Tackling climate change is an economic necessity as much as environmental
BY refusing to join with other world leaders and support the Paris Climate Change Agreement Donald Trump has not only demonstrated his lack of commitment to global issues but his short termism in relation to domestic ones. Climate change deniers are in the minority yet their power, as well as the vocal nature of their attacks, makes them a powerful group in politics. One of the key reasons for this is that there is a lot of money invested in industries which would be directly affected by a global consensus that climate change needed to be tackled. Ironically, however, it is their determination to maintain their own economic self-interests which could see them harming themselves even more in the long term.
There is some understandable dispute over how long we have left of fossil fuel reserves, with timescales varying depending on if it is based on declining, increasing or static usage, discovery and exploration of untapped resources etc. There is, or at least among most outside of the truly committed deniers, an understanding that fossil fuels are finite. It isn’t a question of “if” but “when” they will run out. For this reason, it shows that no matter what his rhetoric about “Making America Great Again” or “Bringing back jobs” President Trump is only looking at the duration of his own Presidency, not the long-term benefits for the country. Put simply, it does not make economic sense to deny climate change.
It would be hard to argue, with the news that Volvo has plans to produce only electric or hybrid cars by 2019 for example, that America could gain first mover advantage by embracing climate change initiatives, but it could still gain a significant market advantage by embracing renewable technology and moving away from a reliance on fossil fuels. Indeed, with more car manufacturers likely to follow Volvo’s example, as the public mood puts increasing pressure on them to provide more ecologically sound vehicles, the question of “when will fossil fuels run out” becomes secondary to “when will they start to lose price though lack of demand?” With this in mind it has moved the timeframe up on how long firms, particularly the oil industry, can avoid moving heavily into renewables. The precedent has already been set by big tobacco, which seeing that the vape industry was helping to shift the public away from cigarettes, has moved into the e-cig market and started to embrace the new opportunities it holds. The same principle holds true for other uses of fossil fuels, such as global energy production. in 2016 the UK generated more power from wind power than it did from coal, and this is liable to increase across other countries as the technology develops.
Reducing our dependency on fossil fuels is a crucial element of tackling climate change but it is one which the deniers are most vociferous in campaigning against. If we are to ensure that the US is brought back into agreement with the remaining G19 then appealing to the concept of providing a sustainable planet for the future is not going to work. Demonstrating that it is an act of economic self-harm which can be averted may, however, prove to be the key. Donald Trump, and those in the Oil, Coal and Gas industries who support him, may not show that they care about the future for the next generation but they most certainly worry about the future for their own wallets.
