I am writing in response to the column by Robert Samuelson titled “Climate–Change: We Have No Solution.” This title is absolutely false. We have many solutions. Solar, wind, geothermal energy sources are just the beginning. Energy efficiency offers a great “source” of energy. Retrofitting our buildings for example represents an immense opportunity for energy savings. Electric and high mileage cars are arriving. Reducing our extravagant waste of energy is another step we must take. As Mr. Samuelson suggests, a carbon tax is a way to stimulate non-carbon based energy. What is really lacking is the will to act.
Just because we don’t all the answers or a “magic bullet” is no reason that we shouldn’t begin immediately to take on this immense challenge. Mr. Samuelson appears to have little faith in our ability to rise to the challenge. Our country’s rise to the challenge of war time production in WWII and the challenge to go to the moon offer but two examples of our ability to confront a challenge.
I like Mr. Samuelson’s am not optimistic. We have failed to take on the challenge for more than 25 years since Dr. James Hanson’s testimony before Congress. The political right has fought for their almost religious belief in free-market capitalism and their big money donors in the oil, gas, and coal industries. We have had few champions on the political left to fight for our future. Too many have their hands out for corporate money. We will pay to repair massive storm damage or pay to take on this challenge. Prevention is much more cost effective.
Our embrace of free-market capitalism may be the biggest obstacle we face. Corporate America operates with profit as their only guiding principle. The cigarette manufactures knew that cigarettes caused cancer in the 1950’s yet lied and distorted the truth for many decades. The lead and asbestos industries did the same. Recently we learned that GM, to save a few dollars, caused the death of some of their customers just like Ford did with the Pinto. The fossil fuel industries have taken a page from the cigarette industry in denying the risks of climate disruption. They have spent millions on “think tanks” to distort the facts and muddy the water with regards to climate disruption. They operate with no social or moral values driven only by the goal of only increasing their profits.
Mr. Samuelson wrote about rhetorical Ping-Pong. This exists because the medial has been presenting the issue as if there is a balance to the arguments present in the climate debates. There is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that climate disruption is here now and it is the result of man’s burning of fossil fuels. This consensus has warned of the crisis ahead if we don’t act. Simple risk management says we should act now. Even Pentagon planners are preparing for the results of climate disruption.
If your house caught fire, should we just stand around and watch because we don’t have perfect firefighting technology? Shouldn’t we act immediately with our best efforts? Shouldn’t we fight to protect our children and grandchildren? Shouldn’t we work to reduce the economic, social, and political chaos that further climate disruption will cause? Will we continue to do as we mostly have done by putting our heads in the sand and pursuing our own selfish short term goals? We have a daunting task ahead of us. Will we face the challenge? We have failed so far! Thinking like Mr. Samuelson’s is a detriment to all who will confront this issue in the future.