Weathering the future

There is one damaging way the recent election made history. It was the first time since 1984 that climate change was not even mentioned during any of the presidential or vice-presidential debates. The general discourse surrounding the election lacked acknowledgement of the severity of climate change as well as potential problem-solving tactics to be supported in the future.

In reference to this void, Candy Crowley, who moderated the second presidential debate, said during post-debate coverage, “I had that question for all of you climate change people. We just, you know, again, we knew that the economy was still the main thing so you knew you kind of wanted to go with the economy.”

Not only am I disappointed to see the economy dwarf the importance of climate change within political discourse, but I’m appalled by how the issue can be marginalized into an interest only for “you climate change people.” If anything, the past month has been a rude awakening for everyone to the expansive and encompassing effects of climate change. As Hurricane Sandy blasted through New England, it took more than 100 lives and left eight million without power. Economic losses are estimated to be as high as $50 billion. It’s obvious that storms aren’t singly caused by climate change, but climate change is definitely worsening their size and scale. Eric Pooley, senior vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund offered an illuminating baseball analogy: “We can’t say that steroids caused any one home run by Barry Bonds, but steroids sure helped him hit more and hit them farther. Now we have weather on steroids.” Because oceans are now warmer, there is more energy available for gathering storms, and the warmer atmosphere holds more moisture, exacerbating the intensity of natural disasters.

In addition to worsening natural disasters, another deleterious effect of climate change is rising ocean levels, which pose a global threat. In Bangladesh, a particularly vulnerable area, rising sea-levels are predicted to directly affect more than 3 million people by 2050. In a worst-case scenario, Bangladesh is predicted to lose nearly 25 percent of its land area within this century.

The presidential candidates didn’t mention climate change in the debates, but they did discuss energy independence, sparring over who would best be able to oversee increases in energy sources, including coal, oil and natural gas. “We have increased oil production to the highest levels in 16 years,” said President Obama. Of course it’s beneficial for our economy that we’re becoming less dependent on the Middle East, but if the impact of climate change was properly acknowledged, then we would shift more to alternative energy innovation, not just energy independence that still relies on fossil fuels. The discussion of energy within the debates revolved around job creation, not the solvency of our environment. In addition, foreign policy discussions would necessarily reflect on the impact of climate change, given the magnitude of its effect in places like Bangladesh, Egypt and the Philippines.

Personally I don’t invest my time and energy into solving climate change. I’m definitely more likely to discuss the effect of poverty or fiscal policy—or economic welfare, more generally—on people’s utility and livelihood. But I need to see these issues as hugely dependent on our global environmental situation. Microfinance in Bangladesh can only alleviate poverty so long as the country is not facing a massive destabilization due to climate change. New York City can only be one of the financial capitals of the world if it does not have to continually deal with disasters like Hurricane Sandy. These statements are so obvious, yet our current political problem-solving has not given appropriate weightage to the seriousness and severity of climate change.

It’s much easier to discuss the problems than the solutions here. Climate change still lacks a breakthrough technology. Health and medicine underwent massive improvements in sanitation and pharmaceutical technology. Computer technology has been dramatically changed in recent decades by the introduction of the Internet and information technology. The world is infinitely more connected through the explosion of cell phones and social media. But climate change is still seeking some sort of transformative breakthrough, and it is possible there isn’t going to be one. Either way, though, the issue needs more research, more political movement and more attention from all of us. It’s not a ballooned national debt that I’m afraid of leaving for my posterity, but rather a beaten environment.

Rajlakshmi De is a Trinity senior. Her column runs every other Tuesday. You can follow Rajlakshmi on Twitter @RajDe4.