In this week’s Comment, Elizabeth Kolbert writes about the politics of extreme weather. On Monday, Kolbert answered readers’ questions in a live chat. Read a transcript of the discussion below.
ELIZABETH KOLBERT: Hi everyone, thanks for joining. There are a lot of great questions already—I’ll try to get to as many as I can.
QUESTION FROM MARK: Can we really draw conclusions about the larger issues of climate change from these recent events?
ELIZABETH KOLBERT: I don’t think we can draw conclusions about the larger issues of climate change just from recent events. But we now have many years of quite good data to use, and we can draw conclusions from those.
QUESTION FROM DUDLEY: Why has the Obama administration been so disappointing on climate change?
ELIZABETH KOLBERT: This is a very good question. On one level, I guess I’d say I wish I knew. On another I’d say it’s all the obvious reasons—he sees more of a political downside in pushing through meaningful measures on climate change than he sees an upside. There are several important swing states that are either coal-mining or big coal-burning states, and he wants to win some next year.
QUESTION FROM HOWARD R.: Who rates better on the environment at this point, W. Bush or Obama?
ELIZABETH KOLBERT: I think it’s a bad sign that this question is even being asked, because George W. was pretty bad on environmental issues. I’d have to say the Obama administration is somewhat better, but not enough to make an appreciable difference. You could say after all is said and done, the net result is pretty much the same.
QUESTION FROM GERNOT WAGNER: Will it take a tragic (but hopefully non-catastrophic event) like all polar bears dying to finally get the political stars aligned in DC for sensible climate policy?
ELIZABETH KOLBERT: This is another good question that I don’t have a very good answer to. I wish I knew. Sadly, I’m not convinced that the extinction of the polar bears—a very real possibility—would do it.
QUESTION FROM GUEST: For many years now climate scientists have been warning that we need immediate action to avoid the worst consequences of warming. Their prescription usually calls for 80 percent reductions in emissions from 1990 levels and yet atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases continue to rise—even now, at a time of worldwide economic stagnation/recession. Having covered this topic for years, are you personally of the mind that we will meet this challenge or should we now be resigned to the idea that we will indeed suffer the worst consequences of global climate change?
ELIZABETH KOLBERT: I guess the point that I would make is that the worst is very, very bad, and there’s still a chance of avoiding the worst. That being said, every day that CO2 levels continue to rise makes it that much harder to avoid some very serious consequences. I don’t see a lot of evidence that we are going to meet this challenge, but I also don’t see much choice but continuing to try to mitigate the damage.
QUESTION FROM TR: I am sure you are asked this all the time, but how do you explain the lack of political will on environmental issues? Our lives are at stake here!
ELIZABETH KOLBERT: The lack of political will is pretty dispiriting. Definitely there are a lot of people in DC who know what the right thing to do is, and aren’t doing it. (Of course, there are also a lot of people who don’t.) I have to believe that at the end of the day, the problem is that there just aren’t enough people who really care about this issue, who will vote on it, give money on it, primary people on it. There is more energy—and perhaps even more important more money—on the other side. So they keep winning. Unfortunately, I think that’s what it boils down to.
QUESTION FROM GROUNDSWELL: It seemed that with McCain and Obama as candidates in 2008, there was a bipartisan recognition in the importance of environmental reform. Is there anyone in the current GOP 2012 field who is serious about the environment?
ELIZABETH KOLBERT: I have not seen anything from any of the current crop of GOP candidates—declared or undeclared—that makes me think he (or she) is serious about the environment. Indeed, quite the contrary.
QUESTION FROM MORGAN: Are there other countries that are working on better environmental policies that could be emulated? Is Kyoto still out there?
ELIZABETH KOLBERT: Lots of countries in Europe have policies in place that could be emulated. I don’t really have space to go into them right now, but one idea is making it more economically attractive to produce energy from solar installations. The Germans have done this, even though they don’t get all that much sun, and it has had a significant effect. Kyoto is still out there, though it lapses next year. There does not seem to be much energy behind the effort to extend it.
QUESTION FROM FRANKLIN: Climate change was the subject of scores of college commencement speeches this year, but it seems like that might have been true for the past fifteen years. What’s to prevent this generation of college students from passing the buck as previous generations have done?
ELIZABETH KOLBERT: I don’t think there’s anything to prevent that, except that increasingly this problem is going to catch up with us, so that even as we continue to pass the buck, we will be contending with the consequences. (I hope that makes sense.) One of the difficulties of dealing with climate change is that there is a long time lag in the system. You don’t see the full effects of today’s emissions for a few decades. This has to do with the time it takes for the earth to reach a new energy equilibrium with space. But we are now seeing the effects of emissions from a few decades ago. And we are going to see more and more of those effects as time goes by.
QUESTION FROM GERNOT WAGNER: Thank you for your answer on my previous question. I’m not sure I agree with the Bush-Obama comparison. Yes, there hasn’t been a major piece of legislation under Obama, but the real question is always the unanswerable “what if.”What if Bush was in office now? Would EPA be going ahead with its greenhouse gas rules?
ELIZABETH KOLBERT: I think if the Obama administration follows through with its greenhouse gas regulations, it will deserve a significant amount of credit. Its actions in recent months make me skeptical that it will do so, at least before 2012. But we will see. I certainly will applaud them if they do.
QUESTION FROM ROBERT: Do you think, as some do, that the recession undercut the interest and political will for serious action on Climate Change, or is the economy just the excuse the monied interests use for inaction?
ELIZABETH KOLBERT: This is a good question, too. You often hear it said that serious environmental regulations only get passed in good economic times. I have never done the kind of research needed to know whether this is, in fact, the case. (Of course, as the scientists say, correlation does not equal causality.) I think it is a pretty lame excuse, though. Before the recent bust, there was a boom, and we didn’t do anything then, either, as you indicate.
QUESTION FROM COLE BRECHEEN: Among the various groups now working for responsible environmental policies, who would you say is doing the most effective advocacy? (I.e., who should we be writing checks to?)
ELIZABETH KOLBERT: This is a really good question that I’m afraid I’m going to punt on. As a journalist, I talk to people who work for all sorts of groups—very local to international. In general, I think people are really trying—trying to figure out what works, how to leverage scarce resources, etc. But I don’t feel that I can (or should) say which ones you ought to write a check to. Sorry!
QUESTION FROM AMYBIRN: How could the administration do a better job of promoting the benefits of a “green economy” and disputing the GOP claims that environmental regulations are job killers?
ELIZABETH KOLBERT: This is another good question. I think one thing they could do is look at countries/states that have taken some sort of action to try to reduce emissions and see how they compare. If you look at those countries in Europe that have taken the most serious steps—including Germany—they seem to be in better shape economically than a lot of other countries. So that might be one way to talk about the issue. But I’m sure the Obama administration doesn’t want to go around saying we should be more like Germany! So I guess I’d have to say, I’m not sure.
QUESTION FROM ROBERT: Yesterday on Face the nation Haley Barbour, the Republican Governor of Miss. accused President Obama of conspiring to raise the price of gasoline. Apparently right wing groups funded by oil companies are promoting this obvious lie. Can serious discussions on energy policy take place in such a poisoned atmosphere?
ELIZABETH KOLBERT: I think you’re right that the conversation is taking place at such a ridiculous level that it’s very hard to steer the discussion toward rationality. This is definitely one of the major problems the Obama administration is facing, and I don’t want it to seem as if I don’t understand what they’re up against. I do, and I sympathize. Unfortunately, there seems to be no idea too crazy these days that it will not get a hearing.
QUESTION FROM TOAD: Why is the false trade-off of economy vs environment so tenacious? Can it be shown that our inaction on environmental issues has helped depress the economy, and our continued inaction on climate change puts us at enormous economic risk?
ELIZABETH KOLBERT: I think it may be hard to show that our inaction on climate change has depressed the economy, though certainly that is an interesting idea, and if there are any economists reading this, perhaps they would like to comment. In terms of our continued inaction, I certainly think it’s going to affect the economy in all sorts of negative ways, one of the most obvious being it’s going to be harder and harder to grow the food needed to feed a planet of 7 billion people (and climbing). Now we think of agriculture as a small part of the economy, but if we don’t have enough to eat, it will loom rather large.
QUESTION FROM LENNY: How long do we have before an unavoidable tipping point?
ELIZABETH KOLBERT: This is one of the central scientific questions of our time. I don’t think anyone can definitely answer it. In some very important ways, we probably have already crossed a tipping point. CO2 levels are now up nearly at 400 parts per million. Probably they have not been this high for a few million years. But the planet is a pretty complicated place, so there are probably lots of tipping points along the way.
QUESTION FROM ROBERT: I have read that until the knowledgeable members of scientific community become much more actively involved in the trenches of policy making--until many more act like James Hansen--no effective policy change will occur. In other words, should the scientists come down from the ivory tower and slug it out with Sen Inhofe?
ELIZABETH KOLBERT: Once again, a very good question. I guess the issue is: who’s listening? I do think scientists feel increasingly compelled to speak out, as they know that these issues are really, really serious, and will affect life on the planet literally for millions of years. But as someone mentioned before, the general level of discourse is pretty low, so if you have a panel of scientists on one side, and James Inhofe (or Rush Limbaugh or whoever) on the other, who “wins” that discussion?
QUESTION FROM MATT: Much of the growth in carbon emissions is expected to come from China & India—what is the point of the US cutting emissions if it will be far exceeded by the growth in these two countries?
ELIZABETH KOLBERT: As I see it, there are two points to our cutting our emissions, even though the growth from developing nations will (or at least may) exceed our cuts.
The first is: it’s the right thing to do. The U.S. is on an aggregate level still far and away the largest source of the problem. (CO2 hangs around for a long time, so you have to look at emissions over time, not just year to year.)
The second is: perhaps if we show it can be done, other countries will follow suit. This is what has happened in lots of other areas in the past—it’s why we tout American ingenuity.
QUESTION FROM RON: The debate about climate change is ultimately a debate about energy production. Recently several prominent environmentalists have concluded that any realistic solutions needs to include nuclear energy. This is obviously a highly charged topic especially in the wake of Fukushima. Have you research the role of advanced nuclear reactors in solving our climate and energy problems?
ELIZABETH KOLBERT: There has been a lot of talk recently about nuclear power. Before Fukushima there was even a lot of talk about a “nuclear renaissance.” But as industry insiders had already been pointing out, even before the tsunami, this “renaissance” was a lot more talk than action. The fact is that new nuclear is extremely expensive to build. It’s one of the most expensive ways to get new generating capacity that you can find. So I really don’t think nuclear is going to save us, even on a basic economic level.
QUESTION FROM CORMAC: We hear so much about the “Green Economy” is this just a catch phrase for politicians or do you think there is a plan ?
ELIZABETH KOLBERT: This is a really good question. I definitely think the way it is used these days tends to be just a catch-phrase, like “sustainability.” I don’t think anyone in the political world really has a plan for a “green economy.” But people outside the political world do have plans, if not for an actually green economy, certainly for a much greener one. And some of them are quite serious. But they all start with taking precisely the kind of political steps we seem unable to take.
QUESTION FROM RICH: Trying to blunt the effects of climate change is hugely important. But I also think it’s crucial to realize that there are no easy solutions. Coal is terrible for the Earth, but coal mining/production literally sustains one of the most impoverished areas in our country (Appalachia). How can we balance saving our planet with also saving and sustaining economies that are based on manufacturing?
ELIZABETH KOLBERT: I completely agree with you that there are no easy answers. I think if the solutions were easy, we would be a lot further along than we are. The problems are incredibly profound, and they go way beyond Appalachia.
QUESTION FROM MATT: Spain underwent serious reforms to create “green jobs” and lower emissions that ended up causing serious financial pain in their economy. Is it really worth it to possibly have the same thing happen in the US? High unemployment seems to be a more pressing issue for overall quality of life then climate change.
ELIZABETH KOLBERT: High unemployment definitely impacts more people in the short-term. I guarantee you, though, that in the long run, climate change will win out. This doesn’t mean we should follow Spain’s lead—I really don’t know enough about what they did to comment. I suspect a lot of things went wrong with Spain’s economy that had absolutely nothing to do with green jobs.
ELIZABETH KOLBERT: Many thanks to everyone for participating. I have to sign off now—there were a lot of great questions and comments. Elizabeth
THE NEW YORKER: Thanks to readers, and thank you Elizabeth Kolbert.
Illustration by Tom Bachtell.
