Climate’s Challenges

Climate change presents a particularly tough challenge. There are of course plenty of other tough problems around: inequality, poverty, terrorism, the instabilities of financial systems, the risks of nuclear technologies, persistent and potentially violent antagonisms in international politics. Yet we have at least a sense of the nature of these sorts of problems, and governments know more or less how to respond to them, although they do not always do so—or do so successfully. The challenges of climate change, by contrast, almost seem to defy comprehension, let alone appropriate response. The science is complex and long contested by a well-financed movement that accuses climate scientists of falsifying conclusions in support of a left-wing political agenda. There is a collision between what the science implies and seemingly common-sense understandings based on casual observation of the weather. The size of the threat calls into question received ideas about the inevitability of human progress: if progress requires continued economic growth based on ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases, then that kind of progress is clearly no longer sustainable. The economic stakes could not be higher, calling into question the future of industries such as coal and cars, and leading to deep political conflicts as those whose industries, profits, employment, and lifestyles feel threatened resist the necessary changes. Even among those who accept the science and recognize the size of the challenge, key questions are hotly debated. So there is dispute about how to think of the risks that climate change brings: for example, should we spend money on preparing for low-probability but potentially catastrophic impacts (such as rapid sea-level rise)? To what extent should we care about the risks our current emissions are imposing on future generations, who will suffer the impacts? If it is accepted that emissions need to be reduced, how rapidly should that reduction occur in light of the economic costs that it will necessarily impose? And how should the burden of reductions be allocated between rich and poor countries, between rich and poor people within countries, between different industries and economic sectors?