HEADLINE: "Climate realism" stresses security, mitigation and resilience“
“The Climate Realism Initiative warns of massive threats to the U.S., while arguing the country's past approach focused on the wrong things.”
"Climate realism" stresses security, mitigation and resilience
facebook (opens in new window)
twitter (opens in new window)
linkedin (opens in new window)
email (opens in new window)
An ambitious new effort to reframe the U.S. approach to climate is taking a sledgehammer to shibboleths on the left and the right.
Why it matters: The Climate Realism Initiative warns of massive threats to the U.S., while arguing the country's past approach focused on the wrong things.
The big picture: The initiative "says two things that almost never get uttered in the same sentence," said Varun Sivaram, director of the new Council on Foreign Relations program.
"I think climate is a grave national security threat on the level of all-out war," he said ahead of today's launch.
"On the other hand, I don't actually think that spending a trillion dollars on reducing American emissions expensively and not very intelligently is the right policy response."
Driving the news: Sivaram, a former top aide to Biden-era U.S. climate diplomat John Kerry (among other gigs), just penned an essay that sets the stage for the seven-figure program.
It warns of "fallacies" including:
Thinking that Paris temperature targets are achievable.
Thinking that cutting U.S. emissions can make a meaningful difference, noting the U.S. will be roughly 5% of future cumulative emissions this century.
Believing that climate change poses manageable risks to U.S. prosperity and security.
What's next: His piece argues U.S. policymakers should brace for warming of at least 3°C this century. The country must prepare for the migration, security and resilience ramifications.
Other parts of the "realism" doctrine that centers U.S. economic and security interests include:
Focus on industries where the U.S. will have an edge, like next-gen geothermal, advanced nuclear, and solid-state batteries — and work to disseminate this tech globally.
Elevate climate as a top national security priority.
Develop and test geoengineering.
The doctrine also says advanced economies should use trade tools that penalize nations with large, fast-rising emissions.
State of play: It brings together established names in wonk-world, such as David Hart, Lindsay Iversen and Alice Hill.
Sivaram tells Axios that the approach isn't pegged to the Trump administration, which largely rejects the problem of climate change.
"Tomorrow, the Trump administration is probably not going to make a complete about-face and agree that climate poses deep national security threats to the United States," he said, though he adds that some work will continue quietly.
But in the long run — and even within the next couple of years — the initiative's framing can "make climate palatable to administrations of both parties," he said.
Sivaram stressed in our interview that he was speaking and writing for himself, and that different scholars taking part will have different views.
But overall, the new program isn't interested in tinkering at the margins on policy and the overall theory of the case.
BOTTOMLINE: I don't actually think that spending a trillion dollars on reducing American emissions expensively and not very intelligently is the right policy response."
the overton window is moving back in the right direction. soon we will end up at the truth. c02 is good for the environment and we need more of it not less. It is cover for encroachment on rights and changing the political and social structures towards authoritarianism.