Dealing with climate change no longer means simply cutting greenhouse gas emissions, although that’s still a necessary element of any coherent strategy. It also means developing technology with the potential to remove those emissions from the atmosphere and finding ways to cope with the effects of climate change, such as rising seas and more severe weather events.
These are issues for world governments, and world leaders need to reach a consensus on a multipronged approach that can do all of the above. But state and local governments also need to do their parts, especially when it comes to protecting vulnerable communities from the coming changes.
Reducing emissions, especially from power plants and vehicles, remains a priority. Technology can help with that, but probably the best way to push that technology is to impose a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Such a tax would encourage the fossil fuel industry to search for other ways to provide energy; the money could be used to reduce the deficit or as rebates to taxpayers.
A report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change due out Sunday — the third in the latest series from the panel — will outline a number of other measures to deal with climate change. Reports based on early drafts of the IPCC report say it will suggest controversial and unproven technology, such as burying greenhouse gases, as well as proven standbys, such as developing more nuclear and biofuel production.
The broad recommendations reportedly include: reining in greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible; generating more electricity from zero- and low-carbon energy sources; using carbon capture and removal technologies to clean the atmosphere; helping developing countries build zero- and low-carbon energy and transportation systems; “decarbonizing” transportation; repairing leaks in pipes used to transport fuels; using more bioenergy but in ways that don’t cause more deforestation; changing the ways buildings use energy; delinking carbon from a nation’s economic health via carbon taxes, cap-and-trade systems or more government regulation.
A National Geographic article said the panel will push for new technologies, including “bioenergy with carbon capture and storage,” which involves power plants burning agricultural waste, farmed trees or algae as fuel, then capturing the emissions and storing them underground.
The recommendations are broad and multifaceted because there is no simple answer to the challenge posed by climate change. As we noted in an earlier editorial, dealing with climate change does not mean destroying economies or going back to the Stone Age, and there may even be some local benefits. But the overall outlook is grim, and it will require retooling the economy, which in turn offers an opportunity to grow jobs in industries built on new technologies.
Climate change is already here; denying that is to deny reality. An IPCC report released March 31 — the second in this series — said that ice caps are already melting, sea ice in the Arctic is already collapsing, water supplies are already under stress, heat waves and heavy rains are already intensifying, coral reefs are already dying and fish and many other creatures are already migrating toward the poles or in some cases becoming extinct.
That threatens communities, especially those in poorer countries and those living near ocean shorelines. It threatens the global economy. The economic threat posed by climate change far outweighs the economic discomfort of adjusting to meet it. And it poses a security threat to the United States. A U.S. State Department briefing paper notes that “climate change poses multiple threats to U.S. and global security.”
“It’s just not tolerable for this country to have this issue off the table,” Todd Stern, the State Department’s special envoy for climate change, told a group of opinion journalists meeting in Washington, D.C., last week. He also noted that “there is really no ideology in this problem….We don’t have time for the luxury of ideology.”
No, we don’t. The IPCC has spelled out the problem and laid out the options. Now, the United States needs to provide the necessary leadership. Failure to act will have real and serious repercussions across the planet.
— Copley News Service
