Climate Change - Finding Opportunity in the Threat

The USA has notified the United Nations that it is leaving the Paris Climate Accord. This decision was announced a few months ago and made America one of only three nations in the world not to join the Paris deal, along with Syria and Nicaragua, the latter two thinking the deal did not go far enough. This move sets the US aside in a way that essentially snubs the global community and makes the job tougher for every nation looking to maintain our standard of living on this globe in the long run.

Trump’s opinion on the issue is in step with the rest of the Republican Party. Granted, his position has improved as he no longer thinks that it is a hoax manufactured by China and now accepts that it is occurring, which is perhaps worse because he doesn’t appear to want to do anything about the issue.

The main problems Trump states with dealing with climate change are common Republican tropes: China and India aren’t doing anything; it will cost jobs; it will decimate the coal, gas and manufacturing industries; the climate is always changing. These are all either false or aren’t that big disadvantages in context.

China and India

First off the bat let’s get the easiest one out of the way. China is on paper the world’s biggest polluters, sure. However China also has the world’s largest population by quite some way, so this is to be expected. China in fact releases 7.6 tonnes of CO2 per person annually, whereas the USA produces 16.4 tonnes. China’s emissions are also not rising by as much as people think, and in fact have been leveling off since 2011, rising by only 0.4 tonnes since that point.

China is also taking serious action on climate change due to the levels of smog it has caused, and has cancelled 103 proposed or under construction power plants. The rhetoric that China is building coal power stations on a whim is unfounded and is insulting to China’s action to reduce climate change. Beijing recently became an entirely coal-free city, as it shut down its last coal-fired station. China is also implementing policies such as cap and trade to give incentives for emission reduction. Efforts like this should be supported, not derided by lies about its attitude to the environment.

China recently agreed to work with the EU and later California, independent of what President Trump decides

India is also often targeted as being uncaring about the environment, but this simply isn’t true. India releases far less CO2 per capita than even China, releasing 1.6 tonnes of CO2 per capita. Even still, India recognises that it must do its part to tackle climate change, and has pledged to only sell electric cars by 2030, an extremely ambitious target which, even if not fully met, will still go a fair way to reducing emissions.

Even if the rhetoric about China and India sitting back on climate change were true, which it provably isn’t, one country not acting on climate change isn’t a reason for other nations not to act. The fact that Qatar releases 2.5 times as much CO2 per capita than the USA means that the USA should put pressure on Qatar to reduce its emissions as well as reducing its own emissions, not instead of reducing its emissions. Every responsible country should do its part, not cowering behind the inefficacy of the efforts of other nations.

The Myth that the Climate is Always Changing

A frequent claim by Republicans is that climate change is a natural phenomenon and that we shouldn’t worry about it as humans have no effect. This tactic is the result of Republicans being unable to now claim that the climate is not changing as the evidence is too overwhelming even for Republicans, although some Republicans such as Ted Cruz still cling to this argument by cherry-picking from satellite data.

The overall trend with regards to climate change. This doesn’t include data after 2000, which shows that the last ten years have been the hottest on record

Let’s look at what Rand Paul says, a Republican who had previously been considered to be something of a moderate on climate change as he had supported a bill which deregulated alternative energy. I am not setting up a straw man, as it may seem, in fact Paul is relatively moderate on this issue and has been forced by his party’s extreme base to move right on this.

"While I do think man may have a role in our climate, I think nature also has a role. The planet’s 4.5 billion years old. We’ve been through geologic age after geologic age. We’ve had times when the temperature’s been warmer, we’ve had times when the temperature’s been colder. We’ve had times when the carbon in the atmosphere’s been higher."

This is the ultimate denial of responsibility. Of course we have had times when the carbon in the atmosphere has been much higher, but the Earth was a volcanic rock and nothing could live. There’s a reason the overall temperature of the Earth has massively dropped over time.

However, I don’t think that Republicans in their heart of hearts believe these things. I think the real reason they oppose government action in climate change is much more because of what Ben Shapiro said in a recent Quora session:

"The left’s chief tool here is redistributionism and regulation. But technological change through the free market will be the best tool, in my opinion"

The main reason the right opposes action on climate change is because it is an issue that is so big, it requires government action to prevent it or at least curb it. However, I’d argue that this is the tail wagging the dog: the solution is unacceptable to conservatives, so they deny the problem, eliminating the need for a solution.

However, as sick as people are of hearing this, the scientific consensus on climate change is clear. Of course you will never have 100% consensus, as there are still scientists who work for Shell, however once a massive majority has been reached we move from, ‘Is this happening?’ to, ‘What should we do?’.

With all this having been said, it is far from all Republicans who deny climate change. 42% of Republicans do say climate change is happening, but what is more worrying is that almost all the Republican candidates for President eventually denied climate change. This is virtue signalling to the vastly conservative base, and it is seriously hindering government policy.

So, the climate is certainly changing, and scientists say it is extremely likely (95% chance) that it is mostly caused by humans. This is extremely logical given that pumping a gas into the air which traps heat, will have the effect of heating the container it covers.

Job Killer, Drops Living Standards

This is perhaps the one most misunderstood aspect of climate change, even by liberal Democrats. Many appear to be resigned to the fact that climate change will cost jobs and force us to decrease our living standards. However, this simply isn’t true, and climate change in fact provides us more opportunities than to innovate and create jobs than it will kill jobs.

Solar energy already provides three times as many jobs as coal does, and is creating jobs 17% faster than the rest of the economy. Coal is very clearly a declining industry, and the jobs were going anyway. Besides, why would one wish to work in a coal mine? It is a job that not only has unpleasant working conditions, working in a dark mine. It also has tragic consequences on the health of miners, whose life expectancy is reduced by 15 years as a result of working in the mines. We should celebrate the decline of the coal industry, not mourn it, and focus our efforts on retraining coal miners instead of providing subsidies to coal companies.

When there is massive change occurring in any industry, those who strive to adapt and thrive in the new environment (no pun intended) prosper, while those who cling to the past are left behind. If we all decided not to use machinery, because it would put oxen out of work, we would still be living in the Middle Ages. We have to adapt to the new circumstances and grab the market share while it’s still available, and in particular it is foolish of America not to invest in renewables whilst China is pumping resources into hydroelectricity, now generating 20% of its electricity from this renewable source.

The other main lie on climate change is that it can be solved by individuals. The neo-liberal lie that if only we turned the lights off, destroyed our cars and used salt to preserve our food rather than refrigerators we could stop climate change ourselves. In fact just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global warming. This means that turning the lights off sadly will not prevent climate change, although I still do it anyway as it’s been ingrained in me.

The main way to tackle climate change is by changing our means of electricity production. Electricity generation is responsible for the large bulk of CO2 emissions, and along with electric cars and other innovations can help to reduce CO2 emissions if the means of generating it is changed.

Investing in renewables to generate electricity is a massive opportunity to create jobs as well as reduce emissions. However, there is one another source which is vital to meeting our energy demands, and the problem with this source seems to be opposition in equal measure from liberals and conservatives. It is true, however that it is difficult to carry on producing the same level of energy with just renewables, as they are unreliable. Conservatives argue that any attempt to tackle climate change therefore means that living standards must fall. However, there is one ace left to play.

Nuclear Power

One area where I disagree with liberal consensus is the belief that nuclear power should be discarded as a viable option. Nuclear power is the best way to provide a reliable base load of power, for example France produces 76% of its electricity from nuclear fission, and is able to export 45TWh to other EU country, making it the largest electricity exporter in the EU. All this has meant that France releases far less CO2 than other major economies and also is able to have cheaper electricity than most EU nations.

The main issue with nuclear power is the fear of the word, ‘nuclear’, long associated with being dangerous and deadly. Nuclear waste is produced, and is easy to store safely with government oversight, as France has showed. Nuclear fission also releases far more energy per kilogram than coal, so would be easily able to meet a nation’s energy needs.

It is very difficult to meet energy demand through renewables alone. The crucial issue with renewables is that they are mostly unreliable as they tend to rely on the weather, or as with solar they do not work at night. A base load of power is needed, which France has shown nuclear power can provide.

In the long term, nuclear fusion seems to be the solution to our energy problems, but research is still in very early stages and it will be many decades before it becomes an efficient source of power. Until then, however, fission seems to be our best hope of reducing emissions and meeting demand.

America is letting down the rest of the world on this issue. Just at the time when countries like India and China are stepping up to the plate, America is retreating into isolationism and, frankly, selfishness. Trump appears to be ignoring apparently pro-environment factions within the White House such as his daughter Ivanka and his son-in-law Jared Kushner, and favoured hardliners such as Steve Bannon.

Trump has signalled that he would be open to renegotiating the agreement, but the Paris deal took a very long period of tough and slow negotiations to get 195 nations to agree in the first place. It appears very unlikely that this would be possible. The best hope is that individual progressive states such as California can move forward on the issue by themselves, without federal influence. On this issue states’ rights might be used to favour Democrats rather than Republicans.

#InternationalPolitics