How to Prevent Climate Disasters

The world has made more progress in the fight against climate change than you might imagine.

Emissions of greenhouse gases have been falling for about 10 years in the US and Japan, and longer in Europe. More recently, they have started to fall in Brazil and Russia. A decade ago, the world was on track to warm to around 7 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century. Today, the number is closer to 5.5 degrees.

Unfortunately, this progress is still not enough to avoid devastating results, scientists say.

The current scientific consensus is that the world should keep warming to no more than 2.5 to 3 degrees Fahrenheit (or about 1.5 degrees Celsius). Even that will cause substantial damage. But anything else could be catastrophic, with more deadly floods, wildfires, and heatwaves, as well as destroyed communities, animal extinctions, and the potential for geopolitical chaos.

How can the world get from where it is to where it needs to be?

That’s the focus of a two-week UN conference in Glasgow that began yesterday, which included President Biden and other world leaders. (Here’s the latest coverage from the Times.)

I think it is useful to think that the climate solution has two main parts. They are interconnected and are the subject of today’s newsletter.

First, the wealthy nations of the world will need to accelerate their shift from polluting energy sources like coal and oil. This acceleration will have to be substantial, but it is not too difficult to imagine.

It does not depend on great scientific advances, however welcome they are. It can happen to a large extent with existing technologies, such as wind, solar and nuclear power and the electrification of vehicles.

For the United States to do its part, greenhouse gas emissions would have to fall 50 percent below their 2005 levels by the end of this decade. That may seem overwhelming, but emissions are already down about 19 percent from 2005. Without more action, they are on track to decline 23 percent.

As Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts, co-author of the Green New Deal, told me, “We’re at second base and people don’t even realize it.”

Finishing the job will still require significant changes. The climate provisions in the legislative framework that Biden announced last week would make a big difference, granting consumers and businesses tax credits to use clean energy sources.

Using Markey’s baseball analogy, Biden’s plan would bring the United States closer to third base. From there, the federal government would likely need to regulate pollution more aggressively, while states, local governments, and businesses would have to take their own actions. Everything is feasible but hardly guaranteed.

The biggest obstacles are political. Almost all Republican members of Congress oppose meaningful action to curb climate change, putting them at odds with scientists and conservative parties in many other countries. Republican Supreme Court Appointments Can Make The Job Harder blocking climate regulation. And several key Democrats, notably Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, have at times opposed pollution cuts to protect local industries.

Europe has made more progress than the United States, but it faces its own challenges. A recent surge in electricity prices in Europe, part of rising inflation worldwide, has led to some discontent with the continent’s shift to green energy. as my colleagues Melissa Eddy and Somini Sengupta describe.

This chart makes clear why the actions of rich countries are so important:

Some high-income countries, including the US, remain among the world’s biggest polluters per capita.