167
world GDP. The caveat is that the longer we wait, the worse it will be, and the
more it will cost. If no action is taken, it could cost over 20% of world GDP to
deal with the climate crisis by 2050. A substantial source of immediate funding
to begin dealing with climate change could be a redirection of the annual
government subsidies paid to the fossil fuel industry. These include supply costs,
tax breaks, and environmental costs that by some calculations are currently
equivalent to 6% of the world GDP (Coleman and Dietz 2019).
3. Humanitarian denial declares that, believe it or not, climate change is good for
us. The argument is that a warming climate gives temperate zones longer summers that will make farming more productive. Higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide will also help to grow more robust plants. The downside, of course,
is that higher temperatures also lead to increased droughts and heatwaves, like
the one in 2010 that killed 11,000 people in Moscow and Eastern Europe, and
devastated the Russian wheat harvest (Dole et al. 2011). Recent wildfire seasons
driven by droughts in California and Australia have seen millions of acres burned.
The climate models also predict more intense storms, which can damage agriculture, infrastructure, and risk lives. Forty percent of the world’s population resides
in tropical regions that already suffer from increasing desertification and public
health crises. No one living in the tropics wants summer temperatures to rise.
Climate change will also strongly affect the polar regions, melting permafrost
and ice caps, raising sea levels by tens of meters, displacing millions of people
from coastal areas, drowning some low-lying countries, and causing all sorts of
other disruptions. Any “humanitarian” benefits of climate change that do exist
will be offset many times over by the sheer amount of human misery it will cause.
4. Political denial is the argument that we cannot take action against climate
because other countries are not taking action. As one of the major emitters of
GHG, the United States should be leading the way on reducing emissions, not
dodging responsibility because some tiny country in Africa also refuses to act.
The U.S. along with China, Japan, and the European Union make up the developed economies that emit three quarters of the global GHG. India is not far
behind from joining the club. These nations have an ethical responsibility to take
action on the climate regardless of what the rest of the world does. If the goal is
to get to zero net GHG emissions by 2050, ultimately all countries will have to
act. However, it will happen a lot faster if the big players take action now rather
than later.
5. Crisis denial defends the status quo by arguing that climate change might be a
concern but it is not really a crisis as claimed by scientists. Rushing in to make
changes would be rash and foolhardy. Similar arguments have been used in the
past to delay the end of slavery, deny women the right to vote, maintain racial
segregation, refuse to recognize worker’s rights, and resist environmental regulations. Crisis denial appeals to those who do not inherently embrace change, but
desire things to remain static and stable. Climate change suffers by not being an
obvious crisis like a war or an epidemic. Crisis denial suggests that people will
be forced to give up things like cheap electricity or large pickup trucks for no
good reason.
9.2 Climate Contrarians
world GDP. The caveat is that the longer we wait, the worse it will be, and the
more it will cost. If no action is taken, it could cost over 20% of world GDP to
deal with the climate crisis by 2050. A substantial source of immediate funding
to begin dealing with climate change could be a redirection of the annual
government subsidies paid to the fossil fuel industry. These include supply costs,
tax breaks, and environmental costs that by some calculations are currently
equivalent to 6% of the world GDP (Coleman and Dietz 2019).
3. Humanitarian denial declares that, believe it or not, climate change is good for
us. The argument is that a warming climate gives temperate zones longer summers that will make farming more productive. Higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide will also help to grow more robust plants. The downside, of course,
is that higher temperatures also lead to increased droughts and heatwaves, like
the one in 2010 that killed 11,000 people in Moscow and Eastern Europe, and
devastated the Russian wheat harvest (Dole et al. 2011). Recent wildfire seasons
driven by droughts in California and Australia have seen millions of acres burned.
The climate models also predict more intense storms, which can damage agriculture, infrastructure, and risk lives. Forty percent of the world’s population resides
in tropical regions that already suffer from increasing desertification and public
health crises. No one living in the tropics wants summer temperatures to rise.
Climate change will also strongly affect the polar regions, melting permafrost
and ice caps, raising sea levels by tens of meters, displacing millions of people
from coastal areas, drowning some low-lying countries, and causing all sorts of
other disruptions. Any “humanitarian” benefits of climate change that do exist
will be offset many times over by the sheer amount of human misery it will cause.
4. Political denial is the argument that we cannot take action against climate
because other countries are not taking action. As one of the major emitters of
GHG, the United States should be leading the way on reducing emissions, not
dodging responsibility because some tiny country in Africa also refuses to act.
The U.S. along with China, Japan, and the European Union make up the developed economies that emit three quarters of the global GHG. India is not far
behind from joining the club. These nations have an ethical responsibility to take
action on the climate regardless of what the rest of the world does. If the goal is
to get to zero net GHG emissions by 2050, ultimately all countries will have to
act. However, it will happen a lot faster if the big players take action now rather
than later.
5. Crisis denial defends the status quo by arguing that climate change might be a
concern but it is not really a crisis as claimed by scientists. Rushing in to make
changes would be rash and foolhardy. Similar arguments have been used in the
past to delay the end of slavery, deny women the right to vote, maintain racial
segregation, refuse to recognize worker’s rights, and resist environmental regulations. Crisis denial appeals to those who do not inherently embrace change, but
desire things to remain static and stable. Climate change suffers by not being an
obvious crisis like a war or an epidemic. Crisis denial suggests that people will
be forced to give up things like cheap electricity or large pickup trucks for no
good reason.
9.2 Climate Contrarians