Fuhgeddaboudit

The US election seems like a rather large nail in the coffin of efforts to combat climate change on a global basis. Hovering somewhere between denial and dismissal, the President-Elect’s disregard for inconvenient science, friendliness to crony capitalism, and solipsism makes engaging in fundamental long-term changes in our economy and culture no more likely than Putin turning tail in Ukraine or Bobby Jr. chugging corn syrup.

It's not that the Dems were really stepping up to the plate, but some efforts were made and little active damage was done. Many nice words, some programs and money, and lots of good intentions (and we all know where that road leads). When measured against what we’re going to see over the next four years, there are dramatic differences. When measured against what is needed to minimize the storms, heat waves, droughts, mass migrations, and general global distress, the Dems are only marginally better.

Nor is there much inspiration to be found overseas. A general crisis of ungovernability afflicts most major democracies, the big developing countries (Brazil, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Nigeria, South Africa, Turkey, Argentina (in no particular order) remain hooked on catching up with the rich West even if they had the financial and political means of reordering their societies. China is facing its own development pressures as well as geopolitical conundrums and wrestling with the contradictions of a “communist” party trying to direct the world’s largest economy. Russia is preoccupied with its war of attrition against Ukraine. Europe (whatever that means) is trying; but its lack of cohesion and a host of problems in its leading members doesn’t bode well for global leadership. Among the many ironies of the current geopolitical situation is the indispensability of American leadership at a time of a distinct isolationist turn in our domestic politics.

As a result of all this, the recent UN meeting in Baku (COP29) which was supposed to see serious and specific commitments of cash to address the myriad schemes for climate abatement and adjustment has proved to be a bust. Ditto for similar UN meetings on species preservation and the proliferation of plastics. Scads of well-meaning and hard-working people without much power issued hundreds of proposals and statements to little avail. Fortunately, with modern technology, many fewer trees were felled to provide the paper on which these pleas would have been printed. One such initiative proclaimed the commitment of a group of countries to maintain their climate leadership by promising to stay “carbon-negative.” This “G-Zero” group includes countries comprising less than one-half of one percent of global population and one-sixth of one percent of global GDP. It’s a start, I guess.

Perhaps we should stop. Stop the wheel-spinning and hand-wringing and crying in the (ever diminishing) wilderness. Stop pretending that sound scientific analysis, dark scenarios, technological and policy creativity, and earnest and noble striving to save humanity from the road it has been on for the past several hundred years is really getting anywhere.

There is, in the historical record, little evidence that any society has gotten out ahead of its strategic challenges. We needn’t look much further than our national response to COVID (and whatever the next pandemic will be) or European appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s. As a historian, I’m hard pressed to come up with some meaningful counterexamples. And these were threats faced by more-or-less homogeneous groups of people; the prospect of spontaneous global coordination and effective implementation of policies is a pipe-dream. It’s not until threats become dire and immediate and body-counts start mounting that most folks will take action. Wet-bulb heat deaths in the millions or mass famine may do it, but a few hundred storm victims—even in North Carolina—is only noise in the system.

We might think of it in terms of basic economics: supply and demand. People buy things because they meet a need (real or induced). They “buy” ideas because those ideas meet psychological needs: resolving fear, responding to anger, inspiring hope, expressing compassion, satiating hunger/greed/insecurity. In this case there’s not much “demand” for ideas about the climate crisis. There’s plenty of supply, but much has been expressed in terms of the pain of adjustment from traditional economies and cultural patterns or the fear of distant future catastrophe. Folks aren’t buying, however. Rather than doubling-down on the “advertising budget,” perhaps we might keep our powder dry and wait until there’s more demand for information/policies.

If this were a military campaign, with an integrated command structure and coherent strategy, someone in the general staff could assess the prospect of over-extended salients and the risk of ineffectively re-supplying a column with little prospect of short-term success. A senior commander could decide that burning through their troops and ammunition wasn’t worth it and call for a strategic retreat until better battlefield conditions obtained and shift forces to fronts where real progress could be made. But the effort to minimize climate catastrophe is made up of hundreds of governmental groups, thousands of independent private organizations, and millions of individuals. Everyone means well, but no one is in charge. It’s a bit like the British General Staff on the Somme in WWI, “once more into the breech, fellows” and all that. The result is wasted resources and strategic chaos.

We used to joke that my Dad, when visiting a foreign country, would try to overcome the language barrier by speaking English…LOUDER. The environmental movement is doing the same thing. Those who are persuadable by science already get it. Those who don’t (for a range of reasons) can’t be convinced, but all the enviros do is trot out new evidence and pleas because that’s the only language they speak.

If I can just float an idea for mulling over: I’m not suggesting that we give up completely and permanently, but I’d rather have the energy and funding available when the world is readier to actually do something—likely just a few years hence.

For those who take the climate threat seriously, rather than spending all this time and money on plans to fix the problem in the next five years (or, at least, put us on the right track) maybe a different tack is in order. As with the domestic political situation, there’s a real risk of exhaustion/burnout. In the short term, let’s limit our policy efforts to 1) political entities that have shown a willingness to take meaningful steps and 2) designing policy structures that can be implemented when societies and governments are ready. Let’s put grand schemes for carbon markets on the shelf and stop pretending that rich countries are really going to put up any meaningful amount of cash in the short term. At the same time, we can continue with (indeed expand on) nature-based solutions and programs for resiliency and adaptation.

Earnestness is not enough. It's frustrating (and scary), but those aren’t reasons to spin the wheels faster and expend more of our limited resources on butting our heads against the wall. Let’s focus on areas that can have real effect and save some of our energy for a time when the world is ready to deal with its (by then darker) reality.