New climate change resolution presents short-sighted policies

Solution proposals from advocacy groups lack comprehensive data, whole truth



Climate change is an issue, but many advocacy groups neglect of the economic facts.

SAAD NABIL ALI, Evergreen columnist

Climate change advocacy groups need to present all the facts before they suggest solutions. The national debate on climate change has certainly polarized many people along economic and ideological lines.

The City Council of Pullman met Tuesday, Aug. 28 to discuss Resolution No. R-70-18 involving a federal carbon pricing policy.

The resolution was proposed by the Citizens’ Climate Lobby of the Palouse to “encourage the Council to consider doing their part by supporting a resolution to mitigate impacts caused by carbon to our natural resources, food security, public health, quality of life and our economy,” according to the meeting minutes.

City Supervisor Adam Lincoln had requested council feedback which postponed approval of the resolution to a future meeting.

I’m certainly no climate change denier, and it would be questionable to suggest the contrary, but many climate change groups neglect the whole truth when it comes to presenting solutions.

Most groups lack comprehensive data on the rate at which the climate is changing, how much change is attributable to the U.S. and what every country can do to mitigate this rate without severe economic ramifications.

When considering that there is no consensus in the scientific community about the rate at which the climate is changing, the lack of comprehensive data is rather telling.

Such instances could be found in a new study by climatologist Judith Curry and independent researcher Nicholas Lewis. The study, substantiated by Journal of Climate, refuted the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s initial global temperature forecasts by as much as 45 percent, reports the Daily Wire.

The other complications in relation to the U.S. and overall global mitigation climate change advocates face are fairly intertwined, presenting many socioeconomic implications to dealing with climate change.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the overwhelming majority of global greenhouse gas emissions, 65 percent, can be attributed to fossil fuel and industrial processing. The EPA also reports the U.S. contributes to 15 percent of these emissions, second only to China.

The numbers are rather misleading here, however, when considering the size of the United States and its population.

The U.S. actually ranks 14th among the world’s carbon emitters on a per capita basis according to the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center.

This is demonstrative of a prosperous America that has the economic resources and sustainability while also maintaining a willingness to facilitate discussions about what we can do to continue mitigating our impact on the climate. Other countries are not so fortunate.

There are currently five countries that are completely dependent on fossil fuels for their energy, according to the World Atlas: “The consumption rate seems to be rising most sharply in developing economies with or near rich oil reserves, such as India and Singapore, over the last 10 years.”

It’s worth mentioning the World Atlas doesn’t even rank the U.S. among the top 50 countries whose energy use is dependent on fossil fuels.

Ultimately, climate change proposals and carbon pricing policies such as Citizens’ Climate Lobby of the Palouse’s proposal don’t fully consider the economic impact their resolution will have on developing countries.

In doing so, advocates are omitting countries that are thriving on globalization to give credence to the notion that government regulations in the U.S. are in the interest of everyone.