Climate Change, Extreme Weather, Carbon Limits – and Adapting

If it is true the extreme weather we have been having is a result of climate change, i.e., putting too much carbon into the atmosphere, then two things:

First, my suggestion with respect to putting less carbon into the atmosphere is a carbon tax, especially a carbon tax that would be refunded to everybody equally, on a per capita basis.  A carbon tax would probably be one of the quickest, most effective, and least costly ways to cut carbon.  A cap-and-trade system might work, too.  Heavy government regulation is a less good option.  It wouldn’t work as well, and it would be slower.¹

Second, regardless of what policy or rules we come up with to cut carbon, it’s going to take a long time for it to work.  Even if the policy goes into effect right away, the amount of carbon going into the atmosphere will keep going up for decades.  “Net Carbon Zero in 2050” means that we are going to be putting more carbon into the atmosphere each year until 2050.  And even then, the amount of carbon in the atmosphere isn’t going to get back to the level we have today for a long time after that because either we have to wait for the carbon to dissipate or we have to get to negative net carbon.²

Which means we have to figure out ways to adapt to these new conditions and this extreme weather because, if they are caused by climate change, they are not going away any time soon. 

I don’t think a lot of people want to hear that.  I think they want to hear that, once we decide to be net carbon zero by 2050, that takes care of everything.  Except it doesn’t.  We need to figure out how to adapt to climate change – because, as I said, if it’s caused by too much carbon in the atmosphere, it is going to be around a long time.  It’s not going to stop happening today because a bunch of governments say they are going to get to net carbon zero 29 years from now.

We need to adjust to the fact that temperatures and rainfall may be changing in places.  Food may need to be grown in different areas.  We need to do a better job of being prepared to respond to emergencies and extreme weather when they occur, and we need to maybe not build so much, or at least build better, in places were emergencies and extreme weather are more likely to happen. 

We have to adapt; we have to prepare; and we have to be able to respond to crises a lot better than we are now.  If we don’t, when they happen again, it’s not the fault of climate change.  It’s our fault – for not adapting and getting ready.
--------
¹ But passing the bill would be really fun – for some.
² Research may come up with ways to cut the carbon quicker.  We need to greatly increase our funding for research.  Of course, a carbon tax would encourage businesses to do their own research to figure out ways to cut carbon.  That would be a win-win.  But it’s not as much fun, at least for some, as government regulation (as I mentioned in footnote 1).