Climate change is an issue stemming from the Industrial Revolution with effects that are potentially damaging to mankind and its way of life. Climate change is a natural process, but man’s burning of fossil fuels over the course of a century and a half accelerated this process. The scale of this issue was not realized until the mid 1970s when it was discovered that the snow on various mountains and ice caps were melting and unprecedented droughts were reported. It is even more so an issue today as we face more frequent and intense heat waves, stronger storms than before, a rising sea level, and even islands starting to sink as a result of rising temperatures. While the issue needs to be resolved, it is a grand challenge that will require great amounts of time and resources. However, some groups push on with physically and economically unfeasible plans while others completely turn a blind eye to the situation and deny its existence. There is no doubt that climate change needs to be managed, but we need to rethink the way we go about mitigating it.

Climate change ranges from the transition to an ice age to the current issue of global warming. Global warming has been noted since the First Industrial Revolution as being caused by greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide being trapped in the atmosphere. However, global warming did not become a major concern until unprecedented droughts were reported in 1974 (Weart). This was the catalyst for an ongoing onslaught of research and massive political attention being directed towards the topic. Climate change has been reported since the start of the 19th century, but has not been taken as a threat until the mid 1970s and has been the subject of massive attention for over 40 years.

Earth’s climate changes with the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. CO2 traps the Sun’s radiation and heat in the atmosphere, thus classing it as a greenhouse gas. In simpler terms, more CO2 in the atmosphere means that the Earth’s surface temperature increases while a lower amount of it results in cooler temperatures. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has always fluctuated naturally, bringing in periods of global warming in addition to ice ages. However, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increased sharply since the early to mid 20th century in correspondence with the advent of the automobile and the widespread usage of fossil fuels that followed it. Over the past century, the Earth’s temperature has increased by 1.33 degrees Fahrenheit (Down to Earth Climate Change). While this may appear innocuous at first sight, this temperature increase is responsible for many unprecedented and threatening events. The Earth’s climate has been changing like never seen before and carries extreme consequences with it.

This wave of climate change did not come without dramatic effects. For example, the emission of aerosols changes cloud formation properties and can result in localized cooling (Burke 5205). This also results in less rain days, but more intense rain storms in lieu of it. Over the years, heat waves have been reported in increasing frequency and intensity. This has resulted in more damaging wildfires. Wildfires clear an average of four to five million acres of land annually in the US (National Geographic). This number has been doubled in the year 2017 with 9,152,458 acres being burned by wildfires as of November 24th (National Interagency Fire Center). In addition to this, warmer ocean waters were responsible for the hyperactivity of the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season. This season brought along 17 named storms, with six of them being Category 3 or higher. Hurricane Maria was the most violent storm of the season, as seen with its complete devastation of Puerto Rico. Looking further into the oceans, National Geographic reported that the Global Mean Sea Level has risen by four to eight inches over the past century. This rise in sea level is especially troublesome to island nations like the Maldives, which is slowly being overcome by rising waters and is searching for alternate locations for its residents. The issue of climate change lies in its dramatic and severely damaging effects.

Many possible solutions have been proposed for climate change, but not many of these solutions are physically or economically feasible and the results will not be seen before any of the deadlines set. For example, Paris, France intends to ban all internal combustion powered cars from its limits by 2030 with all of France seeking to follow suit by 2040 (Love). Paris is one of several cities with similar bans on their books. The city’s transport policy official, Christophe Najdovski, told Reuters in an interview that the ban is about “planning for the long term with a strategy that will reduce greenhouse gases” and that “…transport is one of the main greenhouse gas producers,” explaining the motives behind the ban. This ban, while attempting to do well, was poorly thought out on both the municipal and national scales.

The first issue lies in the fact that many people cannot afford a new car and current electric cars, barring boutique manufacturers like Tesla, offer far less value for the money compared to their fossil fueled counterparts. In the case of the Volkswagen Golf, the high performance and top two models in the range, the Golf GTI and the Golf R, can be had for roughly the same price as the electric e-Golf. The second issue lies in France’s power grid. France’s power grid is supported by nuclear, gas, coal, and oil-fired plants, which currently struggle to meet peak demand, especially in the winter (Rose). 32 million electric cars collectively charging would further overtax France’s already strained power grid. This issue is magnified in areas where large numbers of electric vehicles would be charging: supermarkets and highway service stations, for example. Because of these factors combined, attempting to enact such a ban over one to three decades is not going to work smoothly, if at all. France’s plan to ban fossil fuel powered cars by 2040 has good intentions, but it is more of a knee jerk reaction from politicians to build their image than a long term plan.

A better way to approach this issue is to make the process a gradual phase out of internal combustion vehicles instead of trying to ban them in short order. Doing this will allow the market to evolve, the infrastructure to adapt, and for alternative fuel technology to improve. More tax credits and subsidies should be placed on alternative fuel vehicles to help facilitate the process. As time advances, electric vehicles will be far more capable than the ones of today and the opportunity will arise for other alternative fuel options to grab a hold of the market. An example of this is Audi’s ongoing development of synthetic, water based gasoline and diesel fuel to replace the oil based products currently in use. In addition to this, the distribution of fuel types will change as internal combustion vehicles reach the end of their useable lives and slowly get replaced by alternative fuel vehicles. This course of action will work much better because the market is more receptive to steady encouragement than an outright ban.  

A second, more heavy handed solution proposed is to remove capitalism and institute constitutional insurgency to combat big businesses and governments that partake in environmentally damaging ventures. Constitutional insurgency is the act of declaring laws and policies illegal and establishing the illegal status (Brecher). Brecher claims that climate insurgency would be marked by events like climate marches and more aggressive methods like blockades on pipeline construction. Despite people getting arrested for events like the latter, he asserts that they are perfectly legal under the Public Trust and claims that the protesters are enforcing this law on the government. According to the article, the Public Trust states that the atmosphere is the “common property of present and future generations” and needs to be protected from harm. The issue with this is that governments can and will bend the law to work in their favor by using the power of eminent domain, pushing the Public Trust out of the picture. Not only is this a problem for the climate insurgency crowd, but the industries and government constantly pass money between each other and ensure that they both get what they want. In the case of the pipeline, the industry uses its lobbying power to gain clearance and funding to build the pipeline and the government gets a portion of the money made from the oil transported through it. Climate insurgency is a more aggressive solution proposed to mitigate climate change, but it will fail because of its idea of interfering with a free market and attempting to step in the way of the government.

The better alternative to this is simply to allow the public to vote with their wallets. Capitalism is easily influenced by the demand of the public and the availability of a product and businesses will cater to this demand to ensure that they keep their profits. Trying to fight the system head on will result in almost certain failure, even more so if the government is involved. In the case of the environment, swaying enough people over to clean and renewable sources of energy like solar and wind power would scare the large energy corporations into either joining the trend or going under. Supply also plays a large role in how the market operates. Oil supplies are starting to decline and will inevitably disappear altogether, leaving the energy companies with no choice but to convert to and work with renewable energy sources. Capitalism is a market that is largely controlled by the paying customer and product availability and results are more likely to be seen if guided at the lower level than if one were to go straight for the head of the machine. 

While some groups want to propose impractical solutions to climate change, others simply deny its existence. Murray Energy Chairman and CEO Robert Murray told InsideClimate News (ICN) that climate change is not a problem and that the planet is instead getting cooler. His evidence consists of the claim that 4,000 unnamed scientists told him that mankind is not causing climate change and that the Earth has actually been cooling for the past 19 years. The problem with this is that decades of research and 97 percent of scientists agree that human influence is responsible for the sharp increase in CO2 and subsequent global temperature increase over the past 50 years, dismissing the claim from Murray’s “4,000 scientists” (NASA). In addition to this, it is unknown who these scientists are and what their credentials consist of. Murray’s argument is motivated by profits. This information is a growing threat to the fossil fuel groups and the heads of these corporations actively attempt to suppress this information to protect their businesses and profits. In the case of Murray, his business is based around a source of energy that has been falling out of favor for years prior and the talk about climate change is another powerful blow to it. Murray’s poorly corroborated argument that Earth’s climate is cooling was made to save his livelihood over anything else. 

Climate change as it is known today has been a major threat to mankind for the past century and has been the center of massive amounts of attention and research for the past four decades. The global temperature rise of 1.33 degrees Fahrenheit appears insignificant at face value, but it has been responsible for a rising sea level, an uptick in heat waves and wildfires, numerous record breaking storms, and the potential loss of several island nations. Many physically or financially unfeasible solutions have been proposed in recent years, like complete, large scale bans on internal combustion vehicles within a relatively short time frame and groups attempting to impede the government sanctioned construction of pipelines. Some groups even deny the existence of the issue. The two solutions listed try to directly control a highly powerful body, whether it is trying to force the market one way or making a direct attack on capitalism. The best way for these groups to reach their goals is to let the consumers vote with their wallets while gently persuading them over to clean energy sources instead of trying to force a sudden shift in the market. This gentle transition will drive the industries to focus on clean energy if they want to stay afloat. The issue is not the inability to manage climate change, it is the manner of execution which is flawed.
