Technology, not treaties, will reduce global warming
When we left COP 26 behind, we saw both progress in tackling climate change and disappointment in the strength and possible effectiveness of the agreement reached. In the past two decades, climate change has moved from the fringe of the political agenda of many countries to the center of the political agenda. That is progress. Companies, civil society, and governments are mobilizing to reduce greenhouse gases. But mobilization is affected by the national economy’s own interests. Although many policymakers understand the seriousness of the problem, their own political survival requires uninterrupted economic life. This means that until renewable energy is more widely used, they have no choice but to use fossil fuels.
Climate policies that require drastic and immediate changes in behavior that cause greenhouse gas pollution are politically infeasible. The demand for sacrifice by climate activists has led to an increasing denial of climate by those who tend to ignore science anyway.According to a recent poll Washington post with ABC News:
“The vast majority of adults believe that warming is a serious problem, but the proportion-67%-is about the same as seven years ago, when the warnings issued by climate scientists were not as obvious as they are now. It was also found that partisan divisions on this issue have widened. The percentage of Democrats who see climate change as an existential threat has risen by 11 percentage points in seven years, reaching 95%. Part of the increase is due to black Americans, who are now more serious. It may be said that this problem is very serious…At the same time, during the same period, the percentage of Republicans who believed climate change was a serious problem fell by 10 percentage points to 39%.The Republican Party’s decline in post-ABC polls is consistent with annual survey results Gallup Poll Among them, Republican concerns declined after Donald Trump became president in 2017. ”
Despite the growing partisanship on climate policy, young Republicans are more concerned about climate change than their elders.in a Pew Research Center A study conducted earlier this year by Cary Funk, Pew Science and Social Research Director, concluded:
“There are generational differences between the two parties on the issue of climate change, especially Republicans-especially in the role of fossil fuels. Among Republicans and independents who tend to be Republican, younger people are more important than older ones. They are less willing to support increased use of fossil fuel energy. For example, compared with baby boomers and older Republicans (44% vs. 74%), Generation Z Republicans support more hydraulic fracturing (the main extraction technology for natural gas) ) Is 30% less likely. Republicans have similar generational differences in expanding offshore oil and gas drilling and coal mining.”
Although young people on both sides are aware of this problem, we can assume that young Republicans are more interested in encouraging green market forces than policies that inhibit lifestyle choices. My view is that forcibly changing your lifestyle is an arrogant and self-defeating position. There is almost no evidence in history that this change is even possible without authoritarian law enforcement. China’s “one-child” policy is an example of forcing changes in public behavior. The problem is overpopulation. Although demographers now understand that population growth will decline with economic development, the Chinese government does not want to wait for the demographic transition. Although the “one-child” policy reduced the population growth rate, it produced many unexpected negative effects and was eventually abandoned. In any case, there can never be a similar policy in a democratic country.
The notion that a global treaty on greenhouse gases can always only be ambition is also misguided and does not recognize the persistence and power of national sovereignty. COP-26 and its predecessors have played an important role in promoting the importance of climate change to the world, but the core differences between developed and developing countries and the political needs of sovereign states to pursue their own economic interests have reached a binding agreement. The agreement is impossible. Although no one wants underwater planets, the tragedy of the commons occurs in our atmosphere, just like every free natural resource we share.
But we are not destined. The global policy approach of command and control will not work, but fortunately, it can lead to economic modernization to decarbonize and detoxify the environment. In fact, renewable energy and batteries will drive fossil fuels to disappear from the market. The technologies we need have not yet appeared, but they are under development. Solar cells have become cheaper and more efficient. Battery technology is developing rapidly. The cost of recovering from extreme weather events and detoxifying our poisoned land is driving national and local government supervision and enforcement of environmental regulations. Corporate criminals realize that in a world full of smartphones and cameras, dumping toxic waste at midnight is not as easy as it used to be.
Technology is coming, but the government must accelerate its development and adoption. The trillion-dollar infrastructure bill in the United States will help, as will many decarbonization targets set by governments, businesses, and institutions (such as my university). Government subsidies and incentives are crucial. The “Rebuild Better” program added to the Infrastructure Act will make the federal government an important force in decarbonization. The same is true for the green federal procurement policy. In a city like New York, the biggest challenge will be to rebuild the energy system. This will require new power plants based on renewable resources, upgraded computer technology for smart and microgrids, and distributed power generation. Electric cars and charging stations are part of this, but so are household technologies such as windmills, solar farms, heat pumps, and solar arrays, solar water heaters, and geothermal systems. The market will drive this change because the sun and wind are still free, and the technology to capture and store energy will continue to lower prices. But to do this quickly, the government must provide incentives and invest taxpayer resources to attract private capital. Speed is of the essence, especially in mitigating climate change.
In the United States, this demand for government action will be difficult in the face of false propaganda that treats all government programs as the first stage of communist takeover. Fortunately, reason can sometimes prevail. The bipartisan trillion-dollar infrastructure bill provides substantial funding for climate adaptation.According to Coral Davenport and Christopher Flavelle New York Times:
“The US$47 billion earmarked for climate resilience in the bill is intended to help communities prepare for a new era of extreme fires. flood, Scientists claim that man-made climate change has exacerbated storms and droughts. This money is the clearest signal from the federal government to date, indicating that the economic loss of global warming has arrived.The approval of Congress with the support of both parties reflects At least some Republicans secretly admitted this fact, Although many leaders of the party still question or deny the established science of man-made climate change… but Capitol Hill is still in a state of uncertainty is the second larger spending bill US$555 billion Aims to mitigate climate change by reducing carbon dioxide pollution Endothermic And push up the global temperature. “
Funding for climate adaptation measures does not require recognition by ideological opponents of climate science reason Damage caused by more frequent extreme weather events. They only need to recognize the fact that the damage occurred and reduce the damage when possible. In this sense, climate adaptation is easier to sell than climate mitigation. Similarly, modernizing our energy system and making it more cost-effective and efficient does not require acknowledgment of the fact of climate change. People only need to support the modernization of our aging energy infrastructure, because it is now old, disintegrated and outdated. Finally, for electric vehicles, one only needs to appreciate a more reliable car that requires less maintenance than a car made with an internal combustion engine today.
Compared with eliminating greenhouse gases from agriculture, natural gas drilling, and concrete manufacturing, the transition to decarbonized energy and motor vehicles will be easier. We will also face environmental damage caused by the mining of solar cells and materials required for batteries. Each of these issues requires changes in the production process and greater attention to environmental sustainability at all stages of economic production and consumption. Despite the rigid ideology of right-wing politicians, there is evidence that companies are beginning to pay more attention to environmental sustainability. This corporate environmentalism is partly due to consumer preferences, but more is due to the attitude of American workers.in a Gallup Poll Last spring, Justin McCarthy observed:
“About seven in ten American workers said that a company’s environmental record is to some extent important to their willingness to work in that company. This includes 24% who said it was a “primary factor” and 45% of people Think that the company’s environmental record is a “secondary factor” in their decision-making. Another 30% of people don’t think it is a factor at all. In recent years, commitments or measures have been taken to reduce the impact on the environment. Large companies in the United States and the world China is becoming more and more common. However, the latest findings of the annual environmental survey collected by Gallup from March 1 to 15 are basically Same as previous reading in 2017. ”
In other words, the importance of corporate environmental records is now a stable and established part of the US corporate environment. Although this study did not report on the environmentalism of young workers, many studies have shown that young people tend to care more about environmental protection than older people.exist In February 2019, I wrote On “the age gap in environmental politics”. In addition, attention to environmental sustainability has increasingly become a part of American corporate culture, as evidenced by the increasing number of sustainability reports issued by American companies.Many regulators now need these reports, and in 2019, more than 90% of S&P 500 companies have published sustainability reports.
All this is to prove that the driving force of environmental sustainability has entered the American corporate culture and has now become a lasting and true force of change. It is not affected by politics and even gained momentum during Trump’s presidency. Although the technological changes required to deal with global warming will come faster with government intervention, it will eventually come because it is being integrated into the management culture of the organizations that drive our economic development. Sustainability is not a substitute for corporate profitability, but like accounting, marketing, and innovative product engineering, environmental sustainability is a regular input for organizational decision-making and workflow design.
COP-26 and its predecessors contributed to the creation of this changed corporate culture. Diplomacy has an impact, but only the development and implementation of new technologies can end the climate crisis. Another unenforceable climate treaty is not the real engine of change. The young people’s environmental attitudes will transform our environmental aspirations into environmental reality.
