Climate watch: Facing ‘a code red for humanity,’ how will the United States respond?
The debate over climate change used to focus on science, but that debate is over.
A report issued in August by scientists on the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was unequivocal. If we are to keep warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius there must be massive and immediate cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. If we cut them in half by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050, we can prevent the worst consequences of climate change.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called this report “a code red for humanity.” World leaders have heeded the warnings and are making efforts to transition to renewable fuels.
In the United States, President Biden has set a goal of 50% reduction of emissions from 2005 levels by 2030. The two bills in Congress that have dominated the news lately offer unprecedented measures toward that goal.
The recently passed $1.2 trillion Bipartisan Infrastructure Act includes appropriations for electric charging stations, electric school buses, and an improved and expanded electric grid.
A substantial part — $550 billion — of the Build Back Better proposal (still being drafted as I write this) will address climate change through clean energy tax credits for electricity production and transportation, money for responding to extreme weather and other threats, incentives for clean energy technology development, and money for government to purchase new technologies.
These bills will be extraordinary achievements in our effort to transform our economy from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Yet they will still fall short of meeting the goal that President Biden set.
The lesson is that climate change cannot be solved by the government alone. We must enlist industry and mobilize the private sector. If we can find ways for companies to make a profit through innovations that reduce reliance on fossil fuels, then we’ll need much less taxation.
That is why Citizens’ Climate Lobby supports putting a price on carbon pollution to send a steadily rising price signal to businesses, government, and consumers that it is to their economic advantage to reduce fossil fuel use.
Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen said, “We cannot solve the climate crisis without effective carbon pricing.” She estimated that the real cost of climate change would likely be trillions of dollars and pointed out that “the gap between what governments have and what the world needs is large, and the private sector needs to play a bigger role.”
The debate is no longer over the science. The issue now is how to finance the transition to renewable energy.
That is a central question at the climate change conference in Glasgow. Although many countries have made commitments to stop deforestation, reduce global methane emissions, and phase out coal, one contentious issue still to be addressed is how poorer countries will pay for their transition to renewables. Richer nations have promised them $100 billion a year but are behind on that pledge. Moreover, that amount is insufficient. Investors and philanthropic groups are also stepping up to commit funds for the effort.
To prevent the worst of climate change effects, we need policy that will support and sustain decarbonization. At Glasgow, countries are working together to create global carbon markets and find ways to cooperate to reduce emissions.
Can we do the same in the United States? Can we enact policies that mobilize the whole country and get everyone behind this historic transformation to a new energy economy?