Older generations have already experienced the impact of climate change. In , devastating flooding occurred in Australia, Europe, Asia and the US Northeast. California burned and crippling icy temperatures paralyzed Texas. As the climate grows hotter, these events and their risks will only .

Previous generations contentedly burned more and more fossil fuels, and now future generations will experience hotter and longer heat waves, intensifying droughts and increasingly devastating flooding. While they enjoyed luxury, theyā€™ve left their posterity with the burden.

Youth activism in the face of inaction

The younger generation cares a lot more about climate change than the older one. This is clear when you consider how younger people organize their family life. An increasing number of young adults have qualms about bringing children into a world experiencing intensifying disasters due to global warming. In 2018, the United States Census Bureau that 83.5% of adults aged 55 and older have children. On the other hand, a 2020 Morning Consult poll, with a majority of younger Gen-Z and millennial voters, found that a of childless adults cite climate change as a reason they did not have children.

Unlike thoughtless older generations, younger people do not have a choice in caring about climate change. It is their reality and their future.

Young people, realizing the climate burden left to them, have fought for change and organized mass youth climate strikes. In , more than 4 million young people in thousands of cities worldwide gathered to protest.Ā 

However, adults and politicians have criticized the youth climate movement, often claiming youths are overreacting and would be better off going to school. The adults who are causing climate change will be dead when its consequences peak. The children they are deriding as dramatic are the very same children whose lives their actions will jeopardize. Activists from the younger generation are being shut out and mocked by an older generation living in denial.

For instance, Greta Thunberg, a prominent climate activist, passionately at the United Nations Climate Summit in 2019 at age 16. She denounced global leaders for their inaction and greed in the face of extreme suffering due to climate change. Numerous policymakers, including US President Donald Trump, mocked Thunberg. Trump to say she had an ā€œanger management problemā€ and sarcastically described her as ā€œa very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future.ā€

Trump demeaned Thunberg because her criticism personally attacked his presidential ability and high self-image. Thunberg and other young climate activists threaten the worldview and greedy interests of politicians who refuse to acknowledge the severity of the climate crisis. As Greta Thunberg puts it, ā€œyou [politicians] are failing us. But the young people are starting to understand your betrayal.ā€

Climate anxiety and what young people can do

In the face of stubborn and selfish policymakers, young people can feel overwhelmed by hopelessness. In a published in 2022, the majority of youth and young adults expressed extreme worry about climate change. They agree that their worry has negatively affected their daily life. In order to combat this hopeless worry, young people must do something to give themselves agency and a localized sense of control.

Advocacy is an accessible way for young people to get in and take action on the climate struggle. It can mean simple things, such as signing petitions, participating in marches or educating friends and family.

Little actions, such as turning off unnecessary lights and water flow, are also easy ways to take action and tackle the crisis.

The most effective way to get rid of feelings of helplessness is to take the bull by the horns and do something. The older generation of policymakers has taken agency away from young people, and they must take it back.

With all the odds pushing against them, young people must continue to press the older generation for change. They must shout, not whisper ā€” demand, not ask ā€” for immediate action.
[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Climate Change: A Toxic Gift for the Next Generation appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

The article was written in anticipation of COP25, which was due to take place in Madrid later that month. In it, I likened the global dealings with climate change to being on a travelator walking backward while it gets faster.

The Missing Pieces to Avoid a Climate Disaster

READ MORE

The next climate conference, which was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, is COP26 and takes place in Glasgow in November.

Greta Thunberg Mocks World Leaders

In the meantime, Greta Thunberg, a prominent young climate activist, has been expressing similar sentiments. On September 28, at the Youth4Climate conference in Milan, the 18-year-old gave a speech in which she, in her inimitable manner, world leaders for their ā€œblah, blah, blahā€ of empty words and little action.

Whatever your views about her message and whether, as some have suggested, she should be at school instead of giving speeches, Thunberg has become the global voice of youth.  Her voice is uncompromising ā€” at times angry ā€” and reverberating around the world. Itā€™s no wonder, because one of the ironies of the climate debate is that the very group of people who will be most affected by climate change have the least sway and power to avert or abate it. 

Nevertheless, the voice of young people around the world pleading for more urgent and positive action against climate change is getting louder, and perhaps, just perhaps, leaders are slowly finding ways to address the issue. But it hasnā€™t been easy and will continue to create internal political difficulties for many leaders for years to come. 

As explained in my book ā€œ,ā€ climate change is a wicked problem. Wicked problems are those that are multifaceted, changing and difficult to address because they are a complex mix of economic, financial, political, cultural and technical issues. For climate change, inter-generational factors and short-termism create additional challenges. Quite simply, to fully address the impact of climate change, we need to change the way we access, generate and utilize energy, the driver of all our activities on the planet.

Did I say simply? The entire world has to do this in concert ā€” and equitably and urgently. Global agreement on any major issue has never been easy, quick or complete. Climate change is one of those. The Conference of the Parties involves almost 200 nations, all with their disparate issues, from the very poor to the highly-developed industrial giants.

But climate change gives current world leaders little choice but to find a way out of the quagmire. As I wrote in another opinion piece titled, ā€œThereā€™s a Rock Heading for Earth,ā€ if there was a rock, half the size of our moon heading at great speed in our direction, how would we respond? Would leaders continue to meet once a year and discuss with platitudes and endless targets to deal with the threat?

COP26 in Glasgow

So, what should we expect from COP26? More of the same ā€œblah, blah, blah,ā€ as Thunberg says? Will we see leaders from developed countries justifying their positions by proudly espousing their achievements to date and promising to do more? Will leaders of developing nations cry for more action and support while they adapt to increasingly severe weather patterns?

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51³Ō¹Ļ. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

To help predict the outcome of COP26, let me summarize the meetings so far. The first meeting of the UNFCCC was held in 1995 and was known as COP1. Twenty-six years and 25 meetings later, greenhouse gases continue to rise and climate change remains a considerable and increasing risk to humanity. Is it any wonder that the voice of youth is one of disillusionment and frustration?

Donā€™t get me wrong, there has been considerable progress made all around the world on the installation of large, renewable energy generation systems. This has meant some improvement in balancing the economic development of countries that are still catching up with the highly industrialized nations. But, in reality, such progress hasnā€™t been adequate ā€” nowhere near it.

Is the global community trying hard enough? Are leaders willing and able to courageously get over the politics and avert short-termism just this once? Rhetorical questions, I know.

So, back to my earlier analogy, while the travelator continues to take the world backward in terms of emissions reductions, global action appears to be limited to meetings, targets and pledges with little progress. Letā€™s hope COP26 leads to at least slowing the travelator down ā€” and significantly. Otherwise, itā€™s all ā€œblah, blah, blah.ā€

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post The Wicked Problem of Climate, Blah, Blah, Blah appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Greta Thunberg and the Youth Will Not Be Silenced

READ MORE

If wishing and hoping were enough, Trump would be in jail already, racial justice would be a reality and gun nuts would be voluntarily disarming for a safer and better society in America. Then, engaged government at all levels would be implementing health care and education reforms. And the US government would be acting forcefully to confront climate change.  

As 2019 came to a close, even the old Time magazine found youthful commitment to confronting climate change to be a more compelling story than the seemingly endless parade of aging world figures too blind to see much of anything. While I am not sure who reads Time magazine anymore, it seems that some people care who the editors choose for ā€œperson of the year.ā€ This it was Greta Thunberg, the teenage climate activist. I will admit that there is something a little bit annoying about her and that I am not sure what it is. It could just be that she is so young to be so right about anything important, never mind climate change.

For the record, Thunberg was not my first choice for ā€œperson of the yearā€ ā€” was. If only he/she/they were still with us, the world would be a better place.

But America, like little Jackie Paper, has irretrievably lost its youthful innocence. Puff probably knew it would happen, but when it came, it came suddenly and destroyed the playful dragonā€™s soul. I donā€™t want to make too much of this since my youthful innocence was lost a long time ago, leaving only what may be described as a shred of innocence. Like Puff, however, my soul is hurting at the moment.

The ā€œSoaring 20sā€

Why should it be so hard for human beings to take care of each other, not just the people we have to care for, but those whose plight should touch us deeply? Maybe the answer lies in a 21st-century human disconnect that no longer can collectively nurture a soul nor provoke a collective conscience. It seems more evident every day that it is easier to ignore uncomfortable truths when you only see them on an ever-smaller screen.

Since we have changed the calendar again, this time to a new decade, quickly figuring out a catchphrase for the 2020s could help shape it before the Twitter set does it for us ā€” maybe the ā€œsoaring 20sā€ to reflect the rapidly rising temperatures fueling climate change. Or maybe, in America, the ā€œdeadly decadeā€ to recognize the role that individual bullets play on a daily basis in the lives of an increasingly fearful populous. Or maybe ā€œthe decade of decadenceā€ to celebrate the surging victory of greed over morality.

Regardless, I am sure that 2020 is likely to bring more of what the previous year brought. There is no obvious agent of real change who seems capable of rising above our base-based politics. Maybe Trump will be dethroned and his henchmen marched through the streets in shame. That would be good for America and the world, but only if that cleansing act is transformative.

As for the rest of the world, almost all the major powers seem more focused on creating further misery than confronting the misery already at hand. Try to come up with a list of the hard commitments that the nations of China, the US, Britain, India, Brazil, Russia and Japan have made to confront the human suffering that is strangling the globe.

Are You Better Off Today?

In a 1980 US presidential debate, Ronald Reagan famously voters to ask themselves, ā€œAre you better off than you were four years ago?ā€ The suggested answer from Reagan that time around was a resounding ā€œno,ā€ after four years of the Carter administration. That same rubric has been trotted out by one side or the other in every presidential election since, so it is no surprise that Trump and his sycophants are channeling their inner Reagan to again put that question to the voters. They hope that all those wonderful, happy, little white households in suburban America will tote up their monetary blessings and thank Trump with their votes.

But just imagine what might happen if the answer this time were to be ā€œnoā€ again, and for a very different reason. If all that matters in todayā€™s America is the amount of money in your pocket, your bank account or your stock account, Trump will win reelection in November. However, if the Democrats can make it mean something else, something different, something more than Reagan meant, there may be a path to reversing the cynical undermining of governance that further paves the way for only greed and corruption to triumph.

Maybe the nation needed Trumpā€™s callous immorality to see Reaganā€™s words in a communal context that neither Reagan nor Trump intended, that each of us is only ā€œbetter offā€ if those around us are ā€œbetter off.ā€ That a communal conscience can feed the soul in ways that individual economic excess never will.

If there is to be a hopeful future for America, it has to be a hopeful future for all who live in the nation. America must tend to its own inequities and finally confront the cancer of racism in its midst to even try to reclaim any place of leadership on the international front. We are tarnished goods, now seen by many as an impediment to progress in confronting climate change and environmental degradation, in addressing human rights abuses, in providing a safe haven for refugees fleeing violence, and in finally realizing that military might kills more than it cures. No, Americans, we are not better off than we were four years ago.

We each can be better off only when the sick, the poor, the undereducated and the disadvantaged in our midst are better off than they were four years ago. So, my wish is that 2020 will be the year for a moral awakening in America that can nurture all souls and begin to save the planet.

*[An earlier version of this article was cross-posted on the authorā€™s , Hard Left Turn.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Is 2020 the Year for America? appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

As reported by , the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that extreme sea levels, often occurring once a century, will now strike annually on many coasts by 2050, despite efforts to curb carbon emissions. The IPCC that the international community urgently cuts fossil fuel emissions. Otherwise, an eventual sea-level rise by more than four meters would redraw geographical boundaries and affect billions of people. 

In this guest edition of The Interview, Vishal Manve talks to Harjeet Singh, the global lead on climate change at ActionAid, about the impact of the recent climate strikes and the urgency to phase out coal-fired power plants. 

The transcript has been edited for clarity.

Vishal Manve: Climate strikes have occurred around the world in 150 countries. Can you explain the significance of such a youth-led movement in addressing the climate emergency?  

Harjeet Singh: After decades of ignoring climate warnings, the world is finally waking up to the reality of the climate crisis. Young people have played a key role in that awakening. After realizing that the worldā€™s adults have not been taking the issue seriously enough, that they are likely to face a future of climate catastrophe, youth have taken to striking, organizing and marching to get the world to protect their future. In 2018, Greta Thunberg said: ā€œYou say that you love your children above all else, and yet you are stealing their future.ā€ Finally, the adults are listening. But the narrative that climate change will harm childrenā€™s future is still a perspective of the ā€œprivileged north.ā€ 

In the ā€œglobal south,ā€ climate change is not something that is coming in the future. For many young people in the ā€œglobal south,ā€ the climate crisis is already here. Young people in rural communities see the struggles their parents face when growing food [amid a lack of] rainfall, floods and rising sea levels, and they see little future for themselves. Climate change is driving youth migration to urban areas, and urban youth unemployment is growing as a result. 

As the current generation of young people grows up, their future is frighteningly uncertain. Young people in the ā€œglobal southā€ are already dealing with the impacts of climate change. But their energy, drive, innovation and solidarity are also the best chance we have to avert the climate crisis.

Manve: From Berlin to New York and New Delhi, hundreds of thousands of protesters were recently on the streets. Do you think politicians and governments will urgently act on the climate crisis, and do you expect policy-based action?  

Singh: Young people have taken the matter into their own hands. They will keep marching ahead, showing the way. At the UN Climate Summit, young people exposed the shameless lack of leadership from heads of state, who looked the other way for decades as the climate crisis escalated and the planet burned.

But the global climate strikes have raised awareness and expectations of what real climate action looks like. Leaders will find that the public will no longer be duped by tiny steps spun as huge milestones. If they want to stay on as leaders, they will need to be courageous and not cowardly. The global marches are creating the conditions for real and meaningful policy shifts. 

Manve: A warming planet is hurting millions and rising oceans are a grave threat. A recent UN report says over 40% of coastal regions will face the risk of flooding by 2100. What do you think communities and leaders should do to address these crucial issues?

Singh:  Rich countries must take a lead in dramatically reducing their emissions so that we donā€™t breach the crucial 1.5-degree threshold, after which the impacts would be devastating. Poor communities living in low-lying coastal areas and along riverbanks need urgent support in climate-proofing their homes, farms and livelihoods.

But the people whose homes and land are at the risk of being washed away or swallowed up will need to relocate to safer locations in a planned manner. Their governments must proactively enable this planned relocation in a participatory and just way, which will require financial and technological support from the international community.

Manve: India is a signatory to the climate accords but is investing in coal-fired plants and receiving investment in oil refineries. Do you think India needs to seriously phase out its coal dependency for energy sufficiency? 

Singh: India has an obligation to improve the quality of life for its citizens and scale up access to energy. But the country continues to rely on locally available coal, which brings huge environmental and human costs. We have reached a stage when the cost per unit of renewable energy is cheaper than energy sourced from coal. Rich countries should support India with the upfront costs of setting up renewable energy projects, as part of their international obligation. This will help India reject dirty fossil fuel-based energy and transition toward renewables at a much faster pace.

Manve: The big four, including China, India and the US, are responsible for major global emissions. While the US shut down its last coal-fired plant, India still is building them. How long before an emerging economy like India chooses renewable sources of energy?

Singh: India has made ambitious commitments to dramatically increase the share of non-fossil fuel-based energy, but it is yet to make a plan for phasing out its reliance on coal completely. On one hand, it needs to show courage, while on the other, the role of the international financial community to invest from a longer-term perspective in renewable energy projects is vital.

Manve: What key factors are stymying emerging economies from choosing sustainable methods of energy utility and switching to noncarbon sources of energy? 

Singh: What’s the solution? The emerging economies have a challenge of taking people out of poverty by creating jobs, alongside adopting greener sources of energy and helping people cope with climate impacts. They have limited resources that they cannot divert toward greener technologies, away from development needs such as education and health care.

The renewable energy infrastructure requires upfront investments that developing countries like India cannot mobilize on their own. The role of developed countries is crucial in providing finance and enabling the transition to faster adoption of greener technologies in developing countries like India. 

Manve: The global fund to fight climate change is still far off the mark. Do you think developed nations need to do more to help other countries catch up?  

Singh: The obligation of rich countries to provide climate finance to poorer countries suffering from climate impacts is a huge but poorly understood dimension of climate action. Vulnerable countries are already spending their scarce resources on recovering from the disaster that they have not caused or they are trying to improve preparedness for future climate events. They have little money left over for development, let alone transitioning to greener pathways.

It is, therefore, absolutely necessary for rich countries to step up and respond to the call for much more climate finance. Rich countries started the climate fire. It is their responsibility to put it out.

Manve: Recently, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced banning single-use plastic in an advisory manner. Following this, a few conglomerates announced their own measures. Do you think this will have an impact on how India produces and disposes of off its waste as landfills pile up with mountains of trash?  

Singh: It’s definitely a step in the right direction. However, these measures will not be enough to change the conversation and be a springboard for the necessary policy action that is required to make a change at a larger scale. The government must come up with a clear policy framework and implementation architecture to enable the change. It should also clamp down on companies, particularly from the e-commerce sector, that are generating huge quantities of non-biodegradable packaging material that adds to the waste.  

Manve: How crucial is climate justice and reparations to the entire global movement of tackling or addressing climate change?  

Singh: Climate justice cannot be achieved without the transfer of resources from the ā€œglobal northā€ to developing countries as the former are responsible for causing the climate crisis. Communities who are vulnerable and had no role in causing the problem are now being affected by rising seas and extreme weather events. Vulnerable communities need financial support to safeguard their livelihoods and climate-proof their farming and homes.

Developing countries are fighting for a reliable international system that can ensure the flow of finance that will let them rebuild their economies and help people recover from the impacts of climate change. We will not be able to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees without scaled-up mitigation action in developing countries. The transition to a green economy in developing countries cannot be achieved without adequate financial support from rich nations.

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Climate Financing Can Help Developing Countries Reject Fossil Fuels appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

The science is clear on climate change. Looking back at this past year, we’ve witnessed how climate change has manifested in more extreme weather, from record-breaking hurricanes, storms and flooding to heat waves, droughts and wildfires. Scientists have linked climate change to human activity and emphasized that the problem will not go away on its own. Instead, it will take a global, concerted effort to mitigate the impact of climate change today, while staving off its worst effects in the future.

In October 2018, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the planet would face “catastrophic” climate change if we do not dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. The planet’s has risen about 0.9Ā°C since the late 19th century. Most of that warming has taken place since 2010, registering five of the warmest years on record.

Global initiatives like the Paris Climate Agreement have sought to limit the temperature increase to 1.5Ā°C of pre-industrial levels, as even half a degree Celsius higher ā€” which, if we continue emitting at our current rates, we’ll hit by 2030 ā€” would have a devastating, irrevocable impact on the planet’s climate. has put together a graphic that depicts the difference between a 1.5Ā°C and 2.0Ā°C increase in temperature, which soberly describes as a weather forecast “from hell.”

Despite growing evidence backing man-made climate change, some people continue to reject the science, and political leaders lack the will to make substantive change in curbing carbon emissions. Leaders like US President Donald Trump have called climate change a hoax. During his annual Earth Day address in April, Trump managed to talk about environmental protection without once referring to climate change. And Donald Trump isn’t alone. Governments around the world have ignored, denied or understated the impact of climate change in favor of maintaining profitable production of fossil fuels ā€” the most egregious culprit when it comes to global warming.

Nonetheless, climate anxiety is rightfully on the rise among the general public. This past year we’ve seen greater public participation in grassroots movements demanding more action against climate change, particularly among youth. In March, 1.5 million students in 123 countries walked out of their classrooms to participate in a global in what was the largest youth-led environmental protest in history. The movement, led by 16-year old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, called on political leaders to respond to climate change with greater urgency. In April, the Extinction Rebellion movement staged rallies, die-ins and acts of civil disobedience around the world to call for climate action.

In this edition of the Interview, 51³Ō¹Ļ talks to Arek Sinanian, an expert on climate change and the author of , about what drives climate change skepticism, and the role that individuals and governments can play in halting global warming.

The text has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Dina Yazdani: The IPCC reported last October that if we donā€™t make significant strides in curbing global warming by 2030, we could face catastrophic climate change. So what does catastrophic climate change look like?

Arek Sinanian: Yes, I think the word ā€œcatastrophicā€ is a big word ā€” it means different things to different people ā€” and itā€™s a very general term. As your question quite rightly asks, what does it actually mean? What catastrophic means is that itā€™s going to have significant impact on the climate of the world. It means more frequent and severe storms that have significant impact on the populations, societies, communities, infrastructure and people.

How many people are going to be involved in such catastrophes? Itā€™s hard to say; you canā€™t put a number on it. You canā€™t say X number of people are going to die, or Y number of towns are going to be under water, etc. Predictions vary, and thatā€™s another reason why the report can sometimes be a bit vague, because it depends on what happens between now and 2030.

Thereā€™s a lot of variables: economic growth, global economic activity, technological developments and how many new technologies we adopt in energy efficiency and renewables. So thereā€™s a lot of uncertainty. But coming back to the question, What does ā€œcatastrophicā€ mean? If you look at the various aspects of climate change, what sort of impact are we talking about? Letā€™s run them through.

One is sea level rise. Now, how does sea level rise affect the world? Many towns, cities, countries are on the water, so to speak. An increase of sea level even by a few inches can have a huge impact, particularly if we then add the effects of more severe storms. A rise in sea levels will affect particularly low-lying countries. There are, for instance, Pacific islands that are literally only a few feet above sea level. The reality is that these people canā€™t go anywhere else. The only thing they can do is either build their houses further up the hill ā€” but often there isnā€™t a hill ā€” or raise their house somehow on stilts so that they remain above sea level.

On top of that, the other impact is more storms, and more severe storms. Yes, they have been happening for hundreds and thousands of years. They are likely more to be more severe. What does more severe mean? Stronger winds, stronger gusts ā€” and all of this will affect infrastructure, power systems, roads, trains, coastal areas in particular but also in-land areas where there are weather patterns where you will have these tornadoes and hurricanes.

Just imagine instead of hurricanes happening once a year, now weā€™re going to have twice, three times, four times, five times a year. Is that ā€œcatastrophicā€? Yes, it can be. Catastrophic in a sense that by the time you recover from one hurricane, youā€™ve got another one. So thatā€™s what people mean by catastrophic.

That includes storms that might [bring] heavier rain. What does heavy rain mean? More floods, particularly in flood-prone areas in the cities and communities. Again, there have always been floods. Weā€™ve learned to live with these floods. Weā€™ve built systems that can somehow cope or recover from major floods. However, there are countries, communities that are not capable of coping with such events. Also, what if these floods occur more frequently and more severely? In other words, many parts of the world they measure the likelihood of flooding and say things like ā€œone-in-100-years flood.ā€ What if these start happening one every 10 years? One every 20 years? Again, itā€™s a matter of building resilience and being able to recover from such events. Thatā€™s where the problem is.

Just like we have more frequent and severe floods, weā€™ll also have, ironically and somewhat contradictory, more droughts. Again, more severe, longer droughts, longer periods of no rain, or very little rain, etc. Agriculture, communities and towns, cities rely heavily on water. So it will impact the production of food and sustaining cities and towns.

Then we have more severe heat waves. It has a huge impact on populations. Have we always had heat waves? Yes, we have, around the world there are high temperatures. What if these heat waves occur more regularly and more severely? In Australia, we have just had the hottest summer on record, ever ā€”Ā at least since records began more than 100 years ago. This has an impact on all of the people. More vulnerable people are more prone to heat waves, and it can affect other things like infrastructure and the actual asphalt.

The road base is melting because of the heat. Railway lines are buckling because of the heat. It turns out that itā€™s not just the single maximum temperature but the prolonged maximum temperature. Instead of just say 100-120ĖšF peak, what if the 120Ėš stayed there for two-three days? It turns out that has even a bigger impact because the system cannot recover.

So we have all of these impacts, and when people talk about ā€œcatastrophe,ā€ what if all these things happened around the world more frequently, more severely, and had a huge impact on the economy, on sustaining communities, on the health of people and ecosystems? Thatā€™s what the report is referring to as ā€œcatastrophic,ā€ and thatā€™s why we need to act very quickly.

Yazdani: That really paints a pretty comprehensive picture of what we can expect if we do reach that tipping point in 2030. Youā€™ve also written quite extensively on the distrust toward climate science and the psychological reasons behind why someone might reject it. When we think of climate change deniers, we often think of people who stand to lose from the adoption of clean energyĀ ā€” like those that work for corporations, car manufacturers, coal producers, power plants, etc., and their lobbyists. What are some other reasons why people might refuse to believe in climate change?

Sinanian: You might be referring to the book I wrote called A Climate for Denial. The reason I mention it is that I did a lot of research into this very thing because I was genuinely intrigued as to why seemingly intelligent, educated people would accept other parts of science. They go to their doctor when theyā€™re sick, they have surgery by a surgeon, who is basically a scientist. The same science goes into designing and flying an aircraft as predicting climate change or deciding how much greenhouse gasses are impacting climate change ā€” the same science, the same rigorous methodologies. Why do these people reject the science of climate change when they in fact accept many others? Our daily lives almost depend entirely on science.

To answer your question, what Iā€™ve found is that there are many factors that affect a personā€™s accepting or not accepting the science of climate change. It turns out that ideology is the biggest determinant: There have been many surveys and studies done by schools of psychology around many of these reputable universities around the world. So then the question arises, What is it about ideology that affects peopleā€™s acceptance of science? Let me just say outright that the science on climate change is absolutely clear. There is no doubt, no question mark. The only thing we canā€™t really put our finger on which I alluded to earlier is just how much the impact of climate change is going to be.

The way that climate scientists predict the impact of these greenhouse gasses that weā€™re putting into the atmosphere is that they have models and rely on very sophisticated, I want to emphasize this, very, very sophisticated models that almost include hundreds of different variables, including solar flares, volcanoes, cows and people doing what we do when we eat food. It includes all of that and historic data on everything you can imagine, and then it includes economic factors, technological factors, the use of energy, etc. Itā€™s very sophisticated.

I say this because people say to me, ā€œWhat about solar flares? Hm? You didnā€™t think of that, huh?ā€ Of course they thought of that. Some of these deniers come to me with the most mundane, basic questions that an 8-year-old asks as if all these scientists that have spent their whole professional lives looking at this would not have thought of that.

Ideology is a big one. What does ideology have to do with accepting science? Well, my conclusion was that there are people whose ideology is such that there is a level of anti-authoritarianism in their way of looking into the world. They donā€™t want to be told to live their lives in a certain way. Itā€™s kind of a reaction to being told that you have to use less energy, that you have to use a smaller car, youā€™re using too much fossil fuels, etc. On top of that, there is this notion that, particularly with ultra right-wing ideology ā€” and Iā€™m not having a go at anybody here, but just giving you what the research is telling me ā€”Ā there is a feeling that instead of being told what to do, maybe the market should decide what is best for the economy and what is best for us.

The market decides how much tomatoes cost, how much your car is worth, etc. If, for instance, we run out of oil, then oil will become more expensive and less people will use oil. You get the point. As it turns out, very reputable economists whom I mention in my book have said that, in fact, climate change is possibly and probably the biggest failure in the marketplace. A failure because the decisions we have made since the industrial revolution started, the decisions we have made in deciding what kind of economy and what kind of power system we have, and transport systems ā€” major decisions weā€™ve made have not incorporated the environmental damage and climate change.

If you believe in the market making decisions for us, then sometimes the market does not get it right. It does not always get the price of a tomato correct. And thatā€™s when usually governments step in and provide subsidies and provide some sort of adjustment to these things to change the market.

Thatā€™s ideology. But wait, thereā€™s more. It turns out that apart from ideology, theology or religion, has an impact. You might say, What does religion have to do with climate change? Well, Iā€™ve been told by highly religious people, and again studies show this, if you truly believe that God, a god, is omnipotent, omniscient and is in control of this whole thing ā€” of the existence of humans on earth, of the existence of the earth, how these things happen ā€” then they say that God after all determines our climate and determines whether we survive or not.

I even asked a very religious person, “Wait a minute, youā€™re saying that youā€™re willing to leave all of this for God to decide?” And he said, ā€œYes, absolutely.ā€ So if weā€™re going to be wiped off the face of this earth, he said to me, ā€œWell, maybe this is part of Godā€™s plan.ā€ But I didnā€™t have the heart to say to him, What if you had a really, really almost fatal disease, but a curable one. Are you going to say, ā€œWell, itā€™s Godā€™s will, so I might as well die,ā€ or are you going to go to the doctor and say, Please cure me, get rid of this damn thing? So again, it doesnā€™t make sense, but thatā€™s the way it is.

But fortunately, the current pope has responded to this very question. A very important paper, Pope Francisā€™s Encyclical on the Environment, released about two years ago turns that argument completely upside down. What his paper basically says is, yes, God gave us this incredible gift ā€” the gift of this earth, the gift of the beauty, our lives, on this earth ā€” and we owe it to God to look after it for him (or for her).

So far, we have ideology, theology, the marketplace fallacy, and then it goes on and on. Thereā€™s fear, and it kind of addresses what you said about people who have a vested interest. People are afraid that if we change all of this ā€” [if] we get renewable energy, rely more on renewable energy than on fossil fuels ā€” then somehow our lives are going to be worse off, the economy is going to suffer, etc. Thereā€™s this fear of change. Humans, generally, do not like change. Nobody likes change, because change means uncertainty; we donā€™t know whatā€™s going to come, we donā€™t know whatā€™s ahead. We donā€™t want to change our way of life. I want to keep my car. I want to drive it everywhere I want. I want to put my air conditioning on. I want to stay cool. I want to stay comfortable. All of that.

But here is the counterargument to that fear: What if we had our entire energy provided by renewables? What if? Itā€™s a big hypothetical, I know. Imagine that. All of our energy comes from renewable sources. Guess what? You wonā€™t even have to turn your lights off. You wonā€™t have to turn your air conditioning off. Youā€™ll be able to run your electric car until it falls apart. What Iā€™m saying is that if we have renewable energy instead of fossil fuels, none of these fears would happen. The only problem is, how we do get there? Thatā€™s the biggest issue we have.

Yazdani: You mentioned earlier the resistance to authority, Godā€™s will, market shortfalls: How can we ā€” or political leaders, religious leaders, people who have influence, scientists ā€” more clearly communicate the reality of climate change?

Sinanian: Itā€™s interesting that you say that, because the reason why I thought my research and book are important, is because I think communication needs to change. Iā€™ll start with the scientists. The scientists have done themselves a disservice. It turns out that for a climate denier, the last thing you should give that person is more graphs, numbers and data. Itā€™s more to do with ideology than figures, graphs and numbers. Itā€™s convincing them that the fear is unjustified, the market is not going to work and these catastrophic things will affect us.

Really, the communication ought to be more positive than that. At the end of the day, it becomes a philosophical question rather than a scientific or political one. The question is, Do we really care about future generations? Itā€™s as simple as that.

The scientists have to present the information, the data in such a way as not to talk down to people. They think they know everything. Well, between you and me, they do ā€” they know a hell of a lot more than the average person on the street, and know a hell of a lot more than most politicians and corporate leaders. But itā€™s how you communicate. Instead of talking down to people and saying youā€™re ignorant and donā€™t know a thing, the way to communicate has to be more inclusive and understanding of these fears and denialist tendencies that I talked about earlier.

At the personal level ā€” thatā€™s you and me ā€”Ā what can we do about it? Other than making our own small decisions in the way we live on this planet, I think we can also make decisions when we come to vote. Most people [live] in a democracy, and in a democracy we have ways of choosing our leaders. The people we choose to represent us agree with our values, morals and ethical standards, including climate change. When I vote, there is no way that I will vote for someone who doesnā€™t believe in climate change. Why? Because as I said, itā€™s going to lead to catastrophe for future generations and I will not be able to die in peace knowing that I gave power to that person.

Now, this doesnā€™t guarantee anything of course, but even if a leader is voted in who doesnā€™t agree with it, we can write to politicians, express our disappointments in their lack of climate change policy, because not doing something is as bad as doing something bad.

Yazdani: Earlier you mentioned that many people see climate change through a generational lens. Last month, youth from over 100 countries around the world walked out of their classrooms to participate in what they called a Climate Strike to demand leaders to respond with greater urgency to climate change and take more action. We have also seen a Green New Deal put forward in US Congress. Do you think leaders are feeling pressure from the public, particularly the youth, to do more to address climate change and make hard decisions?

Sinanian: Absolutely. I have contacts all over the world, and the response to [the student strikes] all over the world was fantastic. In a way, the strikes were the best way to tell leaders, particularly coming from the youth, because, as I said, this is an intergenerational problem. To be honest, my generation is probably not going to suffer anywhere nearly as much as future generations. The strikes were fundamentally important ā€”Ā and I would say fundamentally successful.

You mentioned a tipping point earlier. I think we are reaching a tipping point in climate action, because there is a change in the mood around the world. In Europe, France, Germany, have been way ahead of America and Australia on this. Theyā€™re already there. There are now movements in the mood and in the feeling among politicians ā€” and politics ā€” around the world. The mood of the community and the action of what the young people are asking for is changing.

So how is this going to change policy? Because there are very young people that went on strike, if youā€™re a politician, youā€™re thinking, Those young people are going to vote in a few yearsā€™ time and going to put me, or my party or my congress out of [office]. There is now this feeling around the world that we better change our colors. We better change our policies, otherwise weā€™re going to be dinosaurs, so to speak.

Yazdani: Bringing it back to the US, last year the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that greenhouse gas emission had decreased by 2.7% from 2016 to 2017 during the first years of Donald Trumpā€™s presidency. Andrew Wheeler, the head of the EPA, that ā€œthese achievements flow largely from technological breakthroughs in the private sector, not the heavy hand of government. The Trump administration has proved that federal regulations are not necessary to drive CO2 reductions.ā€ Whatā€™s your reaction to this press release, and can we significantly stem greenhouse gas emissions without government regulations?

Sinanian: No. I totally disagree. I donā€™t feel capable or justified in what Iā€™m about to say. I have a lot of respect for the EPA. However, I cannot help but feel that that statement was a political statement rather than a technical one. Iā€™ll talk generally about agencies like EPAs around the world. They are absolutely fundamental to monitoring and measuring our emissions and what impacts policies are having on our emissions. They measure our fuel, energy usage per capita, sector, economy, city, state. The first thing about management of anything, not just science or climate, requires data and monitoring and reporting.

Now, EPAs of this world are in the best possible place to do these measurements and collation of data and then to report, because that then gives the decision-makers the tools and data they need to put the appropriate policy measures in place. Regulators such as the EPA also are involved with the actual implementation of policies and regulations. We need regulations to stop people polluting and doing unlawful acts according to the country or stateā€™s regulatory framework. Otherwise, if we didn’t have EPAs of this world, I could put cyanide down the sink or put toxic chemicals down the river. They fill a very important function not only for climate change but also for regulating and policing environmental issues, and monitoring and reporting to politicians to advise them.

Yazdani: Regulations aside, what are other steps that the government can do to help foster investment in renewable energy and discouraging the use of fossil fuels?

Sinanian: There is a fear that somehow transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy is going to be painful, costly, a nuisance, [and will] degrade our quality of life. What can they do? As it turns out, investment in renewable energy is at the highest it has ever been. The US is not a bad guy here. On the contrary, after China, the US is the second biggest investor in renewable energy. Donā€™t get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for whatā€™s happening in the USA. A lot of this is happening because of the market. Whatā€™s happened, for instance, [is that] solar panels and wind, the cost of renewables, the installation and operation, have come down. The costs have come down significantly.

Not only that, but the technology has improved. Solar power is far more efficient than it has ever been. You add that to the cost reductions as well, and itā€™s got to the point that in many parts of the world solar energy and wind energy are challenging the cost of coal-powered electricity. In many parts of the world, coal-powered generation is by far the cheapest option. If thatā€™s our baseline and what weā€™re aiming for, it turns out that solar and wind power is now challenging that economic argument.

What can the EPAs of this world do? They can mention that and show the success and the economic, as well as the environmental, benefits of renewables. Incidentally, economists are also saying ā€” and have done the calculations ā€” that not addressing climate change is going to be costlier than actually addressing it.

Yazdani: We talked about how climate change can look like at the individual level, at the national level, and what governments can do. To bring it to the global level, how effective are international agreements like the Paris Climate Agreement in compelling signatory countries to meeting their emission targets? So unlike the 1997 , the is not a legally binding treaty, therefore there are enforcement mechanisms for countriesā€™ non-compliance with the agreement. Are pledges enough to ensure that warming does not surpass 2ĖšC above pre-industrial levels?

Sinanian: Unfortunately, no. The Paris Agreement is a compromise. Itā€™s an agreement to agree. Itā€™s like you and I agree that weā€™re going to do something. High five, weā€™ve agreed to do something. The reality is that the global agreements have always been extremely difficult, even more difficult than the national ones. Iā€™ll tell you why. In all of these meetings that they have in the United Nations, just imagine almost 200 countries coming together to agree, as I said, to agree to change the way we live on this planet. That is an incredibly difficult thing to do. They can hardly agree to the time of day, let alone how weā€™re going to change.

There are many problems, but the main problem is this: There are around the world the haves and the haves not. There is the industrialized countries, USA, Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, etc., and then there are the other countries that are still developing, including China. China is still predominantly an underdeveloped country. Donā€™t be fooled. Yes, theyā€™re making everything we wear, use and buy. Youā€™ve got India coming up and many other Asian, African, South American countries that are predominantly underdeveloped. How does one provide a bridge?

India is about a billion people, [and some ] donā€™t even have electricity yet. Here I am thinking about turning my air condition on and off. In many parts of India, they cook with little sticks of wood. So how are we going to [tell] these people, No you cannot have electricity, sorry ā€” you could only if you have solar wind, but you canā€™t have electricity because thatā€™s going to add to greenhouse gasses. You canā€™t do that to people. They have as much right to come to our level of affluence and quality of life as we have established for ourselves.

Youā€™ve got a huge discrepancy between the developed and underdeveloped economies. How are we going to bridge that and let them develop, because development ultimately requires energy use. If theyā€™re going to develop and require more energy, how can we make sure they do all of this without adding to greenhouse gasses? Itā€™s a huge problem. Thatā€™s why global agreements have failed.

What [such agreements mandate] is for the developed countries to reduce emissions enough to allow the underdeveloped countries to come up mid-way. Kyoto did that, and I was personally involved in implementing the Kyoto Protocol for the United Nations. The way that Kyoto tried to do it was encourage cross-subsidization for developing countries to put in renewable energy and energy efficiency systems to that they could develop ā€” transfer technology to them, teaching them how to do it better, but also at the same time to encourage them with economic assistance, to embed low carbon technologies and low carbon energy generation.

Itā€™s a big problem. Thatā€™s why the Paris Climate Agreement is non-binding and just an agreement. Letā€™s meet for a few days, have lots of cups of teas and agree to do something. We donā€™t know what it is, and even if we know what it is, weā€™re not bound to it.

*[Updated: June 6, 2019.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post How Ideology Affects Our Acceptance of Climate Science appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.