you comment on what may prompt the shift please?”

Our answer is not complete, but it includes the vague notion that humanity will address climate change when humanity appreciates the threat climate change poses to the betterment of life. A Yale survey found that 70% of Americans think global warming will affect future generations, and 61% think it will affect people in the United States, but only 46% think it will affect them personally. Maybe that’s what has to change.

Source link for this article