There are dire predictions about climate change effects, but slowing the world’s warming trend is not a fast process with overnight solutions.

Brian Calfano Producer

Nothing simple or easy about climate change challenges

Sep 27, 2022

Brian Calfano Producer

By Brian Calfano (Producer ), Dan Reardon (Editor)

There are dire predictions about climate change effects. Voices, particularly on the political left, call for quick fixes. But slowing the world’s warming trend is not a fast process. Democrats contend government needs to spend massive amounts to address what some call the existential threat of a warming planet. The recently signed Inflation Reduction Act contains hundreds of billions in new spending on climate change initiatives. All this government investment looks like an answer to an extreme problem.

No neat “pro” or “con” camps

Yet critics remain skeptical of just how much the government should do. These include Obama Administration science advisor and NYU physicist Dr. Steven Koonin. Arguments from his 2021 book Unsettled? show that climate change perspectives do not fit neatly into “pro” and “con” camps. The earth is warming, but there are different interpretations about what warming effects will look like. In Koonin’s estimation, “the consensus is not as strong as it is portrayed.”

This is a far cry from dominant media narratives about the issue. Koonin does not deny the climate is changing. Rather, for this former advisor to a Democratic administration, what the science says makes the policy and spending choices ahead less clear.

As Koonin underscores, “That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do anything about it. But I think it becomes much less compelling when you look at the actual science.”

Solving the storage problem

Even if one takes Koonin’s perspective with a grain of salt, larger issues remain. Dealing with climate change invariably centers on reducing fossil fuel emissions. Meeting this goal places renewable energy sources front and center. The challenge is that wind and solar don’t produce power 24 hours per day.

According to Wake Smith, a senior fellow for business and government at Harvard’s Kennedy School, there’s an additional problem.

“We need energy storage in a way that’s well beyond what we do now,” Smith said. In other words, producing renewable energy is not the same as storing that energy for later use.

And complicating matters are new constraints on government’s constitutional role in lowering carbon emissions. The Supreme Court’s 2022 limiting of the EPA’s scope in mandating carbon reductions portends fewer fossil fuel regulations.

Unsettling uncertainty

At the same time, University of Cincinnati biologist Dr. Nate Moorhouse said this indeterminacy goes against human desire for certainty.

“All of those models are based on past experience projected out into the future,” Dr. Moorhouse said. “But we know it’s uncertain, right? Uncertain in some of the same ways that your commute across town is uncertain about your arrival time. But that uncertainty leaves some people queasy.”

Global energy prices add to this queasy feeling. And, with informed skeptics like Koonin casting doubt on simple narratives about climate science, there’s more uncertainty than ever on this issue. Now, even energy options once considered anathema are back on the grid, including nuclear, whose popularity plummeted in the west after 1979’s partial reactor meltdown at Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island.

Now, power companies and even politicians like California’s Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom want to extend nuclear power’s role in America’s energy mix.

No appetite for bullets

If a new enthusiasm for nuclear power doesn’t illustrate the complexity of the climate change debate, Smith said there’s more. None of the current policies popular even among Democrats will be enough to solve the problem.

“The difficult bullet we’ve got to bite is that it likely requires changes in habits and compromises in respective lifestyle, which no one has the appetite for,” Smith said.

Yet no elected official, even the most liberal Democrats, call for wholesale reductions in Americans’ energy consumption. Avoiding what seems to be a straightforward path to lower carbon emissions underscores how dealing with climate change does not lend itself to quick fixes or extremes.

Access the next installments in Brian’s climate series here, here and here.

Tags: Climate Change

VIDEO 1

THE PREDICTIONS ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE ARE DIRE.

AND THE VOICES CALLING FOR ACTION – GROW LOUDER EVERY DAY.

BUT WHAT IF WE DON’T ACT AS FAST AS THE U-N SAYS WE SHOULD?

AND WHAT ARE THE REAL CONSEQUENCES THAT WE FACE?

HOW MUCH OF WHAT WE HEAR IS EMOTIONAL RHETORIC – AND HOW MUCH IS FACT?

LET’S GET THIS STRAIGHT.

ONE CONSTANT WE HEAR FROM DEMOCRATS IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO STEP UP AND SPEND MASSIVE AMOUNTS TO ADDRESS WHAT SOME CALL AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT.

SOUND IF SOME EXISTS?

THEY’RE PUSHING FOR INVESTMENT IN RENEWABLE ENERGY WITH WIND AND SOLAR AT THE TOP OF THE WISH LIST.

ACCORDING TO WAKE SMITH, A SENIOR FELLOW FOR BUSINESS AND GOVERNMENT AT HARVARD’S KENNEDY SCHOOL, ITS NOT SO SIMPLE:

“Wind and solar can play a role, so long as they’re not the only thing that we’re relying upon. Now we need energy storage in a way that’s well beyond what we now do.”

COMPLICATING MATTERS FURTHER – A RECENT SUPREME COURT RULING WHICH LIMITS THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’S LATITUDE TO REGULATE CARBON EMISSIONS.

NUCLEAR IS BACK ON THE TABLE AS WELL.

NUCLEAR ENERGY BECAME A POWER PARIAH AFTER

1979’S PARTIAL REACTOR MELTDOWN AT THREE MILE ISLAND. THE EVENT LED TO A FEDERAL MORATORIUM ON NEW PLANTS.

BUT THAT WAS THEN. NOW, POWER COMPANIES WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO CLASSIFY NUCLEAR AS GREEN ENERGY, AS IT DOES NOT PRODUCE ANY GREENHOUSE GASES.

HOWEVER ACCORDING TO SMITH, NONE OF THESE SOLUTIONS IS LIKELY TO BE ENOUGH.

“the difficult bullet we’ve got to bite is that it likely requires changes in habits and compromises in respective lifestyle, which no one has an appetite for.”

TO SMITH, THESE CHANGES SUGGEST A KEY TAKEAWAY: A SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY WE USE IN OUR DAILY LIVES.

WHILE AMERICANS MIGHT BE FINE REUSING WATER BOTTLES, WOULD THEY BE AS HAPPY TO DRIVE ONLY A COUPLE DAYS A WEEK OR TURN THEIR AC UP TO 78? SO FAR, NO POLITICIAN HAS MADE THE BET THAT VOTERS ARE ON BOARD WITH SUCH DIRE CHANGES TO DEAL WITH WHAT SOME CALL THE DIRE CLIMATE THREAT.

VIDEO 2

WE HEAR THE “SCIENCE IS SETTLED” ON CLIMATE CHANGE. BUT JUST WHAT’S SETTLED ISN’T EXACTLY CLEAR. GENERALLY, DEMOCRATS HAVE PUSHED FOR FEDERAL INTERVENTION AND TRILLIONS IN FEDERAL INVESTMENT. CRITICS ARE SKEPTICAL OF JUST HOW MUCH GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO ABOUT WARMING TEMPERATURES.

ENTER OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SCIENCE ADVISOR AND NYU PHYSICIST DR. STEVEN KOONIN AND HIS BOOK UNSETTLED? “THE CONSENSUS IS NOT AS STRONG AS IT IS PORTRAYED.” INDEED, THE DOMINANT VIEW OF CLIMATE SCIENCE, AS MEDIA OFTEN PORTRAY IT, IS THAT WE NEED IMMEDIATE AND COMPREHENSIVE REFORM. CLIMATE SCIENCE EXPERTS ARE PUSHING ESTIMATES THAT ARE MORE EXACT AND DIRE THAN EVER BEFORE KOONIN SAYS THE SCIENTIFIC RECORD LEADS TO A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION. “THAT DOESN’T MEAN WE SHOULDN’T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT, BUT I THINK IT BECOMES MUCH LESS COMPELLING WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ACTUAL SCIENCE.” KOONIN IS NOT DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE EXISTS, NOR DOES HE SAY THE CLIMATE RECORDS ARE COOKED. INSTEAD, HIS THRESHOLD FOR CERTAINTY IN WHAT THE SCIENCE SAYS ABOUT RISING TEMPERATURES (AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES) IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT CLIMATE SCIENTISTS USE. THESE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS DON’T USUALLY WORK IN LAB SETTINGS. AFTER ALL, CLIMATE IS OUTDOORS. ESSENTIALLY, KOONIN AND OTHER SCIENTISTS DIFFER ON HOW CLEAR THE SCIENCE IS ABOUT NEGATIVE CLIMATE IMPACTS. BUT, DECISIONS MUST BE MADE EVEN WHEN FACTS ARE NUANCED. AND THAT’S A CHALLENGE.

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI BIOLOGIST DR. NATE MOREHOUSE SAYS THE TROUBLE IS THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT COMFORTABLE MAKING DECISIONS WHEN THE INFORMATION ISN’T CLEAR. “ALL OF THOSE MODELS ARE BASED ON PAST EXPERIENCE PROJECTED OUT INTO THE FUTURE. BUT WE KNOW IT’S UNCERTAIN, RIGHT? UNCERTAIN IN SOME OF THE SAME WAYS THAT YOUR COMMUTE ACROSS TOWN IS UNCERTAIN ABOUT YOUR ARRIVAL TIME. BUT THAT UNCERTAINTY LEAVES SOME PEOPLE QUEASY. SHOULD I REALLYBUY AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE, SHOULD OR SHOULD I REALLY REDUCE MY IMPACT ON THE PLANET, OR DO I HAVE SOMETHING I SHOULD BE DOING TO HELP?”

MAJOR CHANGES – BOTH IN PERSONAL BEHAVIOR AND GOVERNMENT POLICY – ARE DIFFICULT IN THE FACE OF UNCERTAINTY. THE REALITY IS THAT DECIDING JUST WHAT TO DO ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE MAY NOT FIT INTO AN EXTREME APPROACH IN EITHER DIRECTION. BRIAN CALFANO, STRAIGHT ARROW NEWS