John Kerry’s imminent departure as America’s Climate Ambassador allows us to reassess the US government’s climate change strategy. Unfortunately, the track record isn’t excellent. Despite years of tireless advocacy and gadding about at international summits, US efforts yielded little more than eloquent speeches and aspirational pledges; no wonder Ambassador Kerry is frustrated and disappointed. So, why has meaningful progress remained elusive even to an accomplished politician and diplomat such as John Kerry?
The chasm between climate realities and everyday lives is partly the answer. For many, the connection between their carbon footprint and extreme weather events feels distant and abstract. While increasing numbers of Americans acknowledge the fundamental connection between carbon emissions and climate change, many grapple with the sacrifices demanded by rapid decarbonization – potential job losses, higher energy costs, and altered lifestyles. Importantly, these Americans are fertile ground for Trump and his acolytes, who have no reservations about exploiting such fears for political benefit. So, if environmental advocates feel that not sufficient progress is being made today, let’s consider the future of climate change action under a Trump Presidency. Barbara Tuchman observed that an action “qualifies as folly when it is a perverse persistence on a policy demonstrably unworkable or counter-productive.”
To make this even more complex, the elephant in the room is shared responsibility. To the U.S. politician, business owner, and voter, making significant commitments to decarbonize feels unjust while major emitters like China and India stay on the sidelines. (Multiply that feeling ten times for leaders in smaller developing countries experiencing the brunt of climate change. They’re looking to industrialized and industrializing countries to provide the funding necessary to adapt to climate change and control global emissions.)
We need a different approach. A multi-pronged strategy that acknowledges the complexities prioritizes resilience and other forms of adaptation, fosters effective collaboration, expands resource options, and minimizes impacts upon the US economy.
Trust in environmental advocates further erodes when pronouncements of pain-free decarbonization collide with economic realities. Finally, energy security remains a paramount concern. U.S. natural gas has allowed Europe to manage through the loss of the Russian gas supply, so much for eliminating fossil fuels now.
We need a different approach. A multi-pronged strategy that acknowledges the complexities prioritizes resilience and other forms of adaptation, fosters effective collaboration, expands resource options, and minimizes impacts upon the US economy.
Instead of chasing aspirational near-to-mid-term carbon reductions, let’s prioritize protecting Americans from the climate crisis already upon us. Investing in robust infrastructure – upgraded civil infrastructure including bridges, roads, water treatment plants, resilient power grids, and public buildings designed to address protracted heat and cold events – would safeguard lives and property, create jobs, and stimulate the economy. As we make these investments, in parallel, let’s chart a long-term path to significant decarbonization, which permits us to take advantage of advanced technologies, such as Small Nuclear Reactors (SMRs) and other technologies that require more time to scale and implement than intermittent wind and solar.
Finally, let’s move beyond global conferences’ cumbersome, often futile pronouncements. UN conferences have yielded limited concrete commitments and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, according to the IPCC. Toothless agreements and endless negotiations must take second place to make real progress. Instead, focus on forging targeted, bilateral, and multilateral agreements with key players like China and India, critical to reducing global carbon emissions.
However, we must recognize that this will be difficult since climate change is just one of many significant issues that must be resolved. This shift may seem pragmatic, even incremental, but tangible action is better than aspirational pronouncements. It recognizes the need for resiliency while pursuing decarbonization with strategic pragmatism and collaborative spirit.
John Kerry’s departure should be an opportunity to turn the page on US climate/energy policy. Let’s make it a catalyst for a comprehensive review of US climate strategy and changing direction. The Biden Administration has a unique opportunity to reframe climate action, prioritizing Americans’ well-being while navigating the complex geopolitical landscape. Let’s move beyond rhetoric and towards real progress, building a sustainable future increasingly resilient to climate impacts and fostering US energy, economic security, and environmental security. The time for action is now.
