EcoPerspectives Blog
Seven Years to Midnight?
By Travis Rosenbluth, Staff Editor for the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law
May 2, 2023
In 2014, scientists of the IPCC agreed that human influence on the climate system is evident. It is a milestone that seems insignificant in 2023; however, as we’ve seen most recently in the medical space, getting experts let alone scientists to agree on anything seems like a colossal task. Nevertheless, in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), international scientists came to a consensus that, indeed, humans were influencing the world’s climate. Now, almost a decade after AR5 and nine years closer to 2030 (a pivotal year determined by the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement), the old consensus seems to remain but solutions are handicapped. This is a real problem.
More poignantly, this a real problem for up-and-coming Millennial and Gen Z policy makers, environmental lawyers, and activists, all environmentalists (hereinafter, “the Coalition”). Without another new layer of consensus on our situation’s significance, and an achievable goal in mind, any real systematic solution will also be handicapped. This blog post intends to rouse a realignment within the Coalition, one of reasonableness. Some of what is to come may be provocative and contrarian; so, take a breath but not too deep because the air is full of carbon dioxide.
The main focus is addressing the fatalistic climate of so called “doomerism” that has haunted and captured many young people’s perceptions and activism therein today. We’ve all seen the headlines that this type of theory produces; all one needs to do is google “IPCC warning,” and the news feeds will populate with apocalyptic headlines. These warnings certainly play a part in capturing the awareness of the problem, but for all its capture, the results aren’t as serious. The awareness has increased for sure (which is a good thing). Ask most people, and they will say that we are already living in a catastrophe; just look at the eradication of the coral reefs, the rising sea levels, and melting icebergs.
However, there is hardly any significant legislation passed that one could point to as a real game changer in the fight against climate change (ironically the most significant “environmental bill” to pass through congress recently was the Inflation Reduction Act). Instead, we see things like Greta Thunberg yelling at parliament, and activists are throwing soup on museum paintings. This is the absence of an actual systematic fight to save the environment; in fact, it is an example of helpless activism instead of a reasonable discussion of any strategy. So one must ask, how did we get here?
It is a self-fulfilling and circular equation that we have seen before: identify the problem, make it existential, claim there is only one solution, strawman the side that doesn’t agree, seek uncompromising perfection, get nothing done, the problem continues, and ten years down the road, major contributors are still pumping out GHGs, and no identifiable victories can be shown. Yet where does reasonable consensus come in? Well, there are three camps to this. The two extreme camps highlight the need for the middle camp. The first camp, those who have a blind deus ex machina belief that technology, together with human innovation and ingenuity will save the day, offers nothing reasonable to the debate. The same can be said for the most vocal camp, those who believe that passing the Paris Climate Agreement stated redline is an existential crisis and humans will cease to exist if we do.
A provocateur may say, the argument that the world will be uninhabitable in 2030 as the temperature rises above 1.5º Celsius is as bombastic as the argument that claims, “climate change is a hoax.” The planet will, of course, likely be habitable (caveats included), and humans, in a large capacity, will still be able to live on earth. Regarding policy contribution, if one subscribes to the less reasonable idea that the world will be uninhabitable by 2030 and beyond, there are only two (equally unreasonable) policies: self-preservation or climate-based warfare. We can safely assume that a reasonable public is not voting for the overthrow of the American government and the invasion and conquering of India and China for the sake of roughly 1.2ºC (from their respective emissions). Thus, such existentialism without acknowledging these unreasonable options for achieving certain global temperature rise goals is unproductive and can likely only serve to induce fear.
The lack of consensus building, in addition to a generation of fatalist humans, results in climate based anxiety, fear, and deception, which (in the wrong hands) can be put towards political gain. We’re probably all too familiar with the disingenuous politician who, throughout history, has only ever put forth unrealistic utopian policies, destined to divide or self-destruct. We owe it to ourselves to ask the question of whether the Green New Deal was one such “all-or-nothing” policy and whether there was a more measured and reasonable approach that sowed (even some) progress toward actionable consensus, rather than sowing political division. Similarly, California’s recent executive order to suspend carbon-emitting vehicles may be subject to similar questions and critiques. The cynical argument here is that this is all pandering; both acts allow for the proverbial “can” to be “kicked down the road” toward an overly ambitious and inevitably unattainable goal.
Thus, one must ask, is the assertion that “it gets the conversation going” actually beneficial to the conversation? It has since locked Congress and America in a partisan divide. This gridlock is a natural conclusion when there is not a formidable Coalition with consensus around reasonable, actionable goals. In order to avoid a lost generation amidst a continued lack of reasonable strategy, goals, and merely expecting politicians to pedal silver bullet’ legislation (less likely to pass and more likely to divide), we must demand change.
This change would be a realignment. Any successful social campaign is not won by provocative acts or issuing blame. Rather, such realignment must face harsh truths, evaluate wins and losses, having key figures to promote key initiatives, organized actionable-goals, and realistic negotiation. Yet before all of that, it requires reasonable consensus. Realistic and reasonable ideas can lead to implementation, implementation can lead to momentum, momentum can lead to grander policies, and those policies (if they ever come) can lead to real solutions. Therefore, if we realign our focus reaching a new consensus then we can pivot toward a new reassessment of our collective goals and strive for actionable solutions in our lifetime.