The consequences of atmospheric greenhouse gases and sea level rise are bad enough, but the lesser known effects on the oceans potentially have even greater long-range consequences. The ocean's crippled ability to store CO2 could be only the beginning. Already there are huge dead ocean zones (one the size of Florida), and massive fish kills. Ocean heat begins consequences which the report authors call "irreversible on centennial to millennial time scales."
In what qualifies as qualified good news, another report estimated that, left unattended, climate disruption will cost the global economy $178 trillion in the next 50 years. But that's a fraction of what it is estimated to cost to aggressively address climate disruption. If that were to happen, the report estimates, the global economy could even be in the black in 50 years. I tend to view all such economic estimates as exercises in fantasy. But this does affirm what others have maintained: the cost of doing something seems high, but the cost of not doing it will be much much higher. And I at least mean more than monetary cost as well.
But in the US we don't hear much if anything about any of this from our political leadership. Republicans ignore and deny it, and I'm afraid Robinson Meyer makes too good of a case in his Atlantic article that Democrats seem to be "sleepwalking toward climate disaster." It is likely only weeks before the chance to pass a meaningful climate bill could disappear for a long time, and there is little indication of any sense of urgency.
Instead Republicans steer attention to issues they virtually create out of nothing but political ambition, while Democrats reel from one headline crisis to another. There's been a global pandemic, there's an awful war in Ukraine with global implications, a previously unthinkable reversion on reproductive rights, and a chilling burst of deadly gun violence, particularly those incidents in which helpless elders and helpless young children are slaughtered as they peacefully live their lives. There's inflation--especially in high gasoline prices-- causing anxiety and hardship. And there's always something, something else.
What would climate leadership look like? Ideally it would have begun in the 2020 elections, in which candidates--including for president and v.p.--ran on the climate issue as their overriding priority. Once elected, they would ignore the noise and get to work. There would be experts offering solutions in White House meetings, some of them televised. There would be legislation proposed and projects begun. In an appearance every week, the President and Vice-President would present the latest information in context, explaining its importance, explaining the latest research, progress reports on legislation and projects (including what isn't working and why)--in sum, the latest efforts to address the causes and the effects of climate disruption. This would be like FDR talking about the war, only without any worry about the enemy listening in.
Then every month, the President would talk from the Oval Office with a more general summary, but also in the course of discussing the most attention-getting issues of the moment, would show how they relate to climate disruption.
Because they all do. In some ways that are understood and others not, climate disruption is stirring up deadly diseases which find a home in places they aren't usually seen. Russia may well be responding to both direct climate disruption effects and the prospect of declining revenues from fossil fuels, the primary source of its global income. Climate disruption is certainly at the heart of other wars around the world. Inflation is an international phenomenon, and is being fed at least partly by the present effects of climate disruption: the higher costs of food due to drought-induced crop failures, for instance, and other higher costs due to other weather-related disruptions to the global supply chains. Inflation due to all of this will only increase in the future unless both causes and effects of climate disruption are successfully addressed.
Reproductive rights are key to the lives of women, and gender equality is a large factor in reducing poverty and fostering sustainability. Climate disruption may underlie a lot of fear, anxiety and anger, and while it is probably not the primary or proximate cause of extreme violence--including extreme and violent political rhetoric and division--it is probably not a coincidence that it is all happening at the same time.
Climate leadership would pounce on all opportunities. The pandemic could have been an educational experience, seen as a possible dress rehearsal for dealing with the sudden spread of diseases made possible by climate disruption. Inflation and the war in Ukraine could be focal points for arguing that accelerating green energy and dumping fossil fuels are economically and geopolitically as well as environmentally necessary. A lot of political nonsense could be avoided simply by refocusing on the main issue.
This model of climate leadership obviously is not happening. The President has never given a single Oval Office address on climate disruption--not just the current President, any President. Few presidential candidates in the primaries, and no presidential candidates in the general election have made addressing the causes and effects of climate disruption the theme of their campaigns. Though it was mentioned more often as a priority by many Democratic congressional candidates and the national ticket in 2020, few congressional candidates talked about it prominently and in detail.
It could be that as Meyer suggests, they just don't understand the issue fully. They obviously don't think the electorate cares enough about it to support a candidate who does. But in Stanley Greenberg's most recent polling in the US, UK, France and Germany, he found that next to Ukraine, addressing climate disruption is the top priority of the majority he polled. It's not clear if it's a majority in the US alone, but he did find majority support for a transition to green energy.
In upcoming congressional elections, Democrats are reportedly divided on whether to emphasize the abortion issue or respond to Republican attacks on inflation and other pocketbook issues. Or whether to attack Republicans as extremists undermining democracy. All of these are of course valid issues. But until candidates start talking about climate disruption, and start running on this issue, the kind of consistent leadership and attention necessary doesn't seem likely. Frankly I don't see candidates out there, especially beyond contending for a few House seats, that sound like leaders on this issue, or perhaps even have the capability to see the big picture. But I'd love to be surprised.
