on a green new deal

[thefuturemesozoic]

Recently, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey introduced legislation for a green new deal. It received a cool reception from house speaker Nancy Pelosi and was mocked by the right. It is a high-level outline of goals, rather than a set of policies. There are important questions in terms of how it can be translated into policy, to what extent it could be funded, and whether it is the best way forward, but AOC and Markey have taken climate change seriously and worked to propose a solution commensurate with the scale of the problem, which is more than can be said of their critics, who have mostly not countered with solutions of their own. Scientists are warning that, in order to avoid the most devastating impacts of climate change, we will need to halve our CO2 emissions by 2030. This will be a monumental task, and it would require that we make changes left and right, but it would not be impossible.

Thus far, the American right has resisted calls to limit CO2 emissions, maintaining that such efforts would needlessly harm the U.S. economy. This argument is maintained with three lines of defense. The first is the assertion that the very notion of climate change is a hoax designed to destroy capitalism, undermine the competitiveness of the U.S. economy, assure grant funding for scientists, or whatever nefarious goal the right-winger has in mind. Sen. James Inhofe, for instance, wrote a book entitled The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future. However, according to a recent poll, 73% of Americans now accept that global warming is happening, up 10% since March of 2015. The public is perhaps noticing an increase in unusual weather and coming to the conclusion that the climate is changing. Thus, to deny that climate change is happening is to take a position that increasingly puts oneself outside of the American mainstream.

There are, however, two additional arguments that right-wingers make as justification for inaction. One is that, even if the climate is changing, we know that the Earth's climate has been changing for the past 4.5 billion years, and no one really knows whether the changes that we are experiencing are being caused by humans. According to the aforementioned poll, 62% of Americans believe that climate change is being caused by humans. This is a clear majority, though it may not include a majority of people who consider themselves to be on the right. This position, however, puts right-wingers at odds with the consensus of climate scientists. In other contexts (vaccines not being linked to autism, for instance, or HIV leading to AIDS), most right-wingers would consider it foolish to ignore the scientific consensus. Meteorologists often have difficulty in predicting the precise course that a hurricane will take, yet conservatives don't generally make the argument that disruptive evacuations are wasteful because nobody really knows whether the evacuation will even be necessary. So why should climate change be different? Part of the answer, I suspect, is that the implications of human-induced climate change are uncomfortable for the right to accept, though they need not be, as I will discuss below.

The final line of defense is that, even if humans are altering the climate, there is no reason to see this as a crisis for humanity. Humans have proven ourselves to be quite ingenious, and we have overcome all sorts of obstacles, after all, so why should climate change be any different? Besides, people only talk about the costs and don't mention potential benefits of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. This position is exemplified by people such as William Happer, who once compared advocates of limiting CO2 emissions to Nazis wanting to exterminate Jews, and the now-defunct Greening Earth Society, a public relations firm created by the Western Fuels Association. For people who think of themselves as conservatives, this argument gets at the heart of the question of what it means to be a conservative. At their best, conservatives remind those who advocate change that not all ideas are good ideas, and seemingly innocuous changes can have unintended, unforeseen consequences, so it is best to take a cautious attitude towards change. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Even if some think that it is broke and needs fixing, the "fix" might do more harm than would have been done by just letting things be. However, it can happen that there is some tension between the desire to preserve one thing and the desire to preserve another thing, such that the conservative faces a dilemma. Republicans want to preserve the system of free enterprise and want to avoid unnecessary disruption in peoples' lives, so, when scientists warn of negative consequences unless action is taken, they treat such warnings with skepticism. However, as the free enterprise system has been a part of our country's history, the same could be said for the Earth's resources. If you say that you are someone who wishes to defend what is right about our country and our way of life, then this needs to include the resources that our planet provides to us. The right course of action would be to find the appropriate balance between preserving what is right about our economic system and preserving the ability of our planet to support us. Arguing that human ingenuity is abundant and negates the need to protect the Earth's resources is not in line with the position that changes can have unforeseen consequences. Incidentally, this argument also undermines the position that reducing consumption of fossil fuels would have a devastating impact on our way of life--if we are an ingenious species that can cope with all sorts of things, including environmental damage, then surely we can also find ingenious ways to manage while reducing our CO2 emissions.

Finally, there are a few things that conservatives would do well to keep in mind. Throughout our history, our society has changed in many ways that nearly everyone would now see as beneficial. Few people would wish to go back to the days when slavery was legal and women were not allowed to vote, even though these policies had their defenders at the time. At their best, the left and the right can balance each other like ying and yang, with the left seeing ways to improve society and the right acting as a safeguard against bad ideas. The Second Vatican Council presents another example of an organization figuring out its place in the modern world while wanting to remain true to its roots. It was decided that, if the Catholic church had not made some changes, such as conducting mass in the common language, then it would become increasingly irrelevant, and it would have failed to preserve the things deemed worth preserving. Similarly, if the warnings go unheeded and the predicted damage to our ecosystem comes to pass, then today's conservatives will be remembered for having been in denial, ignoring the available information on the likely consequences of our actions. Aside from this, acting on the advice of climate scientists does not necessitate a radical departure from the values that conservatives seek to protect. The question of how best to decarbonize is separate from the question of whether decarbonization is necessary. Accepting the latter does not obligate the right to accept all of the solutions advocated by the left. Rather than obstructing discussion on climate change, Republicans could bring market-oriented solutions to the table, opening a path for bipartisan legislation that would ideally incorporate the best ideas from both parties. A few Republicans, notably Bob Inglis, are already there and trying to convert other Republicans. Inglis once felt similarly to most Republicans, not giving the issue of climate change much thought. His attitude began to change when his oldest son indicated that he would like to vote for him but that he needed to do better in terms of the environment. He later joined congressional delegations to Antarctica and to the Great Barrier Reef and was able to interact with and learn from researchers. Given an uptick in the number of Americans who believe that global warming is happening, I would hope that an increasing number of Americans believing that global warming should be taken seriously would translate into an increased number of our congressional Representatives and Senators taking the issue seriously as well.

The left tends to be concerned about the impact that policies will have on vulnerable populations. Indeed, a policy intended to mitigate CO2 emissions, depending on how it is written, would have the potential to exacerbate inequality and disproportionately impose burdens on people who are already struggling to make ends meet. Macron's attempt to impose a fuel tax led to protests and precipitated the yellow vest movement. Many people live in places where transit is inadequate or nonexistent, so they cannot easily switch from driving to taking mass transit. If driving were to become more expensive, then land values in places with relatively good access to transit would increase, as people seek housing that would lower their transportation costs, while land values on the outskirts of cities would decrease. In many cases, this would enrich people who already live in desirable neighborhoods (though this would not necessarily be a blessing for them, since it may simply mean that they are forced to pay higher property taxes on a house that they wish to keep), while some home owners in less desirable areas would find that they now owe more on their home than the home is worth. Republicans will want to be aware of such issues, since they will affect many of their constituents. In fact, it may be partly for this reason that they have found it easier to maintain that global warming is a hoax, or that no one really knows whether it is being caused by humans. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult to deny that the climate is changing, and ignoring the advice of scientists is not a good solution.

Some of these impacts could be mitigated, to some extent, by technology in combination with directing funding towards mass transit. In some cases, agencies that exclusively fund road projects could simply be repurposed to fund transit, the Texas Department of Transportation being one example. Additionally, technology is already changing the landscape. Over the past year, some cities have seen a proliferation of dockless scooters, and many people find them convenient for short trips or for going to and from the bus stop. In lower-density areas, they have the potential to be a last-mile solution to allow people to get from where they are to where the transit is. They would, thus, make the transit more effective in doing what it does well--transporting groups of people who are going in the same direction. Dockless scooters haven't come without creating problems and causing controversy. They are often parked on sidewalks, creating serious challenges for people who use wheelchairs. A significant number of people have been injured while riding them. However, it is worth keeping in mind the situation of the automobile prior to around 1930. As Peter Norton describes in his book, Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City, cars were initially unregulated, and they were often resented for being incompatible with existing uses of the street--children sometimes played in the street, for example. They were sometimes called "pleasure cars" and seen as toys for rich people. When a motorist collided with a pedestrian, the community was angered, and the motorist almost always took the blame in the eyes of the public. Over time, regulations were written to govern the behavior of drivers, and, additionally, pedestrians were expected to take some responsibility for their own safety. I presume that, to people who lived a century ago, it would be surprising that, today, people who don't drive are sometimes considered to be more privileged than people who do, since, in many cities, there are a limited number of walkable neighborhoods where mass transit is relatively good, so they are becoming a luxury unavailable to poorer residents, while used cars can be fairly inexpensive. A new invention had started out as a luxury but eventually became an indispensable tool for mobility for many people, with some of their original problems being mitigated and new problems developing over time. It is becoming apparent that there are problems with relying on personal vehicles for transportation, from congestion to CO2 emissions, yet, for much of the past century, we have designed places for cars, with other modes of transportation being an afterthought, if that, and, realistically, people will continue to live and work in these places, so we should accept that we have new problems that will likely need new solutions. For longer work commutes, there are likely to be people who live in the same neighborhood, work within a mile of each other, and, unbeknownst to each other, make the same 20-mile commute in the morning and the same reverse commute in the evening. Since cars can transport multiple people who are moving in the same direction without generating noticably greater emissions than would be generated to transport one person, an app could link people who need to travel in the same direction, reducing the impact of a carbon tax. In the long term, however, where we live and work are questions that we should be willing to reconsider in light of the need to decarbonize.

As a few people have pointed out, the Green New Deal legislation, thus far, has not addressed the issue of where people live and work. Over the past few decades, urban areas have primarily expanded outward as their populations grew, with limited infill development. Often, this pattern results partly from zoning and other regulations that artificially restrict development in urban areas, pushing housing and jobs to the periphery of the city where it cannot easily be serviced by mass transit. Even without action from the Federal government, blue cities could enact local green new deals of their own, with the goal of updating their regulations and infrastructure to account for the need to decarbonize. This would not be sufficient on its own for the U.S. to drastically reduce its CO2 emissions any more than the U.S. taking action on its own would be sufficient for humanity as a whole to reduce its CO2 emissions. A holistic plan will be needed. If blue cities take action, however, then this will allow their residents to express their stated values, they will have a head start in terms of making the changes needed to meet national and international targets, and any amount of progress is better than no progress. Many of our cities are solidly Democratic and do not have to contend with climate-change-denying Republicans trying to stop them from taking action..

For decarbonization to have the greatest chance at success, it is important to utilize all means at our disposal. The proposed green new deal legislation calls for cars to have net zero emissions by 2030. While this would be a desirable outcome, there is a risk that the goal will not be met. It would require that electric cars be ready for the mass market within the next decade and that sufficient power be produced from renewable sources to power them. Similarly, it calls for the construction of high-speed rail in order to make (domestic) air travel unnecessary. At the same time, the national debt recently exceeded $22 trillion and continues to grow, so, at the same time as we are facing an environmental crisis, federal spending is going to be constrained. The plan appears to suggest hope (which, in my view, is not justified) that, through technology and spending, we can decarbonize without the need for us to alter our lifestyles. Driving will likely need to be curtailed through a combination of increased transit ridership, carpooling, and avoidance of long commutes. For the time being, we may need to accept, as people did a century ago, that, if we must travel across the country, then we need to allow ourselves multiple days for the trip. Incidentally, if traveling across the country could not be done in a single day, then our social obligation to do it would decrease. Though not everyone is likely to become vegetarian or vegan, meat would generally be an occasional supplement to a mostly plant-based diet. We may find some of these outcomes to be undesirable, but, if we are concerned with decarbonization, then we should understand that they are probable consequences of a carbon tax, and the perceived negatives need to be weighed against the benefits of reducing CO2 emissions.

When one is focused outward, it is easy to overlook one's own contribution to a situation. One example of this is the Republican attitude towards the national debt. As long as some power is held by Democrats, Republicans can blame the national debt on fiscal irresponsibility and out-of-control spending on social programs on the part of Democrats. They can say, to themselves and others, that they are prepared to make the difficult decisions necessary to solve our problems if only their political opponents will get out of the way. With their outrage directed outward towards the Democrats, they overlook their own role in creating the fiscal deficit that they claim to oppose--promoting unfunded tax cuts, starting wars of choice, etc. For the first two years of the Trump Presidency, Republicans controlled the House and the Senate in addition to having won the Presidency, yet the fiscal deficit went up, and blame here cannot be placed on the Democrats, as they were effectively out of power. But there is a similar situation with liberals and climate change. Absent obstruction from Republicans, Democrats would face a reckoning in terms of needing to decide what kinds of changes they are willing to accept.

While the right would need to move in the direction of accepting that humans are causing climate change and that action is needed, the left, in turn, should accept that, as discussed above, our lifestyles will probably need to change, and, although this will not be easy, we will need to move forward with a solution and cannot allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. It would have been preferable for us to have started the decarbonization process decades ago. It would have been preferable not to limit our borrowing capacity by funding wars and tax cuts with borrowed money. Nevertheless, here we are, our situation is what it is, and inaction is not an option. A carbon tax would disproportionately affect lower-income people with long commutes, and, at the same time, it is hard to see the necessary changes being made across society without the signals that a carbon tax would provide. The impact on lower-income Americans could be mitigated by returning the tax as a dividend to all tax-payers, as Jim Hansen proposes. Regardless, it would seem just about impossible to make changes on the scale that is needed without some Americans being adversely impacted. We will, thus, need to come together as a people to find ways to assist people who are struggling, as we might seek to help people who lose everything they have in a hurricane or an earthquake.

Regardless of party affiliation, all of us will need to be cognizant of the big picture and be willing to accept things that we may consider unreasonable. This could take many forms, but all of us are likely to have deeply-held ideas of what is appropriate, based on things having always been a certain way ("always" effectively meaning "as long as we have been alive"). In Austin, for instance, I sometimes hear people state, in one form or another, that, although mass transit obviously works in other cities, it won't work in Austin because of our weather; it is not reasonable to expect people to walk to a bus stop and wait for a bus in the 100-degree heat. We may feel that, in the summer, it is necessary for an office to be cooled to a temperature where a man can feel comfortable wearing a suit and tie. After all, people need to wear certain things in order to appear presentable, and it is not reasonable to expect people to adjust what they wear based on the weather outside (never mind that women are often shivering in their artificially-cold offices). We might feel that, although we live within walking distance of a train or a good bus line, we bought a house in a single-family neighborhood, and we have a reasonable expectation that it will remain a single-family neighborhood for as long as we choose to live there--we accept that radical change is needed in order to save the planet, but that doesn't mean that we have to accept someone building a four-plex next to our house.

It is worth keeping in mind that, even aside from saving the planet, the changes needed to mitigate climate change would have their positive effects. Our country has become highly polarized, with its opposing political tribes. Protecting our planet for the next generation should be a value that we hold in common, and it is something that will require participation from all of us. Thus, it has the potential to remind us of the things we share. For many people, regardless of party, the detached single-family home is seen as the ideal, synonymous with the American dream. Yet our land use patterns go hand-in-hand with private car ownership. Cars are often seen as synonymous with freedom, and, indeed, car-dependent suburbs prevent children from being able to get from place to place without being driven by their parents, contributing to their feeling bored. Yet these suburbs could not have been designed as they were without the presence of cars. Additionally, cars separate us from one another (no chance of a spontaneous reunion with a long-lost acquaintance if one is behind the wheel of a car). Even as people defend our economic system, there is some concern that our culture has become overly materialistic. None of this is to say that the needed changes will be easy. However, in many cases, large changes are neither unequivocally negative nor unequivocally positive.

Decarbonization will be a huge challenge and will require significant work from all of us. There will need to be something closer to a consensus that it is needed and that it will do some good. Without this, the needed changes will be resisted, and legislators who support a green new deal will face significant electoral challenges. All of us will need to examine our attachments and be willing to let go of what no longer serves us, yet the practice of doing this will have benefits that extend beyond the current crisis. It is not too late to take action, and the outcome will be up to all of us.