Not if but when

There’s a trend in climate policy and journalism at the moment, which I find deeply frustrating.

Time and again, I am seeing reports of polling which asks the public about their attitude to the changes we need to take if we are to avoid the extreme disruption to our planet caused by 2 degrees or more of warming. Polls like this one from the centre-right think tank, Onward (reported by the Telegraph here) ask whether the public is willing to pay more (in higher taxes on in consumer costs) to reach net zero. Meanwhile, on the left, Guardian headlines imply people are unwilling to change their behaviour to mitigate climate change.*

The trouble with such arguments is that they suggest we have a choice between paying to reach net zero and thereby avoiding cataclysmic climate change and… well I’m not sure quite what. Something else which is presented as cost neutral. The status quo.

The truth is, no such choice exists.

The status quo means further warming, likely to 3 degrees by the end of the century. It means more extreme weather. It means rising sea levels flooding low-lying areas. It means crop failures, ecological breakdown and mass migration. In short, it’s bad.

And, importantly for those planning large-scale national polling, these changes are not cost neutral. As the climate continues to change, we will inevitably bear the costs. Higher government spending on restoring communities hit by flooding or fires. Higher food prices. Higher costs associated with increased healthcare needs. The list goes on.

The question is not whether or not climate change makes us pay. No, we have three questions:

1. When we pay to address climate change?
2. How much we pay to address climate change (the longer we leave it, the harder and more expensive it becomes)?
3. How much damage is done in the meantime?

The same set of questions will apply to behaviour change. As the world heats, we are inevitably going to need to change in response. The questions are: “When do we change?”, “How disruptive is that change?” and “What world we are left with afterwards?”

As long as people are presented with a choice between something costly, and something which appears to have no cost, they will inevitably pick the latter. If however it’s a choice between managable cost now, and debilitating cost later, I think the conclusion might be rather different.

Speaking in 2007 at the launch of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Report, Professor John Holdren, a climate scientist, Professor of Climate Policy at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and (subsequently) Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy under President Obama, said:

“We basically have three choices: mitigation, adaptation and suffering. We’re going to do some of each. The question is what the mix is going to be. The more mitigation we do, the less adaptation will be required and the less suffering there will be.”

I’d like to add to Professor Holdren’s quote: The sooner we face up to that choice, the less suffering there will be too. And that, to me, seems like a worthwhile goal.

---

*To be fair, the polling actually asked if people felt there was a need to change their behaviour, rather than if they were willing to do so. And when asked if they would accept more government environmental regulation, most said yes.