Crunchicrant addresses the issue by asking a series of questions:

1. How bad could global warming/climate change be for the US?

Climate change will impact different places differently.

Areas of the world, including areas in the US, in which populations live may no longer be able to sustain those populations (without substantial infrastructure work bringing water or defending flooding) – it threatens stability of the world order.

One impact is on sea levels: predictions are that sea-levels will rise by 15 inches this century: many of the world’s largest cities are built on the coastline – some on low lying land – and will become susceptible to flooding.

Most at risk in the US – Miami/Fort Lauderdale; the entire coastline of southern Florida; New Orleans; New York; Boston; Baltimore.

2. Is the world warming?

Yes: this is an observable fact.

NASA reports a 2˚F increase in temperature, 1880 to date.

The Antarctica and Greenland ice caps are melting, sea levels are rising – all observed facts.

3. Is the change man-made?

The scientific consensus is that it is:

• Yale University – this article claims 97% of scientists agree that global warming is contributed to by human activity
• NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration)

There are a few ‘hold-out’ scientists, and plenty of non scientists, who argue the increase is caused by natural phenomena.

The consensus among scientists is clear.

4. What human activity is thought to be responsible for global warming

The culprit is greenhouse gases, most particularly emission of carbon dioxide (but also of methane, nitrous oxide and fluorocarbons), as a result of energy generation (burning coal, natural gas and oil) and other industrial and agricultural activities.

The following graph sets out carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere over the last 800,000 years:

The big three emitters are in order of size, China, the US and India.

This chart, by Tom Schulz of AQAL Capital:

5. Can global warming be reversed (or slowed)?

Whether global warming can be reversed is doubtful – a maybe at best – greenhouse gas levels are high and even if we stop emitting today it will take a millennium for carbon dioxide concentrations to return to a long term norm (other greenhouse gases, less time, a century) … and there is no prospect of us achieving zero emissions soon (the earliest date being targeted is 2050).

That said, slowing emission, and switching power generation so that it is generated other than by burning hydro-carbons (something which will need to happen anyhow, as we use up the earth’s reserves of coal, oil and gas) should slow global warming and give us more time to adjust to it impacts.

The issue of the environment is a very big challenge. All the issues that Crunchicrant raises are long term issues – but here is a super long term issue requiring an effort over multiple generations. There are two hurdles that Crunchicrant worries about: 1. There is widespread denial that this is a problem at all. There is some, but very little, denial in the scientific community, but that denial is picked up by thought leading non climatologists/by opportunistic politicians and given so much credence that the official policy of the Republican Party is to slow walk the issue: the whole topic is downplayed, people and institutions concerned with addressing climate change are excoriated as extremist, vague statements are made that the best approach to address climate change is private -providing incentives for human ingenuity and the development of new technologies (without very little on how, and even less action.) (Crunchicrant struggles with understanding this: All your neighbors (except one) are telling you that a wildfire is on its way and will burn up the neighborhood: the one neighbor says ‘no threat’. Do you: 1. Go home and carry on with what you were doing: pesky neighbors: it will sort itself out! 2. Douse the property with water, ready the fire extinguishers, pack irreplaceable valuables, do what you can to avert a disaster?) It is the formal policy of the Republican party to go with option 1., no matter that option 2. is really not that onerous compared to the difficulties we have endured in the past. It is fine to hope the skeptic is right, but to base your actions on it? – There is an arrogance among climate denying leaders that they know better than most scientists who devote their professional lives to the issue; and – It is reckless – if that majority of scientists is right (a good possibility, surely?) and we do nothing, the downside is very dangerous. EVEN IF YOU ARE PERSONALLY SKEPTICAL THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS A PROBLEM – AND THAT IS FINE – IT IS NOT RATIONAL TO DO OTHER THAN ADVOCATE FOR AN AGENDA THAT SEEKS TO REDUCE EMISSIONS, AS IF IT IS A PROBLEM. 2. It’s a particularly difficult issue for a society and political system like ours to deal with. It requires a concerted and coordinated international (uh oh!) effort to make progress on an issue where the reporting back of progress (if we can get our collective acts together and make some progress) will be characterized by statistical noise and questioning by the scientific and political communities. Meanwhile our country and society is led by politicians who are elected for two, four or six year terms: can they lead on a project which is all modest pain for, two, four, six years (and for the next two, four, six years after that) and (may) payback – but we will not be able to accurately measure that payback (for we do not know what the baseline is) – in thirty, sixty or ninety years? If these hurdles cannot be overcome, then this issue will never be solved (we would have to pray that the skeptics are right, or we – or our children – are doomed to an uncertain, and possibly dark, world).

The difference in policies between the parties is stark

Crunchicrant wishes that the Democratic Platform, as regards environment, stuck to the environment and did not stray into muddying (and needlessly alienating) socio-economic issues.

The do nothing option of the Republican Party, big energy’s fingerprints all over it, is lacking.

Infrastructure

Part and parcel of the greater environmental issue is infrastructure: sea levels are rising, the west is becoming drier and more vulnerable to wildfire, there are more extreme weather events such as floods: the antidote is to build infrastructure to combat these trends.

This type of investment expenditure is the easiest to defer, and we have deferred it like a champion. Crunchiness requires that we do not defer.

The bulk of this investment is State responsibility and Crunchicrant intends to take up coverage of States’ investment in infrastructure: it will start (soon) by looking at federal infrastructure performance – another mismanaged trust (the Highway Trust Fund) is involved, so that performance is, doubtless, patchy.

Environment – to fix or not to fix?