N.B. The following is a statement that I drafted based upon suggested revisions to a draft prepared by The Institute for Cultural Evolution and the Post-Progressive Project. The Institute issued its statement, and I shared it here as well as via other social media. I endorsed that statement, but, frankly, I also thought that it could have been improved (i.e., brought closer in line with my thinking). The main point of difference between the Climate Change Policy Proposal as adopted and published by the Institute & the Post-Progressive Alliance and my draft lies in the fact that their paper specifically endorses a program of "eco-modernism." Mine does not. While my statement endorses the use of technological tools and innovations, I am wary that eco-modernism seeks to segregate humans (via urban living and industrial agriculture) from Nature. I also specifically endorse a scheme of carbon pricing (or "carbon pollution fee") with a per capita dividend (or "revenue recycling") as the most efficient and effective to reduce carbon consumption (and the resulting unlimited dumping into the atmosphere). I also put more emphasis on "re-wilding" and regenerative agriculture. The sobering fact is that we are indeed facing a "polycrisis;" to wit, more than one crisis at a time. Climate change first and foremost, but also species extinction and general environmental degradation from many sources; pandemic diseases; uncontrolled tech, racial and economic inequality, and weapons proliferation, to name only the most daunting challenges that pop to mind. Any changes that address climate change must also keep these concerns in mind. Thus my promotion of re-wilding and regenerative agriculture. (Good old-fashioned conservation has a role to play as well, too.) Anyway, here's my take:
Climate Change
sng version
A Climate Change Policy Proposal
The original impetus for the founding of the Institute for Cultural Evolution in 2012 was to help reduce public resistance to effective action on the climate crisis. But after working on this issue for our first two years of operation, in 2014 the Institute shifted its focus to the issue of political polarization because they found that the main barrier to building the necessary measure of political will to address global warming arises from the hyperpolarization of the American electorate
Climate change is not a typical political issue. Preserving the health of the biosphere and preventing potentially catastrophic harms to human societies worldwide constitutes a sacred cause among those who recognize the stakes for humanity. This sense of the magnitude and urgency of our “code red” crisis produces a passionate moral commitment among those who appreciate the parameters of the challenge posed by global climate change and ecological degradation. But those passionate about the urgency and necessity of change are countered by many who deeply resist the economic, social, and cultural changes promoted by those arguing for drastic action to address climate change. And many, from the humble to the mighty, fear the loss of their economic well-being if we move away from a fossil-fuel-based economy. These passions, driven on one side by the fear of inaction and on the other by the fear of action, create the underlying obstacles to forging the comprehensive political consensus we need for federal, state, and local governments to take effective action to address climate change.
Some progressive activists argue that to adequately respond to the climate emergency the global economy must immediately abandon fossil fuels and significantly reform the energy-intensive lifestyles of people living in the developed world. Yet even if this drastic prescription is justified by the scale of the crisis, such a drastic reduction in the use of fossil fuels would create a level of economic disruption that would harm the well-being—and even cost the lives—of many. We must decarbonize quickly without imposing intolerable harms that would affect all of us, but especially the most vulnerable among us. We may still have a measure of time in which we can make the needed transition while avoiding the Scylla of severe economic dislocation and the Charybdis of increasingly severe weather and climate events. The body of evidence, ranging from that found in the daily news to that found in the most exacting scientific journals, now exceeds any reasonable doubt about the source and magnitude of the devastating effects of our rapidly warming planet. The severity of resulting harms from unchecked increases in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will increase until we stop our current practices. Yet, the political will required to significantly reduce our GHG emissions remains inadequate to generate sufficient political action to meet the challenge. And while the tide of opinion is slowly moving toward an appreciation of the reality we face and the imperatives that arise from this reality, this change must be quickened and channeled if we are to succeed. We should neither harbor nor promote any illusions. Even if we reach a political tipping point in America in the near future—even if we immediately adopt the Green New Deal and implement every feasible proposal called for by environmentalists—we would not resolve the crisis. We face the need to change the course of an economy, a society, a culture, that has an immense momentum created by habits and interests that the livelihood and very lives of almost all depend upon. It will take an immense and contracted collective effort to steer the ship away from the collision course that we’re on.
So far, in making the points above, we’ve referred to only the U.S. But we are not the only nation with its own particular economic, social, cultural, and political needs and values. America cannot arrest global warming unilaterally. Yet, as the nation most responsible for the rise of modernity and as still by far the greatest per capita emitter of GHG, we have a moral duty to act decisively to reduce our GHG emissions. Leadership by action—by a reduction in consumption, by deploying alternative energy sources, and by technological and engineering innovation—can provide the moral and practical example that the nations of the world need to promote effective action by all. The United States should lead by the example of its concrete actions to dramatically reduce its carbon footprint. And we should aid and encourage other nations to do likewise.
While the scientific consensus about the cause and nature of the challenge of climate change has approached unanimity and popular appreciation of the need to do something is increasing, exactly what and how to realize the needed change (reduction of GHG) remains open. The steps we need to take to reduce greenhouse gas emission while maintaining—even improving—our quality of life is up for grabs. We can—-we must—-take steps on all levels: individual and household; local and state government; the federal government; and via international organizations and treaties. No action is too small; no aspiration too high. We need to respond to this threat at all points with every weapon at our disposal (that won’t harm us in the meantime). At every level— individual, household, business, trade groups, NGOs, and government—we can act to realize the needed change. There are many paths before us, many ideas about how we might proceed. I suggest that we continue to explore, in thought and practice, where each path may lead us. Some will no doubt lead to dead-ends, but others will take us toward where we want to go.
Perhaps the most singular American contribution to this project can come from our tradition of technological and engineering innovation and production. There are many ways to promote technological and engineering solutions. For instance, the U.S. should significantly increase its investment in public-private partnerships to develop and implement breakthrough technologies, such as second-generation nuclear energy, advanced battery technology, large-scale carbon capture, improved agricultural and transportation practices, and even geoengineering.
But let us be clear that while pursuing technologies that may in the future help us, we must take steps now that don’t depend upon what the future may—or may not—provide. For instance, tree planting, re-wilding, and regenerative agriculture are available to implement now. Electric cars are available now. Solar and wind energy sources are available now. Energy conservation practices are available now. None of these steps or others that we might have mentioned, taken at the individual or household or even the business level, will prove sufficient to solve our problem. We must have effective steps taken at the national and international levels. We must take political action.
As with the other issue positions in this platform, this climate change proposal seeks to build political consensus by finding “win-win-win” solutions that integrate the values of all three major American worldviews: progressive, modern, and traditional (as identified and explored in Steve McIntosh's Developmental Politics: How America Can Grow into a Better Version of Itself (2020)). Indeed, significantly increasing our commitment to addressing climate change will require a strong political commitment from the American public. Values integration can help build this commitment. The various paths forward promoted by a wide variety of individuals and organizations can provide ways in which all three worldviews can find benefits and reasons to support needed changes.
Problems to Be Solved
Our Rapidly Changing Climate Is Causing Global Disruptions
The worldwide growth of modernity’s fossil fuel-based energy economy has generated and will continue to generate GHG emissions that have caused rapid global warming. This rapid global warming and its continued harm to our well-being as a species will continue and increase unless we act decisively to curtail our emissions. Rising temperatures will increasingly cause irreparable harm to human societies and biological ecosystems. Scientists predict that these harms will increase in frequency, magnitude, and scope if global temperatures continue to rise. To ameliorate the disruptions associated with our rapidly changing climate, we need to reduce emissions both domestically and internationally. “Climate change creates new risks and exacerbates existing vulnerabilities in communities across the United States, presenting growing challenges to human health and safety, quality of life, and the rate of economic growth.”
Renewable Energy Sources Cannot Yet Meet Demand
The cost and efficiency of renewable sources of energy, such as solar and wind, are improving. But without a major technological breakthrough, renewable energy alone cannot meet the world’s current or anticipated needs for affordable energy.
Ameliorating Climate Change Requires Global Cooperation
Because the U.S. is only responsible for 15% of current global carbon emissions, its efforts to meaningfully ameliorate global warming will not succeed unless other countries significantly reduce their emissions as well.
Government Actions to Combat Climate Change Are Resisted by Many on the Right
Efforts to combat global warming have become embroiled in America’s culture wars. Individual positions on climate change now serve as a proxy for the individual’s political identity. Many traditionalists and right-leaning U.S. voters see the issue as a Trojan horse for the larger progressive agenda of "socialism." Resistance to meaningful action on climate change is accordingly viewed by many conservatives as necessary to counter the growing power of progressivism.
Wins Sought for Each Major Worldview
A win-win-win policy for ameliorating climate change would ideally achieve the following wins for each worldview:
Progressivism wins
1) The political will needed to combat climate change would be significantly increased. 2) The U.S. would demonstrate genuine international leadership on the amelioration of global warming.
3) By pursuing a combination of technological and engineering innovations along with conservation projects, we can hope to realize a world where we maintain the quality of living standards in the developed world while continuing to bring more people out of debilitating poverty.
Modernity wins
1) A strategy that recognizes economic development as a tool (rather than a detriment) for preserving and even enhancing the environment would allow globalizing modernity to continue to bring new opportunities for improved quality of life to the developing world.
2) Increased government funding of technologies and industrial capabilities to address climate change would create a significant market for investment and wealth creation.
3) By endorsing meaningful action to ameliorate climate change, modernists would help reduce progressivism’s anti-modernist proclivities and create a more cooperative political environment.
Traditionalism wins
1) The stigma of climate denialism would be reduced within conservative politics, allowing Republican politicians to come nearer to the mainstream of American popular opinion.
2) More drastic changes in society and the economy would be avoided.
3) The Biblical injunction for stewardship of the earth would be followed: "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it.”
Potential Policy Solutions: The Many Paths
There is no single answer, no single path to follow, to successfully address a challenge of the magnitude of the one before us. Homo sapiens as a species has never known a challenge that threatens the well-being of every person on Earth and that threatens the planet as a living whole—as a biosphere. At this point, we must explore many paths and sow many seeds. Time will allow us to further identify the most fruitful courses of action. But we also must realize that the window of time for taking effective action continues to close at an increasing rate. We must explore quickly and discard those paths that don’t lead us to our destination (an inhabitable planet) fast enough. This being said, let us mention some paths that we think are worth exploring in our effort:
1. The U.S. should adopt a carbon pricing and dividend scheme that would put a price on carbon sufficient to approximate the cost of the pollution caused by fossil fuels. The dividend aspect of this proposal would return the money collected (the carbon price) to Americans on a per capita basis. This scheme would increase the market price of carbon-intensive goods and services and encourage the transition to low-and zero-carbon goods. The dividend (or "revenue recycling") aspect of the plan would prevent the carbon price from becoming a burden on low-and middle-income Americans. (About two-thirds of Americans would realize a net gain in income under this proposal.) We should note that the carbon pricing and dividend scheme has widespread grassroots support (Citizens Climate Lobby) as well as significant support from trade groups, corporations, NGOs, economists, and prominent Republicans (Climate Leadership Council).
2. Pursue programs that encourage regenerative agriculture and re-wilding (expanding areas that are no longer cultivated and are thus allowed to “go wild”). Re-wilding programs can include both public lands and privately-held lands. Regenerative agriculture and re-wilding would promote long-term, sustainable agricultural practices that we need to continue to feed our nation and the world.
3. Significantly increase government funding for the research and development of breakthrough energy technologies. The federal “Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy” needs more funding to help develop battery, carbon capture, next-generation nuclear, and geoengineering technologies. These efforts could be supplemented through the creation of a major public-private initiative to share and coordinate R&D around clean energy technologies.
4. Explore a path to fast-tracking the construction of next-generation nuclear power plants (small modular reactors) across the U.S. through government-backed financing and regulatory simplification. In conjunction with this, developers would need to make a compelling case to the public that such new nuclear plants would prove safe.
Of course, the above recommendations are only a sample of the courses of action we should pursue. The list could go on at length. But our goal is not to catalog all the possibilities but to provide some examples of ways that those holding differing worldviews can imagine changes for the benefit of all humankind that are consistent with their values.
Post-Progressive Persuasion Strategies
An argument to progressives: Progressives value the well-being of all and a society that is tolerant and inclusive. In order to promote these values—especially an improvement in the quality of life of the poorest among us—we will need to find a way to allow access to affordable and reasonably abundant clean energy. Without increased access to affordable clean energy, many around the world will remain in the lowest rungs of poverty. Advanced technologies in conjunction with sustainable agricultural practices will allow the poorest among us to improve their lot.
An argument to modernists: Pursuing market-based carbon pricing and dividend policy will create a boom for the economy. In addition, the United States has a proven historical track record of creating “entirely new technologies and sectors that set the stage for later long-run economic growth (jet engines and radar, medical and agricultural research). … The most fundamental technological advances of the past half-century … were funded by government agencies, with private businesses moving into the game only once the returns were in clear sight." We should take advantage of this capability.
An argument to traditionalists: The problem of global warming affects everyone. No one can evade the effects of climate change, nor can anyone evade their moral responsibility to contribute to a solution. We can no longer afford to allow effective action on this issue to be stymied by America’s culture war. Political compromises must now be made for the common good of Americans and the world. Recognition of the threat and the imperative to take action are recognized by religious leaders throughout the world from all faiths. Perhaps the most widely recognized example of those speaking out is Pope Francis in his climate change encyclical Laudato Si (2015). The Pope draws on both the Biblical tradition and the moral imperatives that arise from our common humanity. He emphasizes the Biblical injunction for us to act as stewards of the Earth. On a more practical level, we note that conservative recognition of climate change and the need for legislation is increasing. As calls for action to address climate change continue to increase in the electorate, the Republican Party will benefit from a frank recognition of the problem and from contributing effective proposals to address the challenge.
