Climate disruption spells disaster

World War II effort level required

My last two columns argued that ice is melting everywhere, especially at the poles, due to global warming. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet may break up soon, raising sea levels eight feet this century and 25 feet in the longer run. This happened 125,000 years ago when temperatures were only one Celsius degree (1.8 Fahrenheit degrees) warmer than today and greenhouse gas concentrations were far lower than today.

The Arctic is even more perilous. The Arctic ocean is becoming ice-free in summertime, and replacing reflective ocean ice with energy-absorbing blue water is imperiling the massive Greenland ice sheet. Permafrost is melting everywhere, releasing carbon. Underwater permafrost and “methane hydrates” are melting, releasing methane, an especially potent greenhouse gas. Geological records provide reason to think today’s unprecedented (during four million years) greenhouse gas concentration will eventually bring 130 feet of sea level rise.

But rising oceans are only the beginning. David Wallace-Wells, author of “The Uninhabitable Earth,” presents evidence that rising seas, increased wildfires, 500-year storms, floods, droughts and temperature extremes will drive food shortages, refugee emergencies (see Bangladesh today) and other crises that will reshape civilization. I haven’t yet read his “terrifying essay” (as it’s sometimes described) but I saw Wallace-Wells interviewed on the PBS news hour. He comes across as thoughtful, knowledgeable, not given to exaggeration.

We have waited far too long, fiddling while Rome ignited, and the flames are upon us.

Our current one degree increase is already causing multiple tragedies, and two degrees is essentially certain by 2050. A two- to four-degree increase will create dangers on the scale of World War II.

On Dec. 7, 1941, Americans knew fear. It’s time once again to know that kind of fear. As we mobilized against the Axis powers then, we must mobilize against global warming now.

We can still avoid the worst by acting fast. The world, and especially America, must get serious. Despite much talk and some action, we aren’t moving the needle on carbon emissions. Carbon levels have risen from their normal interglacial (the warm periods between recurring ice ages during the past two million years) level of 280 parts per million to 410 ppm today. Annual carbon emissions from fossil fuels have increased from zero in 1850 to 0.5 billion tons in 1900, 2 billion tons in 1950, and nearly 9 billion tons today. We’ve got to reduce this to near zero, hopefully by 2030 but certainly by 2050.

Most economists recommend incorporating environmental costs into the price of fossil fuel by charging a fee on carbon emissions. Because economics drives everything else, this will make an enormous and surprising difference. Government collects the fee from fossil fuel companies and returns all of it equally to all citizens. Canada did this with a $20 per ton carbon dioxide fee. This will rise to $50, resulting in (for example) a 50-cents-per-gallon gasoline price increase, and an annual refund of $2,872 for a family of four. But only at fees of $100 to $200 per ton will we have the World War II effort that’s needed. This “carbon fee and dividend” approach is a tax-free small-government solution that can appeal to conservatives and progressives alike.

We must all swallow some bitter pills. Conservatives must take climate science seriously, and cooperate with progressives. Progressives have proposed a “Green New Deal,” but it’s a big-government subsidization program that picks winners, ignores nuclear power and won’t appeal to conservatives. We must cooperate, quickly.

I’m dubious of nuclear power, because it contributes to the world’s second greatest threat, namely nuclear weapons; think Pakistan, India, North Korea, Iran. Accidents and radioactive waste are also real problems, but not show-stoppers, in my opinion.

Regardless of drawbacks, nuclear power is clearly essential to help solve global warming. As just one of many supporting arguments, Germany has devoted huge resources to renewable energy, yet is has not reduced carbon emissions because Germany’s rigid anti-nuclear stance has led them to use their renewably generated electricity to close nuclear plants rather than coal plants. France and Sweden, on the other hand, have supported both nuclear and renewables and now get essentially all their electricity from these. As the world moves to electricity, renewables plus nuclear can reduce carbon emissions to near zero.

What should individuals do? Personal actions such as vegetarianism or riding a bicycle are admirable and helpful, but only political action can bring about the required change. To take action, join up with Citizens Climate Lobby (see the Internet), or the Democratic or Republican parties.