For reasonable people, few topics are more nauseating to listen to these days than debates about mitigating climate change. The two “solutions” discussed most often by politicians and activists are different in approach, yet similar in terms of their detachment from reality.
On one hand, you have those who deny the existence of the problem entirely. On the other hand, you have those who suggest we will all be doomed within a decade without extreme levels of government intervention and an immediate demolition and rebuilding of the economy from the ground up. I’d like to suggest the radical idea that there are options for mitigating climate change lying between these two extremes.
My Biases
As somebody who harbors political views that are mostly right of center, I have to admit that I was slower than some to hop aboard the “we ought to do something about climate change” train. For me the reasons were two-fold, and I suspect many conservatives can relate:
- I hadn’t researched the topic enough. There are lots of problems worth thinking about, and nobody has the time to be an expert on everything.
- I didn’t trust or like the messenger. It all seemed a little too convenient as I watched politicians gleefully propose big government, top-down control as a way to reduce climate change. They are constantly in search of a problem to fit this solution, so it was no surprise that they latched onto the existential threat of climate change.
Eventually I realized that despite how annoying and generally wrong about everything Bernie Sanders is, I ought to take climate change more seriously than I had been. We have burned lots of fossil fuels over the past century, and have improved the standard of living all around the world as a result of it. Unfortunately, these actions have had some unintended side effects. Evidence suggests that the increased use of fossil fuels over the past century is directly related to the increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the warming temperatures we have seen.
We don’t know exactly how this trend will play out over the next 100 years. Conditions might get really bad, or they might turn out to be pretty manageable. Politically motivated actors will tell you they know exactly what will happen, but they do not. Different models show a range of potential outcomes.
What we do know is that climate change poses potential risks to the well-being of humanity, and we ought to take some steps to mitigate against it. We also know that the use of fossil fuels has enabled millions of people to live better and longer lives.
So what can we do? Well, planting a whole bunch of trees seems like an uncontroversial, easy win and should help soak up some of that carbon dioxide, but some people think that will only get us so far. Attacking the problem on multiple fronts will be the best approach. There are three areas for mitigating climate change that seem promising to me.
Technological Innovation
One area that has promise is emerging technological innovations. An example from the recent past is fracking, which ironically, many Democratic politicians love to demonize. The fracking revolution has led to an increase in natural gas use and a decrease in coal consumption. Natural gas is a much cleaner source of energy than coal, and is a big reason why the United States has been consistently reducing their emissions in recent years. Like most technologies, we have made it better and safer over time.
There are still potential concerns, like methane leaks not being properly prevented. It’s not a perfect solution, but perfect is often the enemy of good. We ought to celebrate these short-term wins while striving towards doing even better.
Future Developments
Lots of companies are doing just that. Tesla is doing work that has the potential to make a big difference in the amount of fossil fuels we use. Their electric vehicles consistently receive rave reviews from drivers, and Tesla’s success has inspired other car manufacturers to develop their own electric vehicles. If these vehicles become widely adopted at large scales that would be a big step in solving a small part of the problem.
Companies like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods are attacking the problem from a different angle. They have created plant-based burgers that imitate the taste of beef. Fast food chains have already started partnering with them. These developments have the potential to reduce some of the negative environmental effects caused by current agriculture practices.
Another often overlooked technological innovation is the increased capability for people to work remotely. Solutions have been developed that allow us to collaborate with people living on the other side of the world, all from the comfort of our own home. More and more companies and people are taking advantage of this, leading to less time spent making long commutes. Less people on the road every day means decreased emissions and decreased traffic. That sounds like a win to me.
There are other companies attacking this problem too. Many of them are experimenting with ideas I’ve never even heard of. There is a lot of promise to be found in the the innovative spirit of entrepreneurs. The free market is an amazing engine that has solved many of our problems over the years. However, putting hope in future technology alone seems like a bit of a gamble. Maybe it will be enough, but maybe it won’t. Or maybe we won’t develop the solutions quickly enough.
That leads me to the second area of promise for mitigating climate change. It involves technology that is already here right now.
A Nuclear Renaissance
What if we discovered an energy source that:
- Is extremely energy dense, even more so than fossil fuels.
- Has zero emissions.
- Produces little waste.
- Wasn’t dependent on external conditions (sun shining, wind blowing).
Wouldn’t we be jumping all over this opportunity to mitigate climate change? It turns out, no, because that’s what we have with nuclear fission. While countries like France have shown how big of an impact this technology can have on reducing emissions, most of the world hasn’t taken notice. Despite its many advantages, humanity has failed to harness the power of nuclear energy to the fullest extent that it should. This is due to many reasons, some legitimate, and some political.
Safety
Most concerns revolve around the safety of the plants and the disposal of nuclear waste. For many, events like Chernobyl come to mind. While we shouldn’t dismiss safety concerns out of hand, it is worth comparing these scenarios to the alternative. Research shows that many lives have been saved by nuclear energy that would have been lost due to air pollution. Most accidents are preventable by following proper procedures. While we have made nuclear energy pretty safe already, more investments in nuclear technology will inevitably lead to better, cheaper, and safer outcomes.
Waste Disposal
When it comes to waste disposal, nuclear energy might actually have an advantage over renewables. Due its density, nuclear energy produces very little waste. The waste is radioactive, but we can just bury it deep underground, and can do so for quite a long time. In contrast there is no good plan to deal with solar panels and wind turbines, which cover very large surface areas, after their 20 year lifespans are up. From a holistic perspective, this should be a concern to environmentalists. For more information about this issue, check out this article.
If the climate change situation is as dire as many claim it to be, shouldn’t we be willing to accept the risks associated with nuclear energy?
I think the proper application of technology might be enough to get us where we need to be. However, some people think we need to act now. I haven’t heard many good ideas when it comes to government intervention, but there is one I’ve heard that shows some promise.
Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax Combined With Decreased EPA Regulatory Authority
The name for my plan doesn’t exactly inspire as many warm and fuzzy feelings as, “The Green New Deal“, does it? Well that’s okay because while it doesn’t sound as cool, my plan is actually a reasonable policy proposal. Also, I lied. This isn’t really my plan. It has been proposed by people who have been doing a lot of thinking on the subject.
Currently, greenhouse gas emmisisons are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Their task is to decrease emissions by telling businesses what to do. They make rules about how much emitting cars and trucks are allowed to do. So instead of adjusting price signals through taxes, we are currently using command-and-control policies to achieve the desired decreases in emissions. One problem with this is that the companies using fossil fuels are only incentivized to meet the bare minimum requirements.
Another problem is that the decisions about how to reduce emissions are left up to regulators instead of the businesses themselves, and the federal government has a less than stellar track record at running efficient and profitable enterprises.
Rethinking Incentive Structures
A replacement tax on fossil fuel production solves both of these problems. It prices in the negative externality of polluting our common resource, the atmosphere. It incentivizes companies to work to eliminate emissions entirely and thus avoid paying the tax. And unlike regulations, taxes produce revenue. We can use this additional revenue to cut taxes somewhere else. This additional revenue will allow us to compensate the poorest people in our communities who would be most affected by the increased cost of fossil fuels.
Summary
Climate change is a divisive topic these days, but there are reasonable actions that we can take that have the potential to help mitigate it. By creating a business environment that encourages innovation, reviving the nuclear industry, and making a few changes to incentives we can start steering humanity towards a better and more sustainable future. Thanks for reading, and let me know your thoughts in the comments. This topic is huge, and I’m sure there is much more information out there I am unaware of. And don’t forget to subscribe!
Clearly the best one yet