The Green New Deal isn’t big enough
Climate change will force 120 million people into poverty
What I learned writing about climate change and the US south for a year
The outlook is full of distressing signs. A climate change blues plays in heavy rotation on our interior Spotify. It echoes the rainstorm that never quits, the drought that never ends. Try applying analytical reason or talking about solutions, and you confront boundless examples of human inertia, narcissism, bias and denial.
One problem is the vast scale that a viable solution requires. The Green New Deal by itself can’t stave off calamity even if the US adopted it. It’s not nearly enough because the problem is global and historic. The U.S. and other wealthy nations will have to kick in vast amounts of money in “climate finance” to mitigate emissions in developing countries, not to mention their own. Electorates show no sign of being willing to do this.
The leaders of developing nations aren’t suckers, and they know how dire the problem is. They have something rich countries want (emissions reductions), and they’d be fools to just give it away for free, even if they could. If we want them to succeed, it’s going to cost us, and we’ll need to move quickly. The science is clear: We do not have another decade to waste.
Likewise, Philip Alston, author of a devastating UN report, finds that
mainstream discussions about climate change are remarkably out of touch with the scale of the crisis and the economic and social upheaval it will bring. Political leaders have failed to put forward a vision for avoiding catastrophic consequences or protecting those most affected. . . .
[Climate change] will impoverish hundreds of millions, including middle class people in wealthy countries. It will push 120 million people into poverty by 2030 alone, and could lead to a “climate apartheid” scenario where the wealthy pay to escape overheating, hunger and conflict while the rest of the world is left to suffer.
While American attitudes toward the climate crisis vary significantly, many people in rural regions like the South have powerful interests in promoting denial. A climate reporter for The Guardian comments:
A Pew survey indicated that white evangelical protestants are the least likely to profess a belief in climate change. Power companies, developers and conservative politicians have a vested interest in deregulation and maintaining the environmental status quo, and many paint environmental concerns as nothing but liberal pagan ideas.
In a region that recapitulates decades of delay and denial, some plan to stick it out at any cost and go down with the ship. Is it really any different with the rest of the country? Although their scale and threat have dramatically increased, floods, famine and extreme weather events have always been with us. Bessie may help us remember that “when it thunders and lightnin’ and the wind begins to blow /there’s thousands of people ain’t got no place to go.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgBWGR0E83Y
Unfortunately you correctly outline many solutions while basically offering why non of them will be adopted in anything close to the time frame or the scale needed. Again unfortunately I think the only realistic solution is a decrease in the world’s population probably by about 50%. This will not be pretty by any but the most immoral or Malthusian standards. Not to be totally pessimistic, there is one other way out although probably just as unlikely as the ones you suggest. Some sort of religious-like movement to reject materialism and unneeded consumption and the associated environmental impact. While I am tempted to simplify this to “down with capitalism,” I recall that state socialism was never anti-materialism. Something new and different is needed. OMG I may become catholic!
Maybe we should all become Catholics. One of the clearest, all-encompassing statements about the social and moral concerns surrounding climate change came from Pope Francis in Laudato Si’. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laudato_si%27.