Truthout - C.J. Polychroniou*
 |
| The
Earth's climate is being radically modified by human action, creating a
very different planet, one that may not be able to sustain organized
human life in anything like a form we would want to tolerate. (Photo: Asia Development Bank / Flickr) |
How serious of an issue is climate change?
Does global warming really threaten human civilization? Can it be
reversed, or is it already late?
In this exclusive interview for Truthout, two scholars, Noam Chomsky,
one of the world's leading public intellectuals, and Graciela
Chichilnisky, a renowned economist and climate change authority who
wrote and designed the carbon market of the Kyoto Protocol, concur on a
few key points. First of all, global warming and climate change
constitute the greatest challenge facing humanity, and may pose an even
greater threat to our species than that of nuclear weapons. Secondly,
the operations of the capitalist world economy are at the core of the
climate change threat because of over-reliance on fossil fuels and a
perverse sense of economic values. Thirdly, the world needs to adopt
alternative energy systems as quickly as possible. And finally, it is
crucial to explore technologies to assist us in reversing climate change
-- as time is running out.
C. J. Polychroniou: A consensus seems to be emerging among
scientists and even political and social analysts that global warming
and climate change represent the greatest threat to the planet. Do you
concur with this view, and why?
Noam Chomsky: I agree with the conclusion of the
experts who set the Doomsday Clock for the Bulletin of Atomic
Scientists. They have moved the Clock two minutes closer to midnight --
three minutes to midnight -- because of the increasing threats of
nuclear war and global warming. That seems to me a credible judgment.
Review of the record shows that it's a near miracle that we have
survived the nuclear age. There have been repeated cases when nuclear
war came ominously close, often a result of malfunctioning of
early-warning systems and other accidents, sometimes [as a result of]
highly adventurist acts of political leaders. It has been known for some
time that a major nuclear war might lead to nuclear winter that would
destroy the attacker as well as the target. And threats are now
mounting, particularly at the Russian border, confirming the prediction
of George Kennan and other prominent figures that NATO expansion,
particularly the way it was undertaken, would prove to be a "tragic
mistake," a "policy error of historic proportions."
As for climate change, it's by now widely accepted by the scientific
community that we have entered a new geological era, the Anthropocene,
in which the Earth's climate is being radically modified by human
action, creating a very different planet, one that may not be able to
sustain organized human life in anything like a form we would want to
tolerate. There is good reason to believe that we have already entered
the Sixth Extinction, a period of destruction of species on a massive
scale, comparable to the Fifth Extinction 65 million years ago, when
three-quarters of the species on earth were destroyed, apparently by a
huge asteroid. Atmospheric CO2 is rising at a rate unprecedented in the
geological record since 55 million years ago. There is concern -- to
quote a statement by 150 distinguished scientists -- that "global
warming, amplified by feedbacks from polar ice melt, methane release
from permafrost, and extensive fires, may become irreversible," with
catastrophic consequences for life on Earth, humans included -- and not
in the distant future. Sea level rise and destruction of water resources
as glaciers melt alone may have horrendous human consequences.
Graciela Chichilnisky: The consensus is that climate
change ranks along with nuclear warfare as the top two risks facing
human civilization. If nuclear warfare is believed to be somewhat
controlled, then climate change is now the greatest threat.
As difficult as it is to eliminate the risk of nuclear warfare, it
requires fewer changes to the global economy than does averting or
reversing climate change. Climate change is due to the use of energy for
industrial growth, which has been and is overwhelmingly based on fossil
fuels. Changing an economic system that is bent on uncontrolled and
poorly measured economic growth and depends on fossil energy for its
main objectives, is much more difficult than changing how nuclear energy
is used for military purposes. Some think it may be impossible.
Virtually all scientific studies point to increased temperatures since 1975, and a recent story in The New York Times
confirms that decades-long warnings by scientists on global warming are
no longer theoretical as land ice melts and sea levels rise. Yet, there
are still people out there who not only question the widely accepted
scientific view that current climate change is mostly caused by human
activities, but also cast a doubt on the reliability of surface
temperatures. Do you think this is all politically driven, or also
caused by ignorance and perhaps even fear of change?
Chomsky: It is an astonishing fact about the current
era that in the most powerful country in world history, with a high
level of education and privilege, one of the two political parties
virtually denies the well-established facts about anthropogenic climate
change. In the primary debates for the 2016 election, every single
Republican candidate was a climate change denier, with one exception,
John Kasich -- the "rational moderate" -- who said it may be happening
but we shouldn't do anything about it. For a long time, the media have
downplayed the issue. The euphoric reports on US fossil fuel production,
energy independence, and so on, rarely even mention the fact that these
triumphs accelerate the race to disaster. There are other factors too,
but under these circumstances, it hardly seems surprising that a
considerable part of the population either joins the deniers or regards
the problem as not very significant.
Chichilnisky: Climate change is new and complex. We
don't have all the answers. We are still learning how exactly the Earth
reacts to increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases. We know it leads to
warming seas which are melting the North and the South Poles, rising and
starting to swallow entire coastal areas in the US and elsewhere, as
the New York Times article documents. We know that the warming rising
seas will swallow entire island nations that are about 25 percent of the
UN vote and perhaps at the end, even our civilization. This realization
is traumatic and the first reaction to trauma is denial. Since there is
some remaining scientific uncertainty, a natural response is to deny
that change is occurring. This is natural but it is very dangerous.
Signs of a poorly understood but treatable house fire requires action,
not inaction. While denial leads to certainty, it is only the certainty
of death. This is true for individuals and also for civilizations.
Political parties often take advantage of denial and fear in a moment
of change. This is a well understood phenomenon that often leads to
scapegoat-ism: blaming outsiders, such as immigrants, or racial and
religious minorities. The phenomenon is behind Brexit and the violence
in the political cycles in the US and EU. After denial comes anger and
finally, acceptance. I think some are still between denial and anger,
and I hope will reach acceptance, because there is still time to act,
but the door is closing fast.
In global surveys, Americans are more skeptical than other people around the world over climate change. Why is that? And what does it tell us about American political culture?
Chomsky: The US is to an unusual extent a
business-run society, where short-term concerns of profit and market
share displace rational planning. The US is also unusual in the enormous
scale of religious fundamentalism. The impact on understanding of the
world is extraordinary. In national polls almost half of those surveyed
have reported that they believe that God created humans in their present
form 10,000 years ago (or less) and that man shares no common ancestor
with the ape. There are similar beliefs about the Second Coming. Senator
James Inhofe, who headed the Senate Committee on the environment,
speaks for many when he assures us that "God's still up there and
there's a reason for this to happen," so it is sacrilegious for mere
humans to interfere.
Chichilnisky: The "can do" logic, by its own nature,
does not accept limits. And an empire does not have a graceful way to
evolve out of this role. History demonstrates this time and again.
Trying to conserve a privileged global position makes change traumatic
for the US.
The first reaction to trauma is denial, as I explained, then comes
anger and finally, acceptance. I think the US is still between denial
and anger, and I hope we will reach acceptance because almost
perversely, right now, only the US has the technology that is needed for
global economic change.
Recent data related to global emissions
of heat-treating gases suggest that we may have left behind us the
period of constantly increased emissions. Is there room here for
optimism about the future of the environment?
Chomsky: There is always room for Gramsci's
"optimism of the will." There are still many options, but they are
diminishing. Options range from simple initiatives that are easily
undertaken like weatherizing homes (which could also create many jobs),
to entirely new forms of energy, perhaps fusion, perhaps new means of
exploiting solar energy outside the Earth's atmosphere (which has been
seriously suggested), to methods of decarbonization that might,
conceivably, even reverse some of the enormous damage already inflicted
on the planet. And much else.
Chichilnisky: This is good news, it is a step in the
right direction. But the road is miles long and the first step, while
necessary, does not determine success. It is far from enough. The
problem that few people appreciate and was only recently observed in the
IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] data is that CO2 stays
hundreds of years in the atmosphere once emitted. It does not decay as
particles or sulfur dioxide does. We have used the majority of our
carbon budget and we are already at dangerous levels of CO2
concentrations, about 400 parts per million. The levels were 250 before
industrialization. So the problem is what we have done already and,
therefore, what must be undone.
According to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC, page 191, in
most scenarios we now have to remove the CO2 we emitted. These emissions
were recent, mostly since World War II -- 1945 -- which was a turning
point of the world economy. This was the era of US dominance and of
globalization based on over-extraction of natural resources from poor
nations and overconsumption of those same resources by the rich
industrial nations. The era of galloping increase of wealth by the very
few and the even faster galloping and record inequality and poverty in
the world economy as a whole. This is the divide between the [global]
North that houses 18 percent of the global population and the [global]
South that houses over 80 percent.
Given that change in human behavior happens slowly and that
it will take many decades before the world economy makes a shift to new,
clean(er) forms of energy, should we look toward a technological
solution to climate change?
Chomsky: Anything feasible and potentially effective
should be explored. There is little doubt that a significant part of
any serious solution will require advances of technology, but that can
only be part of the solution. Other major changes are necessary.
Industrial production of meat makes a huge contribution to global
warming. The entire socioeconomic system is based on production for
profit and a growth imperative that cannot be sustained.
There are also fundamental issues of value: What is a decent life?
Should the master-servant relation be tolerated? Should one's goals
really be maximization of commodities -- Veblen's "conspicuous
consumption"? Surely there are higher and more fulfilling aspirations.
Chichilnisky: We seem to have no alternative. I
would like to say that the problem could be solved by green energy
sources. However, they can no longer solve the problem: many studies
have demonstrated that the long-run solutions, such as planting more
trees, which are critical to human survival, and adopting cleaner forms
of energy, which are the long-run energy solution, cannot be utilized in
the timescale that matters. That is the problem. Technology is a
many-headed monster and perhaps it would be better to regress to a safer
past and avoid technological change; it is tempting to think like that.
But UN studies have shown that even if we planted a tree on every
square yard available in the planet by the end of the century we would
only capture at most 10 percent of the CO2 we need to reduce. This does
not mean that we should not plant trees; we should, for biodiversity's
sake, and for our long-term future together with the other species.
Trees and clean energy [are] the long-run solution but we have no
time to wait for the long run. We need a short-run solution now, and one
that encourages and facilitates the transition to the long-run
solution. This is the technology that IPCC proposes, to remove CO2
directly from air. I cofounded a company called Global Thermostat that
uses the heat and the power from clean and fossil energy sources, such
as solar plants and wind farms, to remove CO2 from air. It provides a
short-run solution that facilitates and accelerates the advent of the
needed long run.
Many in the progressive and radical community, including the
Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), are quite skeptical and even
opposed to so-called "geo-engineering" solutions. Is this the flip side
of the coin to climate change deniers?
Chomsky: That does not seem to me a fair assessment.
UCS and others like them may be right or wrong, but they offer serious
reasons. That is also true of the very small group of serious scientists
who question the overwhelming consensus, but the mass climate denier
movements -- like the leadership of the Republican Party and those they
represent -- are a different phenomenon altogether. As for
geoengineering, there have been serious general critiques that I think
cannot be ignored, like Clive Hamilton's, along with many positive
assessments. It is not a matter for subjective judgment based on
guesswork and intuition. Rather, these are matters that have to be
considered seriously, relying on the best scientific understanding
available, without abandoning sensible precautionary principles.
Chichilnisky: The remedy could be worse than the
disease. Certain geoengineering processes have been proposed that could
be very dangerous and must be avoided. Geoengineering means changing the
Earth's fundamental large-scale processes. We know little of the
consequences of the geoengineering process, such as spraying particles
into the atmosphere that shade the planet from the sun's rays and could
decrease its temperature. But this process is how dinosaurs disappeared
from the Earth about 60 million years ago, by particles spewed by a
volcano or a giant meteorite impact, and our species could follow suit.
The sun is the source of all energy on planet Earth and we cannot
experiment with our only energy source. Changing the world's oceans to
increase their uptake of CO2, as other geoengineering solutions propose,
is equally dangerous, as the increased resulting acidity of the oceans
kills tiny crustaceans, such as krill, that are the basis of the pyramid
of life on the planet as we know it.
What immediate but realistic and enforceable actions could or should be taken to tackle the climate change threat?
Chomsky: Rapid ending of use of fossil fuels, sharp
increase in renewable energy, research into new options for sustainable
energy, significant steps toward conservation, and not least, a
far-reaching critique of the capitalist model of human and resource
exploitation; even apart from its ignoring of externalities, the latter
is a virtual death knell for the species.
Chichilnisky: Here is a plan consisting of realistic
and enforceable actions that can be taken now to tackle the climate
change threat: We have to remove the CO2 that the industrial economy has
already emitted, which otherwise will remain in the atmosphere for
hundreds of years and alter the Earth's climate irreversibly. It is
possible to do this. The technology now exists to remove carbon directly
from the atmosphere and is proven, very safe and inexpensive. This new
technology works by taking the CO2 directly from pure air -- or a
combination of industrial sources and pure air -- using as a power
source not electricity, but mostly the inexpensive heat that is residual
of most industrial processes. The CO2 removed from air is stabilized on
earth by selling it for useful commercial purposes with a benefit. CO2
from air can replace petroleum: it can produce plastics and acetate, it
can produce carbon fibers that replace metals and clean hydrocarbons,
such as synthetic gasoline. We can use CO2 to desalinate water, enhance
the production of vegetables and fruit in greenhouses, carbonate our
beverages and produce biofertilizers that enhance the productivity of
the soil without poisoning it. Carbon negative technology is absolutely
needed now as reported by the UNFCCC [United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change] Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC, p.
191, and also in four articles of the 2015 Paris Agreement.
Is there a way to predict how the world will look like 50
years from now if humans fail to tackle and reverse global warming and
climate change?
Chomsky: If current tendencies persist, the outcome
will be disastrous before too long. Large parts of the world will become
barely habitable affecting hundreds of millions of people, along with
other disasters that we can barely contemplate.
Chichilnisky: It is easier to create the future than
to predict it. Right now we must implement the requirements of the UN
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the UN Kyoto Protocol, as
well as the Paris Agreement recommendations: immediately we must remove
the CO2 we have already emitted from the planet's atmosphere and extend
the Kyoto emission limits. This is the only possible alternative in most
scenarios to catastrophic climate change. This can and must be done.
The funding provided by the Kyoto Protocol Carbon Market could build
carbon negative power plants in poor nations. Carbon negative power
plants can provide energy while they overcome poverty and change
economic values in the right direction.
The UN carbon market, which is international law since 2005, will
produce a much needed change in global economic values. The change in
economic values created by the new markets for global public goods will
reorient our global economy and under the right conditions can usher the
satisfaction of basic needs of the present and of the future. This is
what is needed right now. We need to support our future instead of
undermining human survival. Let's do it.
*C.J. Polychroniou is a political
economist/political scientist who has taught and worked in universities
and research centers in Europe and the United States. His main research
interests are in European economic integration, globalization, the
political economy of the United States and the deconstruction of
neoliberalism's politico-economic project.
Links
