Humanity's insufficient progress on climate change stems from self-interest and collective action challenges, risking severe societal instability by 2100.
U.S. climate policy should focus on preparing for rising temperatures, developing competitive clean energy technologies, and enhancing resilience against climate impacts.
Deep dives
The Urgency of Climate Change Realism
Humanity is not on track to meet the climate targets established in the Paris Agreement, with projections showing average global temperatures could rise by three degrees Celsius or more by the end of the century. This significant increase translates to dangerous consequences, especially near the poles and in arid regions, leading to heightened heatwaves, changes in rainfall patterns, and extreme weather events. The idea of magical thinking about climate action needs to end, as it ignores the harsh realities that extensive fossil fuel burning continues to drive climate change. Addressing these issues requires an understanding that three degrees of warming is far more than just a simple temperature increase; it's a fundamental threat to societal stability and the livability of many regions.
Underlying Issues of Climate Change Mitigation
The lack of progress in addressing climate change stems from a combination of human self-interest and the inherent challenges of collective action. Many individuals focus on immediate needs rather than long-term consequences, which explains why there is insufficient action to combat climate change. Additionally, countries often prioritize their economic growth, opting for cheaper fossil fuel use instead of sustainable practices, resulting in a 'tragedy of the commons' scenario. This approach demonstrates the difficulties in mobilizing collective international effort to significantly reduce emissions when individual nations prioritize self-benefit.
Four Fallacies in Current Climate Policy Discourse
The discussion surrounding climate policy is marred by four critical fallacies that hinder effective action. The first fallacy is the belief that current climate targets are achievable; in reality, investment requirements are over ten trillion dollars annually, which is unattainable under the current trajectory. The second fallacy asserts that U.S. emissions reduction will significantly impact global efforts, when, in fact, the majority of future emissions will originate from outside the United States. Lastly, the notion that the clean energy transition will automatically benefit U.S. economic interests overlooks the reality that this transition could diminish the country's existing energy supremacy.
Strategic Recommendations for Climate Policy
To pivot from magical thinking towards realistic solutions, three strategic pillars are recommended for U.S. climate policy. First, the U.S. must prepare for a world with average temperatures rising beyond current targets, acknowledging the geopolitical and humanitarian challenges this will entail. Secondly, the country should focus on developing globally competitive clean energy technologies, like advancing next-generation batteries where it has a competitive edge. Finally, preventive measures must be taken to avert the worst catastrophic effects of climate change, with emphasis on resilience and sustainability to protect both the economy and national security.
Varun Sivaram, senior fellow for energy and climate and Director of the Climate Realism Initiative at the Council, sits down with James M. Lindsay to discuss the state of the global environment and U.S. climate policies on the occasion of Earth Day 2025.
