ο»ΏOne of the problems I think there is with climate change, is it’s discussion has become fraught with self-evident truth. The assumption is that if you believe in the science of climate change, that itβs self-evident that you must believe in radical action to address it. You canβt be numb to human suffering after all, can you? Maybe so.
I am a believer in science, but at the same time, Iβm a practical person. Infrastructure take decades to evolve, and while we should do more to reduce the carbon intensity of our society, and ultimately work towards the goal of reducing emissions, I donβt think the necessary reductions to fully limit the worse impacts of climate change is even realistic. Instead of planning to do what we can do to limit the worse impacts of climate change, we should look more broadly at what we can do to reduce the harm more broadly both by reductions in emissions and adapting our infrastructure.
Many of the impacts of climate change are well studied. When we are upgrading or repairing damaged infrastructure we most certainly should look at the science and work to minimize future harm. We obviously should not be building new large coal plants, and building new renewable generation were ecologically appropriate. We should continue to improve the efficiency on new automobiles and appliances, and work to expand the electric automobile and transit fleet where practical.
Society needs a measured approach β not ignorance but also realistic goals and plans that can be adopted as we upgrade and continue to modernize our infrastructure.
The average yearly high temperature is the average of daily high temperature throughout the year in New York State. A cold weather climate state, the average high temperature is between 35 and 55 degrees depending on what part of the state you are in. It is on average 20 degrees warmer in New York City then in the High Peaks of the Adiroondacks. This interactive map can be zoomed in see the average temperature where you live in the state.
Data Source: This coverage contains data representing areas (polygons) of Average Temperature for the period 1971-2000. The data has been converted from grids to polygons. Purpose: Display and/or analyses requiring spatially distributed Average Temperature for the climatological period 1971-2000. From the The PRISM Group at Oregon State University. https://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/GDGOrder.aspx?order=QuickState
When people say they support something to pollsters its often difficult to capture their depth of support. Most people would say they like chocolate ice cream but asked if they would be willing to forfeit $100 for a chocolate ice cream cone would pass on the ice cream.
On paper most people would like something to be done about climate change. But their depth of support is equally shallow as is there support for chocolate ice cream. It sounds nice to protect the planet for future generations, to avoid the severe damage to infrastructure and our homes and businesses that increased severe weather is to impose on them.
People like climate change action if it’s free to them and has no impact on how they live their lives. Slap a few solar panels on your roof, scrub your plastic bottles before tossing them in the blue bin, drive your Prisus to Wally World. But not so much if it means much higher energy bills, less reliable electricity, more restrictions on driving, less low cost products at the store and fewer jobs.
I think many on the left are correct to diagnose climate change as a serious problem. But they are quite happy to live as life of fiction, pretending that the solutions are zero cost – or just a big bill they can dump on the rich.
The other day I was curious to see how much of New York State would be underwater if the sea rose by 300 feet. While Long Island and New York City, along with towns along the Hudson River would be heavily impacted, much of the state would remain dry with 300 feet of sea rise.
