Tomorrow is too late. Climate action must start now.
If climate change is an urgent problem, as almost all scientists and a majority of the public believe it is, policy-makers need to push solutions that can be implemented quickly.
When discussing my political views, I usually describe myself as a centrist or, to be more specific, a right-center moderate. But more than anything I’m a pragmatist. I favor policies that are effective and meet a need. That preference draws me to the center, because proposals at the extremes often are unachievable even if they are desirable.
Take, for example, climate. A major climate report last month from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change directed attention to the scope of climate change and urgent need for action. Yet, the response to the report followed a predictable pattern. On the Left, calls for the Green New Deal intensified. On the Right, there was widespread criticism of those plans and an emphasis on traditional infrastructure over green infrastructure.
What struck me, though, was the dissonance between the sounds of alarm and the timeline and potential impact of proposed solutions. In a column in The Washington Post, Fareed Zakaria summed up the problem:
The White House this week illustrated the central reason U.S. energy policy is failing. It promises that we can get to a carbon-free future without imposing real costs on the American people, and without having to make some very difficult trade-offs.
I agree with Zakaria. It is incompatible to say that climate change is an urgent problem and to propose solutions that at best won’t be initiated for two or three years and won’t deliver results for a decade or more. Worse yet, even programs that have been in place long enough to measure have fallen short of their goals, as detailed in a USA Today analysis.
Here’s the reality: If urgent action is needed – and most Oregonians believe it is according to a recent Oregon Values and Beliefs Center survey – proposed solutions must be implemented quickly and effectively and they must address the biggest sources of emissions: transportation and heating and cooling homes.
If we truly consider climate change to be an urgent matter, we must change behavior and practices in those areas now – not by 2035, a commonly proposed date for requiring electric vehicles, or by 2040, when Oregon utilities will be required to eliminate most carbon emissions.
As a right-center pragmatist, I favor policies that use a carrot to those that use a stick and that leave as much choice as possible in consumers’ hands. But, as Zakaria notes, it’s dishonest to pretend meaningful change can be achieved without costs. And in order for consumers to make choices, they must first be made aware of the tradeoffs.
So, the focus should be on what government and private businesses can do to both make an immediate difference and convince consumers to reduce their carbon consumption even if it means making sometimes difficult changes in their routines. Now is the time to make new routines. The pandemic has already disrupted so much, we cannot miss the window to apply that disruption to the adoption of climate-friendlier behaviors. If we miss this window we’ll just default to our typical emission patterns and inertia will grow.
I’m not a climate policy expert, but a few obvious ideas have been floated, some of which also address societal changes wrought by COVID-19. Here are two:
Push electric vehicles: Fellow The Oregon Way contributor Tim Nesbitt has suggested government-provided incentives for automobile owners to convert existing vehicles to electric. It’s a quicker and cheaper approach than trying to get everyone to buy new electric vehicles. At the same time, the government should incentivize U.S. automobile makers to increase electric vehicle production. With supply chains disrupted because of COVID-19, this is the perfect time for automakers to make significant changes in production.
Immediate attention also needs to be paid to building EV infrastructure such as charging stations. Pandemic-driven real estate changes, such as conversion of shopping centers into other uses, puts land on the market that could be available for charging stations and other green infrastructure.
Push work from home: Even the quickest approach to boosting electric vehicle use requires a lengthy timeline. There’s something everyone can do to immediately reduce emissions: drive less. And the pandemic showed us the best way to take cars off the road. We can’t shut down everything, but we can continue to work from home. This is the closest thing there is to a climate solution without pain.
Though some people prefer to work from the office and some employers prefer to have their workers in the office, COVID-19 restrictions showed us that many jobs can be done from home. And opinion polls show that many workers would like to continue to do work remotely. At the least, policy-makers should explore ways to reward companies that continue to allow their workforces to stay off the roads by working remotely. In addition to reducing automobile emissions – and, as a bonus congestion – working from home potentially also can reduce electricity use if large office buildings are converted to more efficient and necessary (housing, for example) uses.
These are just two possibilities that involve aspects of our lives already in transition. I’m sure others could devise better proposals than these. I hope they do. But the focus needs to be on solutions that can be initiated now and produce results within a year or less. If climate change is an urgent issue, policy timelines must reflect that fact.
Mark worked 20 years at The Oregonian in positions including business editor & editorial writer. He currently is a communications consultant.
Well stated, Mark. See my comment below. BTW, I've been digging into the EV conversion issue and except to be writing more about it soon.
I would say that it is true, better policy needs to be implemented . So we must use facts. Where is the real problem ? And where do the changes need to be made? My wife and I recently installed solar to offset our electric bill. It sits innocuously on top of an existing building and we offset 2 tons of carbon per month. Conversely, in a ridiculous money grab, 12 acres of prime farmland was given a land use exemption directly next to our property. 12 acres of farmland that will never be reclaimed. The weeds grow, the sun tracking panels seldom track, in fact often face away from the sun. THIS is what happens when government screws with policies. So where is the real problem? Government. And where do the changes need to be made? Foreign countries that polluting in far greater rates than we do. Yes humans by merely existing change the planet, but chasing small gains by following politicians seeking power will never solve pollution issues.