Climate. What has changed in ten years? - 273

The short answer is the science, while more nuanced, is the same. But the politics and the media coverage have changed.

Ten years ago, when I started researching climate science, 97% of active climate scientists agreed the warming of the Earth, the rapid global warming, was almost wholly the product of trapped heat from greenhouse gasses. These excess greenhouse gases came from you and me burning fossil fuels. Greenhouse gases existed before us. We have simply been dumping carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere at a rate the Earth cannot safely process them.

Ten years ago, the consensus among reputable science organizations was complete. Every reputable science organization said it was time to transition. The California government referenced 200 of the best science organizations in the world to make this point.

Today the consensus of active climate scientists is higher than 97%, and reputable organizations remain steadfast defenders of the climate. There has been little change here other than to say the evidence is even more irrefutable.

But climate events have changed. With increased floods, fires, and droughts, the past warnings of bad weather have become reality rather than science-based warnings. After the massive Australian bushfires, an Australian Book store posted a sign at the front desk, "Climate Dystopian Novels are relocated to Current Events."

Global warming (a rather pleasant phrase) has been replaced by warnings of detrimental "Climate Change." Today, many urge the president to declare a climate emergency. Given the multiplying world climate disasters, the United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres on Monday said the world is on a “highway to climate hell with our foot still on the accelerator”.

Thus, in the science community, the basics have not changed… except the timing. When I started my research only ten years ago, we were warned we needed to start the transition to clean energy. Then, the transition had a loose and long time frame. The warnings came with the comfortably recommended slow transition to be complete by 2080 to 2100.

I became a climate activist because I felt this was a short time frame which demanded immediate action.

The time horizon has changed. Climate scientists have been shocked by current climate events. The new time frame requires us to reduce carbon pollution to half by 2030 and reach zero by 2050.

Another thing has changed dramatically. Ten years ago, the climate activist community was critical of the national media for its complicity with ignorant climate deniers. Despite the 97% consensus, most newspapers printed more denier editorial columns than climate consensus papers. A university professor, via a computer program, searched three prominent newspapers to verify or dismiss our claim that the 3% denier faction was getting half the ink. We were wrong. Her review of these publications revealed deniers were getting TWICE the ink.

Politically, ten years ago, Republicans denied the science, while Democrats were largely mute. While misrepresenting science is unethical, the Republican motivation was clear. Fossil fuel money funds the Republican Party.

Ten years ago, the Democratic Politicians would have had to trust that the voter understood science. Ten years ago, the average voter had little interest in science and even less in climate science. Most Democratic Politicians knew the science but did not want to go out on a limb to promote scientific understanding. Al Gore, winner of a Nobel Prize for his work getting the climate science word out, was an example of how dangerous it is to go out on the limb of telling the truth.

Despite write-in campaigns by many climate-savvy organizations, even those who organized political debates refused to ask crucial climate questions.

Recently, there has been a dramatic reversal. I no longer must search hard for climate information. Information is all over the place. This change has left my head spinning like an Oklahoma Tornado.

The Democratic Party has finally found its climate science voice and passed the most meaningful climate legislation ever, the Inflation Reduction Act, which, with the Chips Act and the Infrastructure Act, has supercharged the transition to clean energy and dramatically increased the number of clean energy jobs. The results of this act have far exceeded my expectations. Politicians feel it safe to promote clean energy because solar and wind are the least expensive ways to create power. We can thank scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs for this.

We are not alone in the world. The UK, the European Union, and China are pushing forward. We are playing catch-up. The EU and China have more solar panels and wind turbines deployed than we do. China aggressively plans to accelerate its wind, solar, and hydropower production. They have a plan to double it by 2030. At their current pace, they are projected to meet their goal by 2025, five years ahead of schedule. Last year China spent 546 billion dollars on clean energy, far more than any other country. It is tough competition, but we are narrowing the gap.  Deploying clean energy is a race to the top, scientifically, economically, and morally.

Our movement to save the planet is on a roll. Solar panel industries, battery plants, and EV assembly plants are breaking ground around the USA. Foreign sectors are investing in American Workers who will be the muscle powering America.

It looks unstoppable, but it is not. Fossil fuel propaganda sites, led by the Heritage Foundation, just laid out a plan to stop the movement to clean energy and revert to dirty coal and oil. They expect their project to be adopted by the Republican Party in 2024. If so, this would not only be an act of planetary destruction but, for some Republican politicians, hypocrisy. With all the new clean energy jobs being created, some Republican Politicians are finding it advantageous to show up at clean energy businesses' groundbreaking events…even though they voted against the legislation making them possible.

Never count the oil companies out. Ten years ago, they could buy space on the editorial pages of newspapers to misinform us. Today, one segment of society has emerged as Big Oil's biggest threat, our young.

Recently, thanks to a coalition of young climate activists who took the state of Montana to court, Montana politicians now must consider the impacts of climate change when granting new oil and coal leases.

Seeing the young as the key impediment to remaining profitable, Big Oil now pays Tic Tok "influencers" to make pro-oil company pitches on their sites. Shell Oil even demanded a seat at the table on the Texas K-12 science standards committee. Now a Shell Oil lawyer advises educators on what should and should not go into science education.

Some will accuse me of politics. I came to my political decisions based on science first because science says to survive, we must transition from dirty and polluting energy to clean and efficient energy as fast as possible. Science-wise, it was a clear choice for me. After ten years, the Democrats have delivered; the Republicans have not. Had it been the other way around, my political decisions would be different.

Another change I want to note was the role I needed to play ten years ago. Ten years ago, there was little science-based information printed. I methodically investigated to know who were reputable science organizations and scientists. I taught myself climate science by reading extensively about what these organizations had to say. Thanks to the opportunity to write this column, I could pass on what I had learned. It was challenging and time-consuming.

Today if you want up-to-date information on the climate, it is easier. The New York Times and the Washington Post have teams that get you up-to-date information. My first national newspaper subscription was given to me by a childhood friend who is a retired scientist. She was probably tired of getting so many climate questions.

My second subscription came because my friend and editor steered me to articles from the New York Times. In both cases, I was a little embarrassed by friends who had to lead me to the sources of current information. (In my defense, I have subscribed to science magazines for years.)

 The cost to subscribe to the digital version of the Washington Post is $40 a year. You can get the first year of the New York Times for a dollar a week. Whether searching out climate information or not, these publications contain exciting articles.

The Guardian is also a good source if you want science-based journalism for free.

In short, if you want to read and understand more about current climate events, these are places to read articles by professional journalists. I am proud I filled a knowledge gap for five years. Today any curious citizen can access good information from the Washington Post, the New York Times, or the Guardian.

Here is a recent informative article printed by the New York Times:

"The Clean Energy Future Is Arriving Faster Than You Think."

Search it out and see the quality and depth of work accessible from professional journalists.