Global warming is likely the largest threat humanity has ever faced. Drought, famine, floods, political instability, and more could cost billions of lives. Already we are witnessing its effects with heat waves, severe storms, and disruption of agriculture in countries already facing food shortages. Clearly we have to take drastic action and get our CO2 parts per million below 350. This will require massive investment in alternative energy, strict regulations on green house gasses, and strong enforced international treaties.
Figuring out what to do is the easy part. The hard part is getting it done politically. It is hard to get the political process or the American people on board to combat threats that seem distant. Many seem to think the answer is to frame the debate around energy. It is reasoned that people will respond to their economic interests and will be more likely to support a bill promising that we will get off foreign oil than one to tackle climate change. I disagree. If we frame global warming as an energy issue, congress will be reluctent to move on the legislation we need.
Right now we are in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Millions have been laid off, the unemployment rate is over 10%, and more inclusive estimates have it even higher. Since climate change is the most important issue we are facing today, it needs to be our number one priority second to nothing in the policy making process. With such a crisis on our hands, how will energy accomplish this goal? If the argument for climate legislation is based on saving someone a bit on gas, it's never going to be even close to a top priority, and other concerns will easily deter a representative's vote. Also, energy's case is a lot weaker than before. Gas prices are no longer insanely high, and are far from the voters top concerns.
Another major problem with energy is its distance from global warming. Sure policies that end up lowering the cost of energy and are aimed at getting off foreign oil could mean a reduction in green house gasses, but the ratio is not 1-1. If the goal is get off foreign oil, policies such as expanding drilling and use of coal will make sense to voters, but won't help stop global warming one bit. If the goal is to lessen the damage of global warming, policies won through an energy argument will be much less effective.
One reason to use energy as the base of our arguments for climate change legislation is how little global warming concerns the average American. Too put it mildly, global warming is not a top priority. With global warming so low on the public's agenda, I agree, efforts to lower carbon emissions drastically will be an impossible sell. However, this does not mean we should avoid climate in our debate. In fact, these numbers show why we should be stressing the dangers of global warming more. If global warming is thrust into the debate, it will rise on the public's priority list. We can't just quote statistics on glacier melting rates though. We will need to use a powerful weapon, fear.
When contemplating climate change, an unlikely source for inspiration is the Bush administration. After 9/11, the Bush administration used fear to sell radical policy. The chances of being killed by a terrorist attack are lower than being struck by lightning, but this didn't stop the public from panicking. When the public was afraid, Bush had no trouble passing the Patriot act and starting two disastrous and expensive wars. Fear was also the crux of Bush's re-election campaign. The power of fear is undeniable. Of course, there are moral objections to the use of fear. I don't have any qualms over its use in the climate debate. Our use of fear, unlike that of the Bush administration would be legitimate as there is much to fear from global warming. If fear can save millions, perhaps billions of lives, it would be amoral not to use it.
Of course, there is always the objection that fear would not work for climate. After all, fear has been a traditional right wing weapon. It has been used by Democrats before though. Johnson's famous daisy ad used the fear of nuclear war to help him win a landslide victory over Goldwater. We can bring bring back the use of fear if we emphasize the dangers of climate change. We can run ads with graphic images, talk of floods famines etc., and wars that could come out of dramatic climate change. Those who stand in the way of legislation to reduce to combat global warming must be rightfully portrayed as dangerous. When this is done, the polls will change, legislation will be made better, and global treaties stronger.
Climate change has barely been discussed at all. Health care has the headlines, and when climate does come up, it is often in the guise of energy. Right now legislation such as Waxman-Markey and non-binding treaties might be the best we can get, but we have not seen what is possible with a different approach. It is time to bring climate change to the headlines. Imagine if climate change were treated like terrorism was in the early part of this decade? We could get CO2 below 350 parts per million and then some. This new stronger approach would take the cooperation of our Democratic leaders including President Obama. I am realistic and know it is unlikely to happen. The debate will likely remain timid and we will not get the legislation and treaties we need to prevent dramatic losses of life. The least we can do is try and change the debate from the ground up. Perhaps we can make a difference.