John Perilli: I Wish Climate Change Were a Hoax, But It’s Not

John Perilli, GoLocalProv MINDSETTER™

John Perilli: I Wish Climate Change Were a Hoax, But It’s Not

We need to accept that climate change is real so we can start to debate how to respond to it, believes John Perilli.
Even in the midst of an unseasonably cold March, it’s important to remember that climate change is still real.

I say this only because it has become fashionable to use this year’s wintry weather as an excuse to poke fun at one of the world’s most terrible scientific truths. The ever-wise Donald Trump took to Twitter earlier this year to mock the idea of climate change, and Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, his fiery breath chilled by the frost, quipped: "It’s cold. Al Gore told me this wouldn’t happen.

Laugh all you want, but the people saying these things are not without influence. They run some of the world’s largest businesses, control billions of dollars worth of natural resources, and hold the power to vote for or against a possible climate change solution. And worse, their dismissals of climate change as a “hoax” and a “conspiracy” have the chance to gain a deadly bit of traction.

GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLAST

Look. No one would be happier than me if climate change were a hoax, or if a group of scientists emerged from behind the green screen, Wizard-of-Oz style, and said, “Gotcha! It’s all been a deception.” The world would be rid of one of its greatest problems, saving time, money and millions of lives.

But as Founding Father and President John Adams once said, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” The fact of climate change is beyond the longest shadow of a doubt. The challenge, then, is not to prove climate change exists, but to change hearts and minds into accepting it, and to dismiss those last lingering counter-arguments so we can move onto the more important debate about what should be done.

Defining a Disaster

To start, I’ll define “climate change” the same way the United Nations does: as a measurable and significant change of climate that is attributable to human behavior. In other words: The world is rapidly warming, and it's most likely because of us. Global warming could pose all sorts of problems, from rising sea levels, to food shortages, to widespread population displacement. The scientific academies in every industrialized country of the world believe this is true. And there my case rests.

However, facts without action are dead on the page. The United States has taken many measures to combat climate change, but a lack of support has kept some truly effective solutions, like a carbon tax, off the table. Our House of Representatives is controlled by a Republican party whose official platform barely mentions climate change at all.

So how can this be bettered? How can one of America’s two major political parties be brought to the table to discuss difficult yet meaningful policy proposals?

Some are doing this just by talking. Rhode Island’s own Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse gives a speech on climate change before the Senate every week, and yesterday he participated in a massive all-night climate change “talkathon” to encourage Congress to act.

Others are taking direct legislative action. One group, the Rhode Island Student Climate Coalition, has been fighting to get the climate change issue on the General Assembly’s radar. Could a comprehensive environmental bill be Rhode Island’s ticket to national renown?

Whatever the method, it seems the effort to change Republicans’ minds might be working. GOP doubtfulness about the immediacy of climate change is cautiously receding. As the effects of climate change become more apparent, as massive out-of-season hurricanes and climbing average temperatures become harder to ignore, skepticism will hopefully decline even further.

Dismissing the Last Defense

Still, the “hoax” reaction remains an easy and tempting way out of a tough discussion. In the face of some of the frightening evidence for climate change, such as the infamous “hockey stick graph,” many doubtless find it less troubling to consider climate change a scam than to think about what the evidence implies. In fact, it’s a sign of just how alarming the evidence is that this reaction is so common.

I would like to respond to the hoax defense.

Some minds cannot be changed. I accept that. But to anyone who might doubt where they stand, consider this: Why would scientists want to perpetuate such an elaborate ruse? Why would all the world’s leading academics support using so much money and effort to combat climate change if it were not real? If climate change were a hoax, the billions of dollars spent fighting it could go toward research, or economic development, or ending poverty. For example, it would only take $17.5 billion, mere nickels compared to the cost of a global climate change initiative, to double the budget of NASA and send us off exploring the universe. Why wouldn’t scientists rather do that?

Again, I would love if climate change were a hoax. I would love if I could just wake up one day and not have to worry about a pressing global crisis that will happen within my lifetime. But I can’t. My generation and I have to own up to our peculiar burden, and answer one of the most important questions of our time: What should we do about it?

Creating Action from Inaction

Even if everyone accepted climate change as fact, the problem would not be over. There would still be an equally intense debate over how to counter it.

Some would support a more gradual response, such as infrastructure projects that could lessen the impact of rising seas and farming initiatives that could ease a catastrophic strike to our food supply. Others would insist upon all-or-nothing action. This debate would be angry, and it would be lengthy, and if no consensus emerged, we’d be just as doomed as we ever were.

However there is still some hope. The world has come together once before to deal successfully with a global environmental crisis. Back in the mid-twentieth century, pollutants called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) from aerosol cans and refrigerators were tearing a hole in our ozone layer. In response, the United Nations came together in 1987 and passed the Montreal Protocol, which phased out the legal use of these chemicals. In the years since, our ozone layer has made a remarkable recovery.

Climate change will be a much harder struggle. The costs will be higher, and the timeline for action longer. Can the whole world sit down at the bargaining table, dismiss the last “hoax” arguments, and get something done? Our limited time will tell.

 

John Perilli is a native of Cumberland, RI and a junior at Brown University. He is the Communications Director for the Brown University Democrats and works for Magaziner for Treasurer. The opinions presented in this article do not represent those of the organizations of which John Perilli is a member. You can follow John on Twitter @JohnPerilli.

Natural Disasters: RI's Most At Risk and Vulnerable Communities

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.