there’s a new flashpoint to drive profits in the political war on climate.

michael shellenberger’s controversial new book, “apocalypse never: why environmental alarmism hurts us all,” describes how “climate change has been polarized between those who deny it and those who exaggerate it.”

there’s no denying that climate is a polarizing political issue. like abortion, guns, and immigration, climate is one of four wedge issues many partisan power-brokers never want to resolve. by amplifying every extreme assertion by either side, professional manipulators can keep republican and democratic voters far apart, in opposing media silos, where they can hate on each other. shellenberger’s new book not only documents the divide, but intensifies it.

that’s not all his fault. let’s face it: politics and media demand that climate change be cast as either a full-on catastrophe or a cynical hoax. to generate attention, print and online publishers tell environmental writers to hover close to one of these two hotspots. if we want to sell books or generate headlines, we need to stay as close to the heat as we can — even if that means falling into the sun and being devoured.

it seems odd to have to say this, but climate change is a looming catastrophe, scientists overwhelmingly agree. that other ecological problems may be even worse is no cause for comfort. we have an abundance of riches — if our objective is to sell the prospect of catastrophe. 

but solving environmental problems requires rational action, not panic or denial. shellenberger is right in one respect: crisis or not, our movement’s overwhelming focus on imminent disaster is not helpful if we want to actually avert disaster. constant gloom-and-doom exhausts our supporters, funds our opponents, and makes the war on climate change so profitable to cynical political and media manipulators that they’d prefer to risk the end of the world, rather than sacrifice a crisis they can exploit for years.

the result is a big setback for effective action before catastrophe is upon us.

we contemplated a similar strategy when we began writing our new book. to sell our case for bipartisan climate solutions, we could either pander to the right with an attack on fear-mongering, or pander to the left by attacking skepticism and denial. instead, we took the riskier approach: tell a more complicated truth that doesn’t fit either narrative or congratulate either side. 

our book, “in this together,” is not another shocking expose of the conniving left-wing statists or evil right-wing corporatists that must be stopped. it is an honest look at how to end the politically co-opted, media-friendly “war for the planet,” and save the environment instead.

such earnest objectives grate on the nerves of most sophisticated political observers. like the boy scouts and league of women voters, bipartisan efforts like ours seem quaint, quixotic, and hopelessly naive. as veteran climate journalist david roberts wrote of one of our favorite initiatives, the bipartisan climate leadership council, “this is the way of the very sensible centrist, an american political creature that rarely produces tangible results, but always garners heaps of praise. many center-left dems view it as the sine qua non of politics. but it’s utterly disconnected from anything going on in u.s. politics right now. it’s a fantasy, a trip to la-la land. it amounts to a kind of enforced naivety that centrists too often mistake for virtue.”

roberts is a fine journalist, but his political analysis is self-defeating. true, centrist solutions are dead-on-arrival in today’s political industry. they are a threat to the gridlock that maximizes revenue for lobbyists, pollsters, communicators, media, and the elite strategists who keep voters divided so they keep their policy-making power. so long as climate protection is owned by one party, it will forever be held hostage for political gain. rational policy will never be rational politics. only competition between the parties — a battle for how and not whether to solve the problem — makes saving the world a sensible political strategy.

the political war on climate change — pitting progressives against conservatives — pays off quite nicely for the entrenched partisan power-brokers who keep us fighting. they make money by selling protection to vested interests. the best way to drive demand for protection is to create danger. by keeping the left and right in battle, each side intensifying the hatred and extremism of the other, they not only dominate the policymaking process — they also harvest an abundance of risk that they can deliver to their clients, and squeeze vested interests for maximum profits.

the only losers are, in the end, everybody.

here is the simple truth we all know. climate change is real. it is human-caused. and combined with devastating destruction of oceans, forests, and biodiversity, it is a threat to our prosperity, security, and lives — if not today, then soon, by any reasonable standard.

the political media industry has set a trap for all sides in the climate debate, and every one of us has fallen in. we’re engaged in a war that leads only to more war. the $17 billion our donor friends have allocated for climate and ocean protection won’t end the hostilities — it will drive even more dollars to our opposition, and push resolution further into the future. ultimately, our endless war will turn a potential catastrophe into a real one — no matter how long it takes.

there is one way out, but it’s so radical few will entertain it. end the war. join forces with past enemies. engage in radical collaboration.

more than 7 in 10 of us can come to agreement even on the most divisive wedge issues. the political party that appeals to that 70% first will win most every race they enter — no need to raise and spend billions with that level of support.

let’s end the war and save the planet.

here are 10 traps environmental donors and activists are lured into, and ideas on how to free ourselves to get the job done:

mistake no. 1: selling catastrophe 

it seems to work every time. catastrophes blamed on evil villains generate more money and media coverage, compared with narratives of hope and optimism. but these benefits come with hidden costs. catastrophism exhausts our support base. it numbs the public to our calls-to-arms. it alienates those concerned but not alarmed.

a better way: cultivate hope and optimism. optimism does not raise as much money or media coverage, but it rejuvenates and broadens our base. and new methods of digital outreach can multiply the power of optimistic problem-solvers. 

mistake no. 2: demonizing too many enemies 

demonization builds opposition to our proposals. every dollar devoted to demonization generates an opposition dollar. the more demons we target, the more enemies we attract. corporate leaders are trapped in the debt-and-consumption machine, just as much as you and i are. they exploit it, as do we, and they profit more than most of us. but they can’t change it alone.

a better way: the enemy isn’t corporations, capitalism, government, or consumers. the enemy is the entrenched system that drives overproduction and overconsumption. we’re all part of that system. we need to engage stakeholders across the system to understand our mutual struggles and work together for change.

mistake no. 3: speaking only to the left 

the right and left are natural partners. their differences are real, but resolvable—and often complementary.

trying to persuade conservatives to adopt progressive points of view is often futile.

a better way: speak with conservatives in their own language. understand their worldview. respect their desire to protect what we have. develop policy options that reflect their priorities. it won’t generate as much media, and the power brokers will threaten to abandon you, but that’s the cost of earning broad support.

mistake no. 4: dismissing conservation and stewardship 

the left, believing that people are selfless and nature is supportive, tends toward a preservationist agenda that treats humans as invaders of nature. hunters, fishers, farmers, and ranchers are often regarded as enemies of nature, when considered from this point of view.

the right, believing that people are selfish and nature poses risks, tends toward a conservationist agenda that treats humans as stewards of the land. hunters, fishers, farmers, and ranchers are good stewards who love the land and know it more intimately than most coastal progressives. they are the overlooked half of the environmental movement, only recently being rediscovered.

a better way: celebrate hunters and fishers. learn how many farmers and ranchers are shifting to regenerative agriculture. their forebears fed ours for millennia. invite them to be central players in reducing damage to nature.

mistake no. 5: condemning climate denial 

a wedge has been driven deep between the right and left because it’s profitable for the media and political industries. the fear and hate they are generating is extreme. we feed into it, when we focus on fear, and drive hatred of our adversaries, even those who deny climate change.

a better way: the best remedy for climate denial is respect for conservative principles and acknowledgment that overconsumption threatens both our ecological and economic foundations. denial will dissipate when our solutions are economically sustainable.

mistake no. 6: aligning tightly with democrats 

over 70% of the public is with us. aligning with either party turns our majority into a minority. it makes victory impossible. any cause or community dependent on just one party is a slave to that party. the democratic party will delay effective climate action until after the next election. there is always a next election. the only way to win is with a bipartisan coalition.

a better way: grow an authentic bipartisan coalition where conservatives are free to advance their ideas for meeting the climate crisis, without sacrificing the economy. challenge conservative donors to join the cause, and match their commitments to climate actions that respect conservative principles.

mistake no. 7: opposing corporatism with statism 

big corporations have too much-concentrated power. the federal government does too. corporations and governments grow together. conveniently, the warrior left fights corporate power by building government power, while the warrior right fights government power by expanding corporate power. power brokers on both sides just smile.

a better way: use markets before mandates. support effective corporate campaigns. mobilize activists and consumers to avoid companies that aren’t part of the solution. when companies step up, reward them, with clear positive recognition their competitors will notice. above all, use prices to prevent pollution. support revenue-neutral carbon prices, as advocated by groups like climate leadership council and citizens climate lobby.

mistake no. 8: just buying access and influence 

it’s tempting to play the inside game, and buy access and influence so politicians will vote for clean energy. some of this will likely be necessary. but too much can backfire in two ways. first, the cost of democracy will rise. when clean energy bids up the cost of access, their competitors can match their bids. the result is a more expensive stalemate. second, the inside game is rigged in favor of the entrenched. it’s not just the fossil fuel sector that’s opposing change. it’s hundreds of powerful players and the political pros who take their money. they can overwhelm any team we field. our democracy is rigged to resist change, not encourage it. buying access can protect past gains, but it can’t win many new ones. 

a better way: end-run the power-brokers. invade from two directions at once. organize the left and right together.

mistake no. 9: suing the bastards 

fossil fuels aren’t like tobacco. they helped build the industrial economy, overcome the depression, and defeat fascism. they spawned the technologies that can gradually replace them. suing the tobacco industry didn’t destroy tobacco. it simply drove the industry into less democratic nations. it feels good to sue the bastards. but it just creates more bastards.

a better way: stop creating bastards. challenge fossil fuel companies to put real resources behind their commitments — lobbying resources that can shift the republican party’s position on climate, and compel democrats to collaborate on real solutions. champion bp for its historic shift from energy products to energy services — a business model that could change everything. support the carbon pricing proposals of exxonmobil and conocophillips — a policy coalition that could break the stalemate.

mistake no. 10: declaring war on climate change 

war is supposed to be the last resort. but we’ve made it the first. war is built into our political genes. whenever we’re serious about attacking a problem, we declare war on it. we’ve declared wars on poverty, cancer, drugs, terror, and hunger. now we’ve launched a war on climate change. wars are profitable for media and campaign strategists, but they rarely solve problems. and the war to save climate is doing just the opposite. it is exhausting our base, discouraging recruits, and increasing the size and power of opposing armies. climate change is not a challenge that can be won by war. its systemic cause is an economy and culture addicted to overconsumption. the remedy is the very opposite of war. we need to come together to create, not destroy.

a better way: stop the war. start creating. engage capitalists, activists, conservatives, progressives, and libertarians. explore solutions that apply the best ideas from all of them. end-run the debt-and-consumption machine. create evolutionary change.

what can you do to help?

you can start by signing our declaration of interdependence. then let’s compete as our founders intended, to bring the best of the right and left together, meet the climate challenge, and move america forward.

—

about the authors:

trammell s. crow is a dallas, texas-based businessman, philanthropist, entrepreneur and innovative leader in business development and operations. he is the founder of earth day texas, and is on the center for climate and energy solutions (c2es) board of directors.  

bill shireman is a social entrepreneur, environmental policy innovator, and rare san francisco republican. he brings together people from all sides of the political spectrum. he is president of the nonprofit future 500 and teaches leadership and negotiations at the uc berkeley haas business school.

the proposal, which has garnered support from almost all of the major democratic candidates, draws inspiration from the original new deal. just as the new deal the proposal is not just one piece of legislation but a series of new laws and programs to help combat climate change and social inequality by bringing in new jobs and infrastructure.

political divide

the green new deal, unsurprisingly has shown a divide between democrats and republicans. in a survey done by aei political research in january, 73% of democrats said the climate crisis should be a top priority while only 31% of republicans agreed. there is even more data that can be seen from aei that was used in a report by forbes.

perhaps the biggest doubter of the green new deal senate majority leader mitch mcconnell has gone as far to say it is “out of touch with the working american” and is a “socialist ideal.” the kentucky senator continued his verbal criticism of the plan after it was voted down by congress when he went on to call the proposal “nonsense.” according to a report by cnbc. the gop has been quoted as saying this proposal will drastically affect our day to day lives in areas from transportation to food consumption. and some republican politicians and pundits have stretched the truth when it comes to what exactly the green new deal will do. 

despite speaking out against the green new deal, adversaries of the proposal have yet to offer an alternative plan.

working with americans 

the proposal plans to work with american farmers, and the green new deal also puts americans to work by creating new jobs. their plan proposes moving away from jobs that involve earth’s limited resources, like fossil fuels, and encourages jobs in growing industries, such as wind or solar. 

ocasio-cortez has been adamantly defending her proposal, saying people in the lower and middle class need it the most.

“you want to tell people that their concern and their desire for clean air and clean water is elitist?” she said in a report by business insider. “tell that to the kids in the south bronx, which are suffering from the highest rates of childhood asthma in the country.” 

the green new deal also proposes to help clean up the waste that has been left behind from years of companies and citizens getting rid of their waste in hazardous ways. the proposal also intends to strengthen the clean water and air acts — something that many democratic candidates want to do as well — adding on to the revising of old pieces of legislation. there also are plans to update infrastructure and pipes to provide cleaner water.

one of the biggest concerns coming from the conservative side of the spectrum is that the proposal will take away jobs from americans working in factories or with companies that rely on coal, oil, and other not-so-clean sources of energy. however, the green new deal includes a plan that would transition those workers into jobs involving cleaner forms of energy, like solar or wind.

the green new deal has shown us all one thing: climate change is becoming more and more prevalent in our lives. with no precedent on how to deal with a looming crisis this large, it is hard to say what is and is not over the line. no matter what, ocasio-cortez has defended her proposal.

“forty years of free-market solutions have not changed our position,” ocasio-cortez said in march, as reported by nbc news. “so this does not mean that we change our entire structure of government, but what it means is that we need to do something. something!”

washington––democrats and republicans had opposing views on the value of coal to the u.s. economy thursday, with democrats calling for more environmental controls and republicans stressing how essential coal is to the energy infrastructure.

democrats at the house subcommittee on energy and mineral resources hearing worried that companies that mine on federal land are not paying their fair share, and that the environmental and social consequences of coal are not being properly considered.

republicans spoke about the success of the program in job creation and how indispensable coal is to the energy infrastructure of america.

the federal coal program is a bureau of land management program that allows private companies to mine coal on federal land. the companies bid for the rights to use the land and pay the government a fee for the land and the coal extracted and a royalty on the coal that is sold. the program is predominantly found in western states like wyoming and was integral in the powering of america throughout the 20th century.

now, critics say the program needs to be modernized and reformed to reflect the true cost of relying on this part of the fossil fuel industry.

subcommittee chair rep. alan lowenthal, d-calif., said the program “ignores the effects of coal on our climate and the future of americans who are losing their livelihoods as coal disappears. these are two things that i’m most focused on.”

but arizona rep. paul gosar, the top republican on the committee, stressed the importance of coal to the u.s. economy. “coal mining is essential to american energy security, providing an affordable, reliable source of baseload power to families across the country,” gosar said. “coal mining also employs over 53,000 people, including regions of the country experiencing economic hardships, like appalachia.”

the differences in focus laid out in gosar and lowenthal’s opening statements were present throughout the hearing. for the few democrats who were present during the hearing, like rep. jared huffman, d-calif., questions environmental and social problems related to mining and the industry. most of those questions were directed at jim stock, an economics professor at harvard and a member of former president barack obama’s council of economic advisors.

“in recent research, i and co-authors estimate that 92% of the decline in coal from 2008 to 2016 is due to the decline in natural gas prices,” stock said. he added that mine closings and consolidation “demonstrate that market forces are driving the decline of coal, despite the many pro-coal actions taken by (president donald trump’s) administration.”

for republicans, the focus was on questioning hal quinn, president and ceo of the national mining association. quinn echoed gosar and other republican’s views that coal is a job creator and a significant part of the country’s energy future. he called the federal coal program a “national and economic success story” and disagreed with the 2016 obama-era decision to place a moratorium on the program.

while the differences across the aisle were clear, lowenthal articulated the shared goal of wanting to learn more and properly address the coal program moving forward. “we could do this in the same haphazard way that we’ve managed the federal coal program over the past few decades,” he said. “or we can consider phasing out the federal coal program in a reasonable, thoughtful way that protects workers, guarantees mine cleanup, and addresses climate change.”

in addition to writing about climate change, deaton also runs a website called climate chat, which aggregates research on climate change communication. climate chat began as his thesis project in grad school at gw, and now he uses it to keep people informed on the latest research, sending monthly updates via a newsletter.

we recently spoke to deaton about how to overcome the struggles in communicating the gravity of climate change and why climate change denial is a problem in the u.s. 

q: generally, how informed is the american public on climate change and climate issues?

a: i would say that the public is not as informed as scientists and advocates would hope it is. when you look at what people think of the causes of climate change, we are at the point where a little more than half of americans say that humans are causing climate change. but when you break that question down and ask, “do you think humans are the sole cause? do you think humans are the primary cause? do you think that humans are causing climate change, but also nature is causing climate change?” — that is a lot more confusing. and it seems that not enough americans understand that humans are the primary driver of warming. 

q: do the american people have an understanding of the mechanism behind climate change? it can be a relatively abstract concept at times, and what is your feeling on americans understanding of this?

a: i think that people, generally, have a pretty vague understanding of the mechanism of climate change. i think they understand that industrial pollution– pollution of carbon from cars and trucks and planes and factories and power plants–is making the earth warmer. but if you ask people to name as many greenhouse gasses as they can, i imagine that people might say co2, but they wouldn’t get to methane or hydrofluorocarbons or some of the other more obscure gases.

but i also don’t think it’s really important that americans understand the mechanism of climate change. i don’t think they need to understand the nitty-gritty of the science. i think they need to understand the basics — that pollution from cars and trucks and planes and factories and power plants, pollution from agriculture — from specifically raising livestock — pollution from deforestation is warming the planet, and that is a catastrophic risk. 

q: while only 5% of americans, in recent polling, fully deny climate change is occurring. why is there still a relatively large chunk of americans who are not willing to pin climate change on human activity? what do you think the root cause for that is? are there things that are causing that?

a: let me break that answer down into a couple of parts. one, i think it is tempting to divide climate change deniers into these many different groups, depending on what their specific views are… i think it is functionally fine to just group together anyone who denies that climate change is an overwhelming problem that requires an immediate and drastic response. you can just put them all together. if someone acknowledges that the planet is warming but denies that we need to do anything about it, that is functionally the same as someone denying that the planet is warming. 

as for why people would deny the need for drastic action for climate change, i think the answer is tribalism. for 30 years now, fossil fuel companies have been aligning with conservative politicians and conservative media to persuade conservative americans that climate change is a liberal conspiracy to create a global government, and you have gotten to the point where climate denial is a shibboleth for conservative politicians. membership to this group is now contingent upon denying the need to take drastic action to address climate change. it is really hard to change that. it is completely entrenched, and is really hard to form a new norm, particularly when you have all these forces that are reinforcing the current norm. 

i think there has been a lot of time and attention and energy devoted to trying to convert conservatives on climate change. the environmental movement has spent a lot of time and energy and money on that cause in the last couple of decades. and i think that energy would be better devoted to trying to mobilize people who are already inclined to care about the problem. and i think that the movement we’ve seen in public opinion in the last few months or last year, where you see more americans caring about climate change, and it has risen in importance among liberals and democrats, i think it has to do with the fact that you see more movement on the left.

you have charismatic politicians like (alexandria ocasio-cortez) who are making this an issue. you have advocates like the extinction rebellion that are making this an issue, and you are pulling from the left, and it’s having an effect on the whole spectrum of public opinion. you see progressives care about it more, and you see swing voters starting to pay attention. and, as a result, you’ve got republicans starting to — or at least trying to — sound sensible on climate change. mitch mcconnell acknowledges that it’s a thing. i don’t think he should get any credit for that, but i think that it is a result of pulling from the left.     

q: if drastic measures are necessary to make the impact that needs to be made to save the planet and try to mitigate as many problems as possible, wouldn’t you need that percentage of people on the right to be on board, especially when it comes to policy?

a: i think that in our system of government you need consensus to make policy, because of the way electoral votes are distributed across the country and what you need to win a presidential election and because of the way the senate works. you have to win in conservative-leaning states and you have to persuade people in conservative-leaning states because in the senate, at least currently and for the foreseeable future, you need 60 votes to pass anything.

so when i look at that, and i consider that fact, one conclusion you could draw would be that environmental advocates need to win over conservatives. now i think that is a reasonable conclusion, but i think that that is actually much harder than trying mobilizing progressives, mobilizing people to care about this problem. our system of government may be such that it is difficult to pass policy without bipartisan cooperation, but it is easier to imagine democrats taking unified control of government and passing climate policy than it is to imagine that conservatives will come along with that policy.   

q: we talked about what you believe should be done when it comes to tackling this problem of acceptance of the problem and understanding of the problem on a macro level, what about on a micro level? let’s say you are going to thanksgiving and your more conservative family members are there, and climate change comes up. what do you think the best way to deal with a situation like that? you are addressing someone face to face instead of a constituency or instead of a whole population, what would you suggest someone do?  

a: first, i would say, i wouldn’t get your hopes up. even if you are able to persuade someone to care about climate change — and there are a lot of conservatives who do — climate change still ranks pretty low as an issue for conservatives. they are going to vote on issues like terrorism, or fears of immigration, or concerns about national security, and those issues will likely supersede any concerns they have about climate change.

that doesn’t mean you can’t try. if you are going to try, then the way to do it is to make climate change a local and personally relevant problem. there is a lot of research that, in particular, points to the efficacy of highlighting the health risks of climate change.

let’s say you live in arizona, and you have historic heat waves, record-setting heat waves, that are making life miserable and are also a life-threatening risk for elderly people, and the infirm, and children. and those heat waves also make pollution worse, and that pollution is a threat to children. it’s a threat to your kids. it raises the risk of asthma, or it exacerbates existing asthma, those are the kinds of arguments that resonate with people.

one thing i would add to that is that there is a temptation to think that extreme weather on its own is going to change minds about climate change, that when people see and experience severe storms, drought, wildfires, heat waves, that they will be converted by virtue of their experience. but the research tends to suggest that extreme weather does not have a lasting impact on public opinion. people may be more concerned for a short time, but that is not going to convert them over the long term.

the things that do convert people are the efforts of advocates, cues from political elites, and the volume and quality of news coverage. those are the things that tend to change minds. you can point out to that, “hey, scientists say that burning fossil fuels has made this heat wave worse, and is a threat to your health,” and that might make someone more concerned about climate change, but you can’t assume the heat wave will do that on its own. you have to consistently repeat the message. it has to be present in the mind of the person you are talking to. it has to be a salient concern for it to matter.  

q: what science is saying now is that we need to start taking drastic and immediate action, not just in our county, but around the world. do you think that the level of support for something that drastic is possible to get in the timeframe that it needs to happen?

a: i don’t know the answer to that. i am a bit pessimistic, but i will also say i have been surprised by the shift in public opinion the last few months and the last year. so it is certainly possible. but whether or not it is possible doesn’t really have any bearing on what advocates or elected officials do. it has to be done, and we have to make every effort to persuade the public and persuade policymakers… we have no other choice.

q: the first democratic debate was last night, and there was a question about climate change, but there has been some criticism that climate change should be the first and biggest issue that anyone running for president should be addressing, because of the gravity of it. do you think that the issue of climate change should be more elevated in the current campaigns and current political discourse?  

a: yes, absolutely. i think there are moral reasons for that, as you suggested. climate change is the defining issue of our time. it is the biggest issue. it is the literal end of the world, and it is the thing we should be talking about more than anything else. it is also an issue that encompasses every other issue. it is an issue of public health and national security and inequality and injustice and so forth.

in addition to the moral argument, there is a pragmatic argument. across several polls and according to different methods of trying to determine what is important to democrats, we find that climate change is the number two or three ranked issue. it’s something democratic voters want to talk about. it is something democratic voters care about.

at the first debate, i think that moderators waited more than an hour to ask the first question about climate change, and the questions weren’t great. they were questions that tend to focus on the politics of climate change instead of the policy of climate change. i think that journalists who are going to be asking politicians about climate change, particularly in a debate setting, should understand this is something that democratic voters want to talk about. 

i like to do a little thought experiment sometimes when i think about the news coverage of climate change. we know that climate change is a problem that threatens the health and safety and lives of hundreds of millions of people — billions of people over generations. and we know that it is a problem that demands a world war ii-scale mobilization to solve. that’s a comparison scientists have used again and again. so we have a problem on the order of world war ii. are we talking about this problem the way that we would talk about world war ii? are we talking about this problem the way we would talk about the threat of japanese imperialism or nazi fascism? no, and we should be.

what would that actually look like? climate change would be the first question in the debate, and then the next 12 questions would also be about climate change, and they would be substantive questions about what candidates would actually do to solve the problem. 

the recent government shutdown’s effect on climate research could have unfortunate consequences in the near future, according to climate scientists.

all but one of the 200 researchers at the national oceanic and atmospheric administration were furloughed for 35 days, which put at risk data sets that help federal, state, and local governments prepare for natural disasters and inform policymakers about climate risks.

during the shutdown, updates to climate and hurricane models were halted. researchers did not have access to their computers, even to work on projects with non-government partners. missing data could lead to incorrect projections on issues like clean water, air pollutants and the public health impacts of climate change, according to andrew rosenberg, the director of the center for science and democracy at the union of concerned scientists. he said the importance of government researchers’ work tends to be underestimated.

“people think ‘oh, they just start again in a couple of months. what difference does it make?’ but that’s not really how science works,” rosenberg said.

an environmental protection agency report on coastal conditions is delayed due to the shutdown and could be missing data that can only be collected during the winter. but that’s not the only concern.

“air pollutants change seasonally,” rosenberg said. “so if you’re not collecting seasonal data on pollutants then you may have a hole in the data series. that means our predictions of pollutants may degrade, which means our prediction of public health impacts may degrade.”

the epa also plays an important role in monitoring the emergence of diseases like the zika virus, including paying attention to environmental conditions in which diseases thrive and identifying new potential viruses. the shutdown could leave policymakers underprepared for any potential outbreaks, according to rosenberg.

“they are monitoring the environmental conditions that allow diseases to emerge,” rosenberg said, “they are monitoring new diseases that are coming on board, that are identified in conjunction with cdc and other organizations.”

the shutdown’s effect on climate change research also could affect u.s. leadership abroad on the issue, which already has been waning since president trump announced in 2017 he was pulling the u.s. out of the paris climate agreement.

at a recent hearing of the house committee on science, space and technology, chairwoman eddie bernice johnson questioned climate change researchers about the effects the shutdown had on the epa’s research.

dr. robert kopp, a climate science professor from rutgers university, said members of the epa were unable to attend international meetings on climate research, even remotely, which made the u.s. seem unreliable.

“if we are an unreliable partner in international collaborations that does make it harder for us to be a leader,” kopp said.

dr. jennifer francis, a scientist at the woods hole research center in massachusetts, cited similar concerns.

“there were several major scientific conferences that occurred during the shutdown and a large number of government employees were unable to attend and present the research that they had been working on for literally years,” francis said.

according to francis, there were also delays at the epa for processing proposals for new research, which will “delay the progress of science.”

“everything you’ve heard about climate change is driven by data and those data need to be collected,” said kristie ebi, a climate science professor at the university of washington. “you can’t make up data. you can’t go back and regenerate what you didn’t collect.”

unless the bank makes an unprecedented shift toward renewable energy, 2.4 billion people will face climate catastrophe. bank officials acknowledged this reality but refuse to act.

most of generation z lives in countries particularly vulnerable to future droughts, floods and extreme climate events in a world 2° c warmer. a world that the bank is almost ensuring through its continued finance of oil and gas projects in these countries through intermediaries and infrastructure that directly enables extraction. 

while most of my peers come from client countries of the bank, i do not. rather my country, the u.s., is the largest bank shareholder and thus has the most influence on the global development agenda. i feel compelled to speak up as a member of sustainus, u.s. youth advancing justice and sustainability. the u.s. has a big stake in whether the bank locks in runaway climate change or limits warming to 1.5° c. with annual investments totaling $60 billion, a staff of 10,000 spread across the world, and the explicit mission to end poverty, the bank has the resources, influence, and mandate to lead the way on climate change. yet, failed to fully divest from fossil fuels or set a portfolio emissions target that aligns with the 1.5° c goal.

i thought this would change when the ipcc report came out last month. i attended the annual meetings last month in indonesia to find out.

the report warns we must cut global carbon emissions 45% by 2030 and arrive at net zero emissions by 2050. this big shift is fully achievable but requires an unprecedented level of action. two days after the report came out, i stood in front of the board of executive directors and asked if they would heed these warnings. their responses confirmed my worst fear: the world bank will ignore the needs of my generation.

time and time again the bank confirmed their apathy. at the civil society roundtable executive directors pointed to their recent commitment to end finance for upstream oil and gas as sufficient. i followed up by asking “will the bank’s recent commitment to end financing for upstream oil and gas include financial intermediaries?” the most direct response i received was from germany’s executive director, dr. jürgen karl zattler, who stated that there was “not a clear objective” for the bank to monitor whether its financial intermediaries have links to oil and gas. in replying to another question on the ipcc report, executive director otaviano canuto from brazil shared, “what we can do is to raise our voice, not much else.”

the next day when asked the same question about divesting from fossil fuels, philippe le houérou, ceo of the world bank’s international finance corporation (ifc) — the bank’s private sector investment arm — responded, “let’s see if this works with coal first” and urged us to be “pragmatic.” i followed up: “as a young person, climate change is personal to me and my generation. i am really disappointed that you are not considering ending equity in financial intermediaries linked with oil and gas. i urge you to reconsider.” without ifc divestment, there will likely be less stringent exclusions on investing in financial intermediaries that are involved in ‘upstream’ oil & gas investments when the bank phases out project lending after 2019. in response to my statement, le houérou bowed his head and said, “i urge myself.”  

the ipcc report makes it clear that investments in fossil fuels, which will perpetuate extreme heat, drought, floods, and climate induced poverty for hundreds of millions of people, is not “pragmatic.” we also can guarantee le houérou that requiring new financial intermediaries to divest from coal overtime will “work,” in the sense that it will drive investments toward clean, renewable energy sources and protect our collective future. it is worth noting that this new ‘green equity approach’ is not even comprehensive because it does not address what should happen with legacy coal investments that the ifc has funded over the past decade. this includes the highly contested 19 coal plants under construction in the philippines that 100 citizen groups filed a complaint against last october.

the world bank has the capacity to do much more than “raise their voice” on climate change. the bank can and should completely divest its portfolio from fossil fuels, an action perfectly in line with its mandate to end poverty. in divesting from fossil fuels, the bank will be forced to turn its attention to investing in affordable, renewable energy. a majority of the 1.1 billion people worldwide who still lack access to electricity live in rural areas, where renewable energy is actually more cost effective than extending the main grid with oil and gas. right now, only 1% of global finance for energy access is allocated to decentralized renewable energy.

in the urgency of this moment on climate change, we cannot let financial institutions like the world bank continue to fly under the radar of public accountability. thankfully, i am not alone. i am part of the big shift global, a campaign coordinated by organizations from the global north and south campaigning for a shift in all public finance out of dirty fossil fuels into renewable energy that will bring clean power to people all over the world.

as the world bank determines the future of 2.4 billion members of my generation, i am making a final push. i am joined by my friends at sunrise movement who recently pushed the u.s. federal government to take action on climate change. we are looking for climate leadership.

already a group of over 40 vulnerable countries have committed to reach 100% renewable energy by 2050. my question is, will the world bank support them?

if the world bank stands ready to assist counties with their low-carbon transition efforts they should consider the following recommendations for inclusion in the forthcoming post-2020 climate goals made by civil society organizations in the big shift global campaign:

• commit to developing and adopting a science-based emissions target for world bank lending and operations

• improve the quality of the bank’s climate-related investments whilst scaling up both mitigation and adaptation finance

• increased finance for clean cooking, off-grid and mini-grid renewable energy access

• develop a policy for the exclusion of coal from the ifc’s financial intermediary (fi) investments and public disclosure of the fossil fuel exposure of ifc’s fi investments

• align the world bank infrastructure lending, guarantees and assistance with low- or zero-ghg pathways, and supporting development of countries’ strategies under the paris agreement (e.g.., ndcs and 2050 pathways)

• the development of a safeguard for development policy lending that contains specific measures to prevent ‘prior actions’ (e.g., loan conditions) that directly benefit fossil fuel or extractive industries

• ensure that world bank investments do not serve as a driver of deforestation

• ensure strong implementation of the world bank group’s commitment to end upstream oil and gas finance after 2019

access the full list of recommendations here.