Climate change is a fact. And, as such, it is not something to be argued about. Its existence is not something to be debated. The climate changes right in front of our eyes, and we are too busy arguing about whether or not it even exists. At the risk of sounding too colloquial, if climate change were a snake, it would have bitten us.
Animals like butterflies and foxes have started to migrate north to accommodate the warming of their indigenous habitats, the sea level rises faster than it ever has and ice melts across the globe, according to National Geographic. The data is undeniable; the climate is changing rapidly and we have yet to do anything substantive about it. The real point of contention here is one dealing with cause. Is climate change cyclical? Does it happen as a simple result of the Earth’s natural processes? Or is it exacerbated by our practices?
Pinpointing the source of climate change is critical to solving this problem, and for some reason we as humans have been totally unwilling to accept the responsibility we have to take on the matter. Maybe this is an issue of pride, money or even of party politics. Regardless, it’s time for us to shed the denialism and look critically at the data from places like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which states humans are the main cause of climate change with 95 percent certainty. It’s time for us to ask hard questions which yield uncomfortable answers, with which 97 to 98 percent of scientists have already come to grips, according to USA Today. If we do nothing then the problems of the future will be worse than anything we have to deal with now.
How do we tackle accelerating climate change? This is perhaps the most important question we can ask as a generation. Treaties have been cut, regulation has been enforced and alternative fuel technologies have been invested in, but we still find ourselves without an answer to this pivotal question. Maybe the magic solution is a combination of all of these.
Reihan Salam, a Reuters’ columnist, seems to endorse a “technology-first” approach, which would take advantage of the capitalistic American worldview. He cites Samuel Thernstrom from the Energy Innovation Reform Project, who asserts there are “a number of areas where government, working with the private sector, can make energy cleaner and cheaper, including enhanced oil recovery and advanced nuclear technologies.”
The need for alternative and renewable energy is crucial if we are going to get serious about climate change. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the burning of fossil fuels accounts for more carbon dioxide emissions than any other human activity.
However, if the United States is the only nation to make a serious change, a serious stance on climate change will be little more than a sentimental novelty.
Oren Cass, director of domestic policy to Mitt Romney during his 2012 bid for the presidency, supports a private sector, technology-first approach. He said our climate situation is “extraordinarily non-linear.” Cass argues the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere, not necessarily the flow of carbon, is what matters when it comes to fixing our climate change problem. Cass goes on to note, “if the U.S. pursues policies that reduce carbon emissions at the margin, it won’t matter much if the atmospheric concentration continues to climb because of rising Chinese and Indian carbon emissions.”
We cannot solve this challenge for future generations alone. Nor can we afford to play a role in finding solutions without Europe, India, Russia and China also at the table. This fact is what makes a balanced approach that places congruent emphasis on both efficient technology and international treaties central to countering the change in our environment. However, the biggest impediment to positive results which protect our quality of life and slow the impact of accelerating climate change is not the lack of alternative fuels or the rampant carbon emissions of countries worldwide; it is the lingering disagreement on the simple existence of the acceleration of climate change. We must solve that problem before we can begin to dream of solving the others. The price of inaction in the name of pride, cash or party is simply too great at this point.
