Global Warming and the November Elections Gerry OShea
By far the biggest difference between the two main political parties
in America resides in their differing approaches to the threat of global warming.
Democrats want to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to counter what they
see as impending weather disasters while Republicans, amazingly, refuse to
admit that there is any real problem.
No other democracy has a serious political grouping which
simply denies that this problem exists. Former President Trump heard no
Republican complaints when he withdrew the United States from the Paris Climate
Accord, which was drawn up under the auspices of the United Nations and approved
by 196 countries late in 2015. It set clear goals for reduction of greenhouse
gases and required all signatories to account for their progress.
Shortly after his installation as president in January 2017,
Donald Trump withdrew America from this international agreement. He explained
that he didn’t believe in global warming, dismissing as irrelevant and
unconvincing the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. He explained that from
his perspective the Chinese guilefully use stories about a warming planet to
enhance their competitiveness against American businesses. In addition, he has
concluded that wind turbines cause cancer!
Pope Francis, who correctly sees this environment crisis as
the greatest moral issue of our time and has written a brilliant encyclical Laudato
Si with the subtitle On Care of the Common Home in which he pleads for
radical new policies that would focus on dealing with oncoming climate disasters.
Following Trump’s neanderthal leadership, the Republican
party pursued policies that undermined the whole idea of confronting and
dealing with the problem. The Environmental Protection Agency was denuded and
diminished during his four years in office.
Francis’ claim that
preserving the planet could not wait and should be viewed as the urgent
pro-life issue of the 21st century fell on deaf Republican ears, and
his heartfelt pleas did not resonate with a clear majority of white Catholics,
who, surprisingly, paid no heed to the pope and voted for Mr. Trump’s
re-election.
A few months ago, the prestigious Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) used remarkably stark language to alert people that “any
further delay in concerted actions will miss a brief and rapidly-closing window
of opportunity to secure a livable and sustainable future for all.”
In the recent past we have seen a series of catastrophic
weather events including massive flooding in Belgium and Germany and huge
wildfires in California and Australia. Climate change must not be seen as some
possible future calamity that we will just see pictures of on television as we
do at present with the bombardment of Ukraine.
The IPCC report explains that many of the solutions are
already at hand. It notes the major reductions in the cost of key low carbon
technologies. In the last decade the price of solar energy has declined by 85%,
and unit costs of wind energy have fallen by 55%. Lithium-ion battery packs
that cost $1183 in 2010 now sell for around $150.
All kinds of possibilities for reducing the level of carbon
emissions are beckoning. The goal for reducing global warming to 1.5C by 2100
set in Paris in 2015 remains relevant. However, the IPCC estimates that without
major changes the number will exceed a catastrophic measure of 3.0C prior to
the next century. This result would mean cities under water, deadly heat waves,
terrifying storms, widespread water shortages and the extinction of over one
million species of plants and animals. Globally, the top ten per cent of
households cause about 40% of emissions. This inequity extends to countries.
The nations in the developed world are responsible for a disproportionate
amount of the climate despoilment. And within those rich countries the well-off
account for far more of the damage than people on lower incomes.
Clearly plans to deal with the terrible harm being done to
the environment, nationally and globally, must be anchored on principles of
fairness and social justice.
Understandably, the attention of policymakers and the public
has been focused during the last month or so on Putin’s savage invasion of
Ukraine and the appalling atrocities that continue in that country. Inevitably,
this has lessened the attention on other matters, including actions to mitigate
the impending weather disaster. This is especially damaging when Republicans
continue their antediluvian, head-in-the-sand attitude.
Antonio Guterres, secretary-general of the United Nations,
stands fully behind the recent report. He points out that to keep the 1.5C
limit within reach we must cut global emissions by 45% this decade. With no
policy change, emissions will increase by 15% in this time frame. These
sobering figures indicate clearly the mountain that must be climbed.
Mr. Guterres focuses on two areas that cry out for action.
First, he stresses the need for speed in shifting to renewable energy sources,
which, in most cases, are cheaper. All investments in and subsidies to fossil
fuel production should end immediately.
He pleads for a quick end to coal-fired power which is the
worst polluter of all. Promises to phase out the use of coal are met by
corporations claiming that they can’t be expected to terminate all the
employment they provide and proffering a dozen other reasons for a slow and
gradual – and never-ending – time frame.
The November mid-term elections which will decide who
controls both houses of Congress will determine what can be achieved by the
Biden administration in this area before the next presidential showdown in 2024.
If the Republicans control either the House or the Senate, then there will be
no climate legislation passed.
The Biden administration’s Build Back Better Bill included
more than half a trillion to develop alternative modes of generating power,
away from fossil fuels. It failed in the senate, and if Kevin McCarthy succeeds
Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, any reform climate bill is doomed. It won’t even reach
the floor for a vote.
In the last presidential contest young people turned out in
unprecedented numbers supporting Democrats. Polling showed that climate change
was a major motivating issue for them.
Republicans are strongly favored to win the House, preaching
every day about inflation and rising costs. They expect that this rhetoric
about higher prices at the gas pump and in the supermarket will see them
through without offering any policy on important issues like healthcare,
environmental protection or immigration.
The Democrats can highlight the strong economy and low
unemployment but they will make little headway playing on the Republican field.
What would happen if they again get the youth out in large numbers to the polls
and in every town meeting and every radio and television advertisement they
urge people to reject a party that makes the preposterous statement that there
is no such thing as global warming?
A populism of sensible citizens could call on parents and
grandparents as well as young people to join in a patriotic drive to repudiate outmoded
and dangerous unscientific thinking. The real question revolves around the
human dimension, whether children will be able to live a full and healthy life,
and it should be asked by Democratic leaders every day until the crucial
election in November.
Well I know we’re going to find a way
I know we’re going to light the way
And I know we’re going to make it, but we gotta say
We can save the world today and every day.
From the song Today and Every Day
Comments
Post a Comment