opinion about climate change essay

Yale Program on Climate Change Communication

• About YPCCC
• Yale Climate Connections
• Student Employment
• For The Media
• Past Events
• YPCCC in the News
• Climate Change in the American Mind (CCAM)
• Publications
• Climate Opinion Maps
• Climate Opinion Factsheets
• Six Americas Super Short Survey (SASSY)
• Resources for Educators
• All Tools & Interactives
• Partner with YPCCC

Home / For Educators: Grades 6-12 / Climate Explained: Introductory Essays About Climate Change Topics

Climate Explained: Introductory Essays About Climate Change Topics

Filed under: backgrounders for educators ,.

Climate Explained, a part of Yale Climate Connections, is an essay collection that addresses an array of climate change questions and topics, including why it’s cold outside if global warming is real, how we know that humans are responsible for global warming, and the relationship between climate change and national security.

More Activities like this

Climate Change Basics: Five Facts, Ten Words

Backgrounders for Educators

To simplify the scientific complexity of climate change, we focus on communicating five key facts about climate change that everyone should know. 

Why should we care about climate change?

Having different perspectives about global warming is natural, but the most important thing that anyone should know about climate change is why it matters.  

External Resources

Looking for resources to help you and your students build a solid climate change science foundation? We’ve compiled a list of reputable, student-friendly links to help you do just that!  

Subscribe to our mailing list

Please select all the ways you would like to hear from Yale Program on Climate Change Communication:

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. For information about our privacy practices, please visit our website.

We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By clicking below to subscribe, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing. Learn more about Mailchimp's privacy practices here.

Responding to the Climate Threat: Essays on Humanity’s Greatest Challenge

A new book co-authored by MIT Joint Program Founding Co-Director Emeritus Henry Jacoby

From the Back Cover

This book demonstrates how robust and evolving science can be relevant to public discourse about climate policy. Fighting climate change is the ultimate societal challenge, and the difficulty is not just in the wrenching adjustments required to cut greenhouse emissions and to respond to change already under way. A second and equally important difficulty is ensuring widespread public understanding of the natural and social science. This understanding is essential for an effective risk management strategy at a planetary scale. The scientific, economic, and policy aspects of climate change are already a challenge to communicate, without factoring in the distractions and deflections from organized programs of misinformation and denial. 

Here, four scholars, each with decades of research on the climate threat, take on the task of explaining our current understanding of the climate threat and what can be done about it, in lay language―importantly, without losing critical  aspects of the natural and social science. In a series of essays, published during the 2020 presidential election, the COVID pandemic, and through the fall of 2021, they explain the essential components of the challenge, countering the forces of distrust of the science and opposition to a vigorous national response.  

Each of the essays provides an opportunity to learn about a particular aspect of climate science and policy within the complex context of current events. The overall volume is more than the sum of its individual articles. Proceeding each essay is an explanation of the context in which it was written, followed by observation of what has happened since its first publication. In addition to its discussion of topical issues in modern climate science, the book also explores science communication to a broad audience. Its authors are not only scientists – they are also teachers, using current events to teach when people are listening. For preserving Earth’s planetary life support system, science and teaching are essential. Advancing both is an unending task.

About the Authors

Gary Yohe is the Huffington Foundation Professor of Economics and Environmental Studies, Emeritus, at Wesleyan University in Connecticut. He served as convening lead author for multiple chapters and the Synthesis Report for the IPCC from 1990 through 2014 and was vice-chair of the Third U.S. National Climate Assessment.

Henry Jacoby is the William F. Pounds Professor of Management, Emeritus, in the MIT Sloan School of Management and former co-director of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, which is focused on the integration of the natural and social sciences and policy analysis in application to the threat of global climate change.

Richard Richels directed climate change research at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). He served as lead author for multiple chapters of the IPCC in the areas of mitigation, impacts and adaptation from 1992 through 2014. He also served on the National Assessment Synthesis Team for the first U.S. National Climate Assessment.

Ben Santer is a climate scientist and John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Fellow. He contributed to all six IPCC reports. He was the lead author of Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC report which concluded that “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate”. He is currently a Visiting Researcher at UCLA’s Joint Institute for Regional Earth System Science & Engineering.

Access the Book

View the book on the publisher's website  here .

Order the book from Amazon  here . 

Related Posts

E4: an introduction to hydrogen energy (re-air).

Understanding the Future of Critical Raw Materials for the Energy Transitio...

Using deep learning to image the Earth’s planetary boundary layer

Q&A: Claire Walsh on how J-PAL’s King Climate Action Initiative tackles t...

MIT Climate News in Your Inbox

Facts and opinions about climate change

By Richard C. J. Somerville , December 7, 2020

Carbon dioxide concentrations at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, by year. Source: Scripps Institution of Oceanography SIO

Editor’s note: This article is adapted from a public lecture for the Aquarium of the Pacific in Long Beach, Calif. [1]

When the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was founded, climate change science was in its infancy. There were no global climate models, no supercomputers, and no satellite remote-sensing data. Only a few visionaries understood that man-made increases in the amount of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) might cause large global climate changes. The definitive summary of atmospheric science in the decade after World War II was the Compendium of Meteorology , a large multi-authored volume published in 1951 by the American Meteorological Society. Its article on climate change, written by the distinguished British climatologist C. E. P. Brooks, reflects the prevailing expert opinion of that time.

The article began with this statement:

“In the past hundred years the burning of coal has increased the amount of CO 2 by a measurable amount (from 0.028 to 0.030 per cent), and Callendar (1939) sees in this an explanation of the recent rise in world temperature. But during the past 7,000 years there have been greater fluctuations of temperature without the intervention of man, and there seems to be no reason to regard the recent rise as more than a coincidence. This theory is not considered further.”

It is important to distinguish between facts and opinions. “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynihan , who said that, was a wise and accomplished American politician, sociologist, and diplomat. Like everybody, I know some facts, and I have some opinions. I will first summarize the facts that we have learned from the science of climate change. Then I will give some opinions about what people and governments should do.

I think any rational response to climate change involves first knowing what the facts and evidence are. That is the province of science. There are many indicators measured globally over many decades that show that the Earth’s climate is warming. All the indicators expected to increase in a warming world are increasing, and all those expected to decrease in a warming world are decreasing. It’s definitely warming. It’s not a hoax. We observe it and measure it. The atmosphere is warming. So is the ocean. Sea level is rising. Ice sheets and glaciers and snow cover are shrinking. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is increasing. Climate change is real and serious. It’s not a remote threat for the distant future. It’s here and now.

It’s us. We’ve done the detective work. Just as wildfire experts can say whether a fire was caused by lightning, or by a campfire accidentally left burning, or by arson, we can show what is now causing the world to warm. Yes, some past climate change was natural, like ice ages coming and going, but the warming we have observed in recent decades is clearly caused by human activities. The evidence for that is overwhelming.

We now know what paces the beginnings and ends of ice ages. It is slow changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, that alter how sunlight is distributed over the surface of the Earth. We understand these changes in the orbit, and they take thousands of years to have an effect. They cannot possibly produce the climate changes that we observe occurring in just a few decades. Similarly, we can rule out other natural processes, such as changes in the energy in sunlight. They are quantitatively too small. Human activities, such as burning coal and oil and natural gas, are the dominant cause of the rapid climate change we now observe.

It hasn’t stopped. The warming is still continuing. We have good estimates of the global average temperature of the Earth’s surface from 1880 until the present; 1880 is about the time when we first had enough good thermometers located in enough places around the Earth to enable us to calculate a meaningful global average. The modern data is the most accurate. During about the last 50 years, from the 1970s until now, we know there has been a warming of about 1 degree Celsius, or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. All the warmest years on record are recent years.

The heat is mainly in the sea. Over 90 percent of the heat added to the climate system is in the oceans. How do we measure the heat stored in the ocean? That’s a good question, and it has a fascinating answer.

We now measure this increase in ocean heat content from an array of about 4,000 autonomous floats deployed throughout the world ocean under an international program called Argo . They have no engines and no propellers, but they move with the ocean currents at a depth of 1,000 meters, which is about 10 football fields. That’s where they are usually parked, and they are programmed to periodically sink another 1,000 meters lower and then rise to the surface while measuring quantities such as water temperature and salinity. They rise and sink by changing their volume. This is accomplished by pumping fluid into or out of a bladder on the float.

The floats store the measurements, and then, when they are on the surface, they locate by GPS and transmit the stored data via satellites to scientists. The change in float locations between one transmission and the next provides information on the currents at the depth where the floats were parked. As their batteries fail, the floats end their useful lives and must be replaced by new floats. The Argo floats have revolutionized our ability to observe the oceans. Argo data are available to everyone for free in near real time. New floats, allowing sampling to much greater depths, are now being developed.

Sea level is rising globally. We measure it from altimeters on satellites. There has been a rise of about 100 millimeters, which is about 4 inches, over the last 30 years or so. The rate of sea level rise is increasing too. Future sea level rise will be much greater than past sea level rise. The sea level rise is different at different locations on the Earth. Local sea level is affected by whether the land at that location is rising or sinking, and also by ocean currents, tides and other factors.

Ice is shrinking. Ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica and almost every glacier worldwide are all shrinking. We know this from satellite missions called GRACE (the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment ). These satellites determine the mass of the ice accurately by measuring the effect of the ice sheet on the Earth’s gravity. The technology of the GRACE missions involves two satellites in the same orbit which have a means of measuring the distance between the two satellites extremely accurately. This distance changes when gravity varies, which occurs when passing over ice sheets, and measuring the tiny change in the inter-satellite distance allows scientists to determine the mass of the ice.

Carbon dioxide absorbed by the ocean makes it more nearly acidic. That can affect the marine ecosystem and the food chain. The ocean absorbs some of the CO 2 that we emit into the atmosphere. Measurements show that the acidity parameter called pH is decreasing. Seawater is slightly basic (its pH is greater than 7), and we observe a shift towards neutral conditions (pH = 7), rather than to truly acidic conditions (pH less than 7).

Carbon dioxide amounts in the atmosphere, because of human activities, are now about 45 percent higher than they were in the early 1800s. We have good measurements of atmospheric CO 2 amounts over the last 800,000 years. These data come from analyzing fossil air trapped in ice in Greenland and Antarctica. They reveal large variations in CO 2 amounts, associated with ice ages starting and ending. Orbital variations pace the ice ages, causing the CO 2 amounts to change, and initiating a feedback that increases the magnitude of the temperature change.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now is the highest it has been in millions of years. The atmospheric CO 2 amounts in the even more distant geological past, many million years ago, sometimes have been even higher than at present, but the world was a very different place then, which was long before any human beings existed.

Cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide set the amount of warming. The warming caused by CO 2 in recent decades is, to a good approximation, just linearly proportional to the total cumulative amount of carbon emitted into the atmosphere. We do not know exactly how much added CO2 will produce how much warming—that is, the climate sensitivity question—but we can estimate a range of possible answers to this question, constrained by different kinds of observations. For the middle of the range, 1 trillion metric tons of carbon emitted produces a warming of about 2 degrees Celsius above the temperatures of the early 1800s. We have already emitted about half of this amount. At present, the warming we observe is caused by CO 2 plus several other heat-trapping substances that human activities have also added to the atmosphere. The amounts in the atmosphere of these other substances will decrease rapidly when and if their sources are eliminated, but some of the carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years. Because of the difference in the amount of time that different heat-trapping substances stay in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide is truly the key “control knob” for climate.

Reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping substances will limit the warming. We can estimate the cumulative amount of carbon emitted that would give us a good chance of limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius (that’s 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above the pre-industrial temperatures of the early 1800s. This is the warming target endorsed by the Paris Agreement of 2015. If emissions had peaked and began to decline several decades ago, then emissions reductions could be gradual, and by 2050 emissions would not yet need to have entirely stopped. Because emissions are still increasing, drastic emissions reductions need to occur quickly and reach zero by 2040.

“Negative emissions,” meaning removing some carbon dioxide from the air, are likely to be necessary. This fact illustrates the urgency of acting. Finding a way of removing some of the carbon dioxide is one approach to geoengineering. Here by “geoengineering” we mean the intentional modification of the climate system with the goal of reducing or mitigating climate change. However, nobody has yet demonstrated a way of economically removing large amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

The longer we wait before acting, the more drastic the action has to be. The result of failing to act is to increase the likelihood of dangerous climate change.

Because it takes so long for the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to decrease, climate change will last for centuries. After emissions completely stop, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere decreases only slowly for several centuries, and about 25 percent of it remains in the atmosphere for the next 10,000 years or so. The science relevant to this topic is not simple. Several complex processes for carbon removal are involved. The key take-away message is that the climate change caused by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere can have very long-lasting effects.

The conclusions I have just recounted are facts. They are fundamental findings from extensive scientific research. They are all well-supported by abundant evidence.

The science is never complete. There is always more to learn. But the science that we have now is already good enough to help us make wise decisions. The many unknowns in the science, such as exactly how fast the Antarctic ice sheet will shrink or exactly how El Niño might be affected, are not the biggest unknowns about future climate. The biggest unknown about future climate is human behavior. Everything depends on what people and their governments do.

The scientific consensus is overwhelming. Climate change is already happening, here and now. About 97 percent of climate experts—the scientists who are most active in carrying out and publishing research on climate change—agree that the observed recent warming is real and serious and overwhelmingly human-caused, and that it will become even more serious unless we make big changes in how we generate energy. Nevertheless, some people remain unconvinced. They continue to repeat climate myths and falsehoods.

People often ask me, “I’m only one person. What can I do about climate change?” Here is my answer. We need to persuade more people that this problem is serious. Governments tend to respond when enough people become concerned, and when they vote their concerns. I urge everyone to engage with people you may know—family, friends, colleagues—who don’t accept the fundamental findings of climate science. Explain to them the facts you have learned about our changing climate. Listen to them respectfully and carefully. Be alert to the common climate myths and falsehoods that they may think are true. If you see something, say something. Have a civil conversation. Have many conversations. In their hearts, almost all of us would surely agree that everybody is entitled to his own opinions, but not to his own facts. And it is science that supplies the facts about climate change.

We humans have become the dominant actors in causing the rapid climate change we now observe. Human actions now overwhelm all the natural processes. This may seem counter-intuitive, but it’s true. You and I, and all the people who are alive today, now have our hands on the thermostat that controls the climate of our children and grandchildren. Metaphors can be superb communication tools. The thermostat is a powerful metaphor.

Think about medical metaphors. Here are a few: We climate scientists are planetary physicians. Climate science and medical science will both always be imperfect and incomplete, but both are already very useful.

When your doctor tells you to stop smoking and lose weight and exercise more, you don’t argue with her. You don’t call her a radical alarmist. You don’t ask her to name the date when you will have a heart attack.

Physicians have advanced academic credentials and many years of training and experience. We climate scientists have the same. We’re not conspiring to fool people. Do you really think your doctor is a crook? She’s not. Neither are we.

A fever of only a few degrees can indicate a serious disease. Global warming is just a symptom of planetary ill health, like a fever.

Prevention is better than cure. Quitting smoking, like quitting using fossil fuels, is not easy to do. And the main benefits of quitting come in the long-term future.

Choosing to have major surgery involves cost and risk. People know that choosing to do nothing also has costs and risks.

The laws of climate science and medical science are all immune from political tampering. You can’t fool Mother Nature. Mother Nature always bats last.

Here’s an effective metaphor. Imagine you are watching a major-league baseball game. The slugger who is thought to be on performance-enhancing drugs hits a home run. The person next to you asks, did the steroids cause it? That’s really the wrong question. You can’t be sure they caused it, because he was already a big-league slugger when he was clean. And even with the drugs, he can still strike out now and then. But at the end of the season, you see in his statistics that he hit more homers than he used to. The steroids increase the odds of home runs. Climate is the statistics of weather, and carbon dioxide is the steroids of climate. [2] It changes the odds. The odds are higher now for all sorts of extreme weather, because climate change has altered the environment in which all weather occurs.

This metaphor works for other sports too. For example, baseball isn’t popular in France, but bicycle racing is very popular there, and French people know that a bike racer on drugs won’t win every race, but the drugs do change the odds and increase his probability of winning.

The main barriers to action on climate change are a lack of widespread political will and a lack of wise and inspiring leadership. Science can help to inform policy, but only concerned people and responsive, capable governments can first decide what policies are best, and then implement them. Today, despite a strong scientific consensus, climate change is controversial politically.

We do not have to accept a future with devastating climate damage and disruption. If we continue to use more and more fossil fuels to generate the world’s energy, we will be sentencing our children and grandchildren to many centuries with a severely damaged climate and great suffering. In your conversations, try to help people understand that this bleak future is entirely preventable.

Faced with these threats, almost all the nations of the world agreed in Paris in late 2015 to limit the warming to a specific maximum amount. That amount is 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, above the average global temperature in the early 1800s, before human activities began to have a large effect

After Paris, is the glass half-empty or half-full? I am guardedly optimistic, for these reasons:

• World leaders are now engaged; at least almost all of them are.
• Emissions of heat-trapping gases have begun to decline in some places.
• Solar and wind energy are getting cheaper every year.
• Renewable energy use is increasing rapidly.
• Many corporations are now acting to reduce emissions.
• State and local governments in the United States are acting too, despite federal inaction.
• Many other countries are showing rapid progress.

Recent polling shows that in the United States, many more people accept the science and are very concerned about global warming or climate change than was the case only a few years ago. However, the issue has become extremely partisan. Recent polls show that the substantial increase in the number of Americans calling climate change a top priority has been limited to the Democratic side of the political spectrum. However, about 80 percent of Republicans, including virtually the entire leadership of the Republican party, have not changed their minds and still reject the science. We have a long way to go. I think we should keep climate change science separated from climate change policy.

There is no silver bullet that solves all the challenges of climate change, but there is a lot of silver buckshot, including increased energy efficiency and energy conservation, and much more use of sun, wind and water to provide the energy the world needs. These renewable resources are widely available now and already cost-competitive with fossil fuels. We have the technology, and it is improving. In the United States, even without energetic action by the federal government, I am guardedly optimistic.

Market forces now favor carbon-free energy. Coal companies are going bankrupt. Solar and wind energy without subsidies are in many cases already cheaper than fossil fuels. Electric vehicles are happening fast. Much energy policy in the US is set at state and local levels, not in Washington.

Always remember why we want to have conversations about climate change science. We want to inform people. We want to motivate them. We want them to act.

Research suggests that messages that may invoke fear or dismay are better received if they also include hope. We should include positive messages about our ability to solve the problem. We can explain that future climate is in our hands.

Politics and priorities and values do have a role to play in deciding which actions are best, but any rational policy begins by accepting the science. People are entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.

This article is being written in 2020 during the global coronavirus pandemic, and I have a few gentle words to say about some climate change lessons that we might learn from the pandemic now gripping the entire world.

One obvious point is that climate change science, like coronavirus epidemiology, is incomplete, still developing but already extremely useful. In both domains, we have learned we can trust scientists more than politicians or pundits or anybody else who is not really an expert on the science of the subject, whether the subject is climate change or infectious diseases. We have also learned that the challenges in both climate change and the pandemic are global. The entire world is affected. The solutions have to be global too.

The pandemic also illustrates the wisdom of the statement that, “Everybody is entitled to his own opinions, but not to his own facts.” The facts about climate change, and about COVID-19, are objective truth, and they should be the same for everybody, regardless of people’s ideology or politics. When it comes to making policy, sound science can inform wise policy. However, policy can also depend on many other factors, such as people’s priorities, their convictions about economics, what they regard as the proper role of governments, their risk tolerance, and, of course, public opinion. That’s true for meeting the challenge of climate change, just as for meeting the challenge of COVID-19.

The pandemic reminds us how valuable science and scientists are. The recent discussions in the news—such as about how clinical trials of drugs and vaccines work—are very educational. The medical scientists who develop new medicines do their best to make sure they are safe and effective, and they won’t release them for widespread use to the public until they are absolutely convinced of that. They are real experts and are very careful.

So are climate scientists.

Tony Fauci, who has often been on television recently in the United States, is a good example of a person who is a real expert on pandemics. He says simply, “I’m a physician and a scientist.” People get that. When Fauci speaks to the public, he is not trying to be popular or make people happy or brag about himself or make money. He is just telling people the facts that scientists have discovered, and he describes these facts in a way that is honest and transparent and understandable. He has spent his entire career accumulating expertise and experience and wisdom about infectious diseases and pandemics. People should trust him, and polls show that the great majority of people do trust him. Science is absolutely essential. That’s true for pandemics.

It’s also true for climate change.

Like many interested people, I watched Warren Buffett’s 2020 Berkshire Hathaway stockholders meeting online. Warren Buffett, the brilliant investor and one of the richest people in the world, agrees with me. Here’s what he said:

“I think, personally I feel extraordinarily good about being able to listen to Dr. Fauci, who I had never heard of a year ago. But I think we’re very, very fortunate as a country to have somebody at 79 years of age who appears to be able to work 24 hours a day and keep a good humor about him and communicate in a very, very straightforward matter about fairly complex subjects and tell you when he knows something and when he doesn’t know something. So, I’m not going to talk about any political figures at all or our politics generally this afternoon, but I do feel that I owe a huge debt of gratitude to Dr. Fauci for educating and informing me, actually along with my friend Bill Gates, too, as to what’s going on. I know I get it from a straight shooter when I get it from either one of those. So, thank you Dr. Fauci.”

[1] See https://youtu.be/DmUWPn6GCEg

[2] See https://youtu.be/MW3b8jSX7ec

Together, we make the world safer.

The Bulletin elevates expert voices above the noise. But as an independent nonprofit organization, our operations depend on the support of readers like you. Help us continue to deliver quality journalism that holds leaders accountable. Your support of our work at any level is important . In return, we promise our coverage will be understandable, influential, vigilant, solution-oriented, and fair-minded. Together we can make a difference.

Keywords: Aquarium of the Pacific , GRACE , Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment , climate change facts , climate change metaphors Topics: Climate Change , Multimedia

• Copy link Linked copied

I have difficulty putting much stock in the opinion of a scientist who only points to CO2 emissions from fossil fuels as the cause of climate change and fails to mention deforestation and shrinking of mangroves around the world.

Richard C. J. Somerville

Richard C. J. Somerville is an internationally recognized climate scientist. He has been a professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at... Read More

ALSO IN THIS ISSUE

1947: How the American people feel about the atomic bomb

By Sylvia Eberhart

The edge of our existence: A particle physicist examines the architecture of society

By Yangyang Cheng

1992: What is to be done?

By Arthur C. Clarke

Interview: Siegfried Hecker on remembering history while planning the future of nuclear arms control

By John Mecklin

How to protect the world from ultra-targeted biological weapons

By Filippa Lentzos

1956: Science and our times

By J. Robert Oppenheimer

RELATED POSTS

“The world has already ended”: Britt Wray on living with the horror and trauma of climate crisis

By Jessica McKenzie

Why a mindset of stubborn optimism about the climate crisis is needed, now more than ever

By Christiana Figueres

Bill McKibben explains what individuals can do to win the climate fight. Together.

Introduction: What you can do to turn back the hands of the Doomsday Clock

By Dan Drollette Jr

Charging ahead: Steven Chu, Nobel Prize-winner and former Energy Secretary, on today’s battery research—and more

“Like writing the biography of a ghost”—Interview with Jeff Goodell, author of The Heat Will Kill You First

Bulletin daily.

How an obscure atmospheric phenomenon causes catastrophic flooding in California

By Chad Small

Could fossil fuel companies be charged with homicide?

By Kate Yoder

How India’s restructured rocket force makes conflict with China more likely

By Debak Das

One problem for renewables: Not enough rare earths. One solution: recycling. But there’s a hitch.

By Maddie Stone

The heat is on: Earth Day 2024 puts spotlight on plastics

The problem with decarbonization tunnel vision

By Peter Sutoris

How nongovernmental entities are tailoring their outreach to address nuclear escalation

By Clara Sherwood , Jamie Withorne

The enormous risks and uncertain benefits of an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities

By Assaf Zoran

Explore Greyhound Nation

• Loyola Today

Our Future Is Now - A Climate Change Essay by Francesca Minicozzi, '21

Francesca Minicozzi (class of 2021) is a Writing/Biology major who plans to study medicine after graduation. She wrote this essay on climate change for WR 355/Travel Writing, which she took while studying abroad in Newcastle in spring 2020. Although the coronavirus pandemic curtailed Francesca’s time abroad, her months in Newcastle prompted her to learn more about climate change. Terre Ryan Associate Professor, Writing Department

Our Future Is Now

By Francesca Minicozzi, '21 Writing and Biology Major

 “If you don’t mind me asking, how is the United States preparing for climate change?” my flat mate, Zac, asked me back in March, when we were both still in Newcastle. He and I were accustomed to asking each other about the differences between our home countries; he came from Cambridge, while I originated in Long Island, New York. This was one of our numerous conversations about issues that impact our generation, which we usually discussed while cooking dinner in our communal kitchen. In the moment of our conversation, I did not have as strong an answer for him as I would have liked. Instead, I informed him of the few changes I had witnessed within my home state of New York.

Zac’s response was consistent with his normal, diplomatic self. “I have been following the BBC news in terms of the climate crisis for the past few years. The U.K. has been working hard to transition to renewable energy sources. Similar to the United States, here in the United Kingdom we have converted over to solar panels too. My home does not have solar panels, but a lot of our neighbors have switched to solar energy in the past few years.”

“Our two countries are similar, yet so different,” I thought. Our conversation continued as we prepared our meals, with topics ranging from climate change to the upcoming presidential election to Britain’s exit from the European Union. However, I could not shake the fact that I knew so little about a topic so crucial to my generation.

After I abruptly returned home from the United Kingdom because of the global pandemic, my conversation with my flat mate lingered in my mind. Before the coronavirus surpassed climate change headlines, I had seen the number of internet postings regarding protests to protect the planet dramatically increase. Yet the idea of our planet becoming barren and unlivable in a not-so-distant future had previously upset me to the point where a part of me refused to deal with it. After I returned from studying abroad, I decided to educate myself on the climate crisis.

My quest for climate change knowledge required a thorough understanding of the difference between “climate change” and “global warming.” Climate change is defined as “a pattern of change affecting global or regional climate,” based on “average temperature and rainfall measurements” as well as the frequency of extreme weather events. 1   These varied temperature and weather events link back to both natural incidents and human activity. 2   Likewise, the term global warming was coined “to describe climate change caused by humans.” 3   Not only that, but global warming is most recently attributed to an increase in “global average temperature,” mainly due to greenhouse gas emissions produced by humans. 4

I next questioned why the term “climate change” seemed to take over the term “global warming” in the United States. According to Frank Luntz, a leading Republican consultant, the term “global warming” functions as a rather intimidating phrase. During George W. Bush’s first presidential term, Luntz argued in favor of using the less daunting phrase “climate change” in an attempt to overcome the environmental battle amongst Democrats and Republicans. 5   Since President Bush’s term, Luntz remains just one political consultant out of many politicians who has recognized the need to address climate change. In an article from 2019, Luntz proclaimed that political parties aside, the climate crisis affects everyone. Luntz argued that politicians should steer clear of trying to communicate “the complicated science of climate change,” and instead engage voters by explaining how climate change personally impacts citizens with natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and forest fires. 6   He even suggested that a shift away from words like “sustainability” would gear Americans towards what they really want: a “cleaner, safer, healthier” environment. 7

The idea of a cleaner and heathier environment remains easier said than done. The Paris Climate Agreement, introduced in 2015, began the United Nations’ “effort to combat global climate change.” 8   This agreement marked a global initiative to “limit global temperature increase in this century to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels,” while simultaneously “pursuing means to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees.” 9    Every country on earth has joined together in this agreement for the common purpose of saving our planet. 10   So, what could go wrong here? As much as this sounds like a compelling step in the right direction for climate change, President Donald Trump thought otherwise. In June 2017, President Trump announced the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement with his proclamation of climate change as a “’hoax’ perpetrated by China.” 11   President Trump continued to question the scientific facts behind climate change, remaining an advocate for the expansion of domestic fossil fuel production. 12   He reversed environmental policies implemented by former President Barack Obama to reduce fossil fuel use. 13

Trump’s actions against the Paris Agreement, however, fail to represent the beliefs of Americans as a whole. The majority of American citizens feel passionate about the fight against climate change. To demonstrate their support, some have gone as far as creating initiatives including America’s Pledge and We Are Still In. 14   Although the United States officially exited the Paris Agreement on November 4, 2020, this withdrawal may not survive permanently. 15   According to experts, our new president “could rejoin in as short as a month’s time.” 16   This offers a glimmer of hope.

The Paris Agreement declares that the United States will reduce greenhouse gas emission levels by 26 to 28 percent by the year 2025. 17   As a leader in greenhouse gas emissions, the United States needs to accept the climate crisis for the serious challenge that it presents and work together with other nations. The concept of working coherently with all nations remains rather tricky; however, I remain optimistic. I think we can learn from how other countries have adapted to the increased heating of our planet. During my recent study abroad experience in the United Kingdom, I was struck by Great Britain’s commitment to combating climate change.

Since the United Kingdom joined the Paris Agreement, the country targets a “net-zero” greenhouse gas emission for 2050. 18   This substantial alteration would mark an 80% reduction of greenhouse gases from 1990, if “clear, stable, and well-designed policies are implemented without interruption.” 19   In order to stay on top of reducing emissions, the United Kingdom tracks electricity and car emissions, “size of onshore and offshore wind farms,” amount of homes and “walls insulated, and boilers upgraded,” as well as the development of government policies, including grants for electric vehicles. 20   A strong grip on this data allows the United Kingdom to target necessary modifications that keep the country on track for 2050. In my brief semester in Newcastle, I took note of these significant changes. The city of Newcastle is small enough that many students and faculty are able to walk or bike to campus and nearby essential shops. However, when driving is unavoidable, the majority of the vehicles used are electric, and many British citizens place a strong emphasis on carpooling to further reduce emissions. The United Kingdom’s determination to severely reduce greenhouse emissions is ambitious and particularly admirable, especially as the United States struggles to shy away from its dependence on fossil fuels.

So how can we, as Americans, stand together to combat global climate change? Here are five adjustments Americans can make to their homes and daily routines that can dramatically make a difference:

• Stay cautious of food waste. Studies demonstrate that “Americans throw away up to 40 percent of the food they buy.” 21   By being more mindful of the foods we purchase, opting for leftovers, composting wastes, and donating surplus food to those in need, we can make an individual difference that impacts the greater good. 22   
• Insulate your home. Insulation functions as a “cost-effective and accessible” method to combat climate change. 23   Homes with modern insulation reduce energy required to heat them, leading to a reduction of emissions and an overall savings; in comparison, older homes can “lose up to 35 percent of heat through their walls.” 24   
• Switch to LED Lighting. LED stands for “light-emitting diodes,” which use “90 percent less energy than incandescent bulbs and half as much as compact fluorescents.” 25   LED lights create light without producing heat, and therefore do not waste energy. Additionally, these lights have a longer duration than other bulbs, which means they offer a continuing savings. 26  
• Choose transportation wisely. Choose to walk or bike whenever the option presents itself. If walking or biking is not an option, use an electric or hybrid vehicle which emits less harmful gases. Furthermore, reduce the number of car trips taken, and carpool with others when applicable. 
• Finally, make your voice heard. The future of our planet remains in our hands, so we might as well use our voices to our advantage. Social media serves as a great platform for this. Moreover, using social media to share helpful hints to combat climate change within your community or to promote an upcoming protest proves beneficial in the long run. If we collectively put our voices to good use, together we can advocate for change.

As many of us are stuck at home due to the COVID-19 pandemic, these suggestions are slightly easier to put into place. With numerous “stay-at-home” orders in effect, Americans have the opportunity to make significant achievements for climate change. Personally, I have taken more precautions towards the amount of food consumed within my household during this pandemic. I have been more aware of food waste, opting for leftovers when too much food remains. Additionally, I have realized how powerful my voice is as a young college student. Now is the opportunity for Americans to share how they feel about climate change. During this unprecedented time, our voice is needed now more than ever in order to make a difference.

However, on a much larger scale, the coronavirus outbreak has shed light on reducing global energy consumption. Reductions in travel, both on the roads and in the air, have triggered a drop in emission rates. In fact, the International Energy Agency predicts a 6 percent decrease in energy consumption around the globe for this year alone. 27   This drop is “equivalent to losing the entire energy demand of India.” 28   Complete lockdowns have lowered the global demand for electricity and slashed CO2 emissions. However, in New York City, the shutdown has only decreased carbon dioxide emissions by 10 percent. 29   This proves that a shift in personal behavior is simply not enough to “fix the carbon emission problem.” 30   Climate policies aimed to reduce fossil fuel production and promote clean technology will be crucial steppingstones to ameliorating climate change effects. Our current reduction of greenhouse gas emissions serves as “the sort of reduction we need every year until net-zero emissions are reached around 2050.” 31   From the start of the coronavirus pandemic, politicians came together for the common good of protecting humanity; this demonstrates that when necessary, global leaders are capable of putting humankind above the economy. 32

After researching statistics comparing the coronavirus to climate change, I thought back to the moment the virus reached pandemic status. I knew that a greater reason underlay all of this global turmoil. Our globe is in dire need of help, and the coronavirus reminds the world of what it means to work together. This pandemic marks a turning point in global efforts to slow down climate change. The methods we enact towards not only stopping the spread of the virus, but slowing down climate change, will ultimately depict how humanity will arise once this pandemic is suppressed. The future of our home planet lies in how we treat it right now. 

• “Climate Change: What Do All the Terms Mean?,” BBC News (BBC, May 1, 2019), https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48057733 )
• Ibid. 
• Kate Yoder, “Frank Luntz, the GOP's Message Master, Calls for Climate Action,” Grist (Grist, July 26, 2019), https://grist.org/article/the-gops-most-famous-messaging-strategist-calls-for-climate-action
• Melissa Denchak, “Paris Climate Agreement: Everything You Need to Know,” NRDC, April 29, 2020, https://www.nrdc.org/stories/paris-climate-agreement-everything-you-need-know)
• “Donald J. Trump's Foreign Policy Positions,” Council on Foreign Relations (Council on Foreign Relations), accessed May 7, 2020, https://www.cfr.org/election2020/candidate-tracker/donald-j.-trump?gclid=CjwKCAjw4871BRAjEiwAbxXi21cneTRft_doA5if60euC6QCL7sr-Jwwv76IkgWaUTuyJNx9EzZzRBoCdjsQAvD_BwE#climate and energy )
• David Doniger, “Paris Climate Agreement Explained: Does Congress Need to Sign Off?,” NRDC, December 15, 2016, https://www.nrdc.org/experts/david-doniger/paris-climate-agreement-explained-does-congress-need-sign )
• “How the UK Is Progressing,” Committee on Climate Change, March 9, 2020, https://www.theccc.org.uk/what-is-climate-change/reducing-carbon-emissions/how-the-uk-is-progressing/)
• Ibid.  
• “Top 10 Ways You Can Fight Climate Change,” Green America, accessed May 7, 2020, https://www.greenamerica.org/your-green-life/10-ways-you-can-fight-climate-change )
• Matt McGrath, “Climate Change and Coronavirus: Five Charts about the Biggest Carbon Crash,” BBC News (BBC, May 5, 2020), https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/science-environment-52485712 )

Climate Change Essay for Students and Children

500+ words climate change essay.

Climate change refers to the change in the environmental conditions of the earth. This happens due to many internal and external factors. The climatic change has become a global concern over the last few decades. Besides, these climatic changes affect life on the earth in various ways. These climatic changes are having various impacts on the ecosystem and ecology. Due to these changes, a number of species of plants and animals have gone extinct.

When Did it Start?

The climate started changing a long time ago due to human activities but we came to know about it in the last century. During the last century, we started noticing the climatic change and its effect on human life. We started researching on climate change and came to know that the earth temperature is rising due to a phenomenon called the greenhouse effect. The warming up of earth surface causes many ozone depletion, affect our agriculture , water supply, transportation, and several other problems.

Reason Of Climate Change

Although there are hundreds of reason for the climatic change we are only going to discuss the natural and manmade (human) reasons.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Natural Reasons

These include volcanic eruption , solar radiation, tectonic plate movement, orbital variations. Due to these activities, the geographical condition of an area become quite harmful for life to survive. Also, these activities raise the temperature of the earth to a great extent causing an imbalance in nature.

Human Reasons

Man due to his need and greed has done many activities that not only harm the environment but himself too. Many plant and animal species go extinct due to human activity. Human activities that harm the climate include deforestation, using fossil fuel , industrial waste , a different type of pollution and many more. All these things damage the climate and ecosystem very badly. And many species of animals and birds got extinct or on a verge of extinction due to hunting.

Effects Of Climatic Change

These climatic changes have a negative impact on the environment. The ocean level is rising, glaciers are melting, CO2 in the air is increasing, forest and wildlife are declining, and water life is also getting disturbed due to climatic changes. Apart from that, it is calculated that if this change keeps on going then many species of plants and animals will get extinct. And there will be a heavy loss to the environment.

What will be Future?

If we do not do anything and things continue to go on like right now then a day in future will come when humans will become extinct from the surface of the earth. But instead of neglecting these problems we start acting on then we can save the earth and our future.

Although humans mistake has caused great damage to the climate and ecosystem. But, it is not late to start again and try to undo what we have done until now to damage the environment. And if every human start contributing to the environment then we can be sure of our existence in the future.

{ “@context”: “https://schema.org”, “@type”: “FAQPage”, “mainEntity”: [ { “@type”: “Question”, “name”: “What is climate change and how it affects humans?”, “acceptedAnswer”: { “@type”: “Answer”, “text”: “Climate change is a phenomenon that happens because of human and natural reasons. And it is one of the most serious problems that not only affect the environment but also human beings. It affects human in several ways but in simple language, we can say that it causes many diseases and disasters that destroy life on earth.” } }, { “@type”: “Question”, “name”: “Can we stop these climatic changes?”, “acceptedAnswer”: { “@type”: “Answer”, “text”: “Yes, we can stop these climatic changes but for that, every one of us has to come forward and has to adapt ways that can reduce and control our bad habits that affect the environment. We have to the initiative and make everyone aware of the climatic changes.” } } ] }

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

• School Education /

Essay on Climate Change: Check Samples in 100, 250 Words

• Updated on  
• Sep 21, 2023

Writing an essay on climate change is crucial to raise awareness and advocate for action. The world is facing environmental challenges, so in a situation like this such essay topics can serve as s platform to discuss the causes, effects, and solutions to this pressing issue. They offer an opportunity to engage readers in understanding the urgency of mitigating climate change for the sake of our planet’s future.

Must Read: Essay On Environment  

Table of Contents

• 1 What Is Climate Change?
• 2 What are the Causes of Climate Change?
• 3 What are the effects of Climate Change?
• 4 How to fight climate change?
• 5 Essay On Climate Change in 100 Words
• 6 Climate Change Sample Essay 250 Words

What Is Climate Change?

Climate change is the significant variation of average weather conditions becoming, for example, warmer, wetter, or drier—over several decades or longer. It may be natural or anthropogenic. However, in recent times, it’s been in the top headlines due to escalations caused by human interference.

What are the Causes of Climate Change?

Obama at the First Session of COP21 rightly quoted “We are the first generation to feel the impact of climate change, and the last generation that can do something about it.”.Identifying the causes of climate change is the first step to take in our fight against climate change. Below stated are some of the causes of climate change:

• Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Mainly from burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) for energy and transportation.
• Deforestation: The cutting down of trees reduces the planet’s capacity to absorb carbon dioxide.
• Industrial Processes: Certain manufacturing activities release potent greenhouse gases.
• Agriculture: Livestock and rice cultivation emit methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

What are the effects of Climate Change?

Climate change poses a huge risk to almost all life forms on Earth. The effects of climate change are listed below:

• Global Warming: Increased temperatures due to trapped heat from greenhouse gases.
• Melting Ice and Rising Sea Levels: Ice caps and glaciers melt, causing oceans to rise.
• Extreme Weather Events: More frequent and severe hurricanes, droughts, and wildfires.
• Ocean Acidification: Oceans absorb excess CO2, leading to more acidic waters harming marine life.
• Disrupted Ecosystems: Shifting climate patterns disrupt habitats and threaten biodiversity.
• Food and Water Scarcity: Altered weather affects crop yields and strains water resources.
• Human Health Risks: Heat-related illnesses and the spread of diseases.
• Economic Impact: Damage to infrastructure and increased disaster-related costs.
• Migration and Conflict: Climate-induced displacement and resource competition.

How to fight climate change?

‘Climate change is a terrible problem, and it absolutely needs to be solved. It deserves to be a huge priority,’ says Bill Gates. The below points highlight key actions to combat climate change effectively.

• Energy Efficiency: Improve energy efficiency in all sectors.
• Protect Forests: Stop deforestation and promote reforestation.
• Sustainable Agriculture: Adopt eco-friendly farming practices.
• Advocacy: Raise awareness and advocate for climate-friendly policies.
• Innovation: Invest in green technologies and research.
• Government Policies: Enforce climate-friendly regulations and targets.
• Corporate Responsibility: Encourage sustainable business practices.
• Individual Action: Reduce personal carbon footprint and inspire others.

Essay On Climate Change in 100 Words

Climate change refers to long-term alterations in Earth’s climate patterns, primarily driven by human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation, which release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. These gases trap heat, leading to global warming. The consequences of climate change are widespread and devastating. Rising temperatures cause polar ice caps to melt, contributing to sea level rise and threatening coastal communities. Extreme weather events, like hurricanes and wildfires, become more frequent and severe, endangering lives and livelihoods. Additionally, shifts in weather patterns can disrupt agriculture, leading to food shortages. To combat climate change, global cooperation, renewable energy adoption, and sustainable practices are crucial for a more sustainable future.

Must Read: Essay On Global Warming

Climate Change Sample Essay 250 Words

Climate change represents a pressing global challenge that demands immediate attention and concerted efforts. Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, have significantly increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This results in a greenhouse effect, trapping heat and leading to a rise in global temperatures, commonly referred to as global warming.

The consequences of climate change are far-reaching and profound. Rising sea levels threaten coastal communities, displacing millions and endangering vital infrastructure. Extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, droughts, and wildfires, have become more frequent and severe, causing devastating economic and human losses. Disrupted ecosystems affect biodiversity and the availability of vital resources, from clean water to agricultural yields.

Moreover, climate change has serious implications for food and water security. Changing weather patterns disrupt traditional farming practices and strain freshwater resources, potentially leading to conflicts over access to essential commodities.

Addressing climate change necessitates a multifaceted approach. First, countries must reduce their greenhouse gas emissions through the transition to renewable energy sources, increased energy efficiency, and reforestation efforts. International cooperation is crucial to set emission reduction targets and hold nations accountable for meeting them.

In conclusion, climate change is a global crisis with profound and immediate consequences. Urgent action is needed to mitigate its impacts and secure a sustainable future for our planet. By reducing emissions and implementing adaptation strategies, we can protect vulnerable communities, preserve ecosystems, and ensure a livable planet for future generations. The time to act is now.

Climate change refers to long-term shifts in Earth’s climate patterns, primarily driven by human activities like burning fossil fuels and deforestation.

Five key causes of climate change include excessive greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, notably burning fossil fuels and deforestation. 

We hope this blog gave you an idea about how to write and present an essay on climate change that puts forth your opinions. The skill of writing an essay comes in handy when appearing for standardized language tests. Thinking of taking one soon? Leverage Edu provides the best online test prep for the same via Leverage Live . Register today to know more!

Amisha Khushara

Hey there! I'm a content writer who turns complex ideas into clear, engaging stories. Think of me as your translator, taking expert knowledge and making it interesting and relatable for everyone.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Connect With Us

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today.

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

Knowledge is power

Stay in the know about climate impacts and solutions. Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.

By clicking submit, you agree to share your email address with the site owner and Mailchimp to receive emails from the site owner. Use the unsubscribe link in those emails to opt out at any time.

Yale Climate Connections

Scientists agree: Climate change is real and caused by people

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)

[Leer en español aquí]

The scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that it is human-caused is strong. Scientific investigation of global warming began in the 19th century , and by the early 2000s, this research began to coalesce into confidence about the reality, causes, and general range of adverse effects of global warming. This conclusion was drawn from studying air and ocean temperatures, the atmosphere’s composition, satellite records, ice cores, modeling, and more.

In 1988 the United Nations and World Meteorological Organization founded the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, to provide regular updates on the scientific evidence on global warming. In a 2013 report , the IPCC concluded that scientific evidence of warming is “unequivocal” and that the largest cause is an increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of humans burning fossil fuels. The IPCC continues to assess this science, periodically issuing new reports.

Climate change is real and caused by humans

The IPCC is not the only scientific group that has reached a clear consensus on the scientific evidence of human-caused global warming. As this NASA page points out, 200 global scientific organizations, 11 international science academies, and 18 American science associations have released statements in alignment with this consensus.

Amanda Staudt is the senior director for climate, atmospheric and polar sciences at the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, where she has worked since 2001. The Academies, she said, first began studying climate change in 1979, researching how much warming would likely happen if the amount of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere were doubled.

Four decades later, those findings have held up and have been strengthened based on scores of continued studies and analysis. “The remarkable thing about that study,” she said, “is that they basically got the right answer” from the start. This 1979 study by the National Research Council, Staudt said, led to investment in climate science in the U.S. 

Though this consensus has been thoroughly established, scientific research and new findings continue. Staudt said countless attempted rebuttals of climate science findings have been researched and disproved.

“We did a lot of studies in that time period, looking at those questions,” she said, ”and one by one, putting them to bed and convincing ourselves over and over again, that humans were affecting climate, and that we could document that effect.”

At the National Academies, reaching consensus requires open sessions and dialogue with scientists and agreement from committees, which typically consist of 12-15 experts. Their draft reports go through peer review, and reviewers’ concerns are resolved before publication is approved. The goal is for the complex science of climate change to become as thoroughly researched and substantiated as possible.

“One of the things I think about scientists is that we’re all inherently skeptics at some level,” Staudt said. “That’s what drives us to science, that we have questions about the world around us. And we want to prove that for ourselves.”

Scientists consistently reaffirm evidence that climate change is happening

Climate scientists worldwide go through similar processes before their findings are published. And their research papers, too, show a strong consensus about global warming. As NASA states on its website , “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.” (By sound practice, scientists resist saying science is for all times “certain” or that its findings are “final,” and the “extremely likely” language respects that practice.)

One of the studies about the consensus was led by John Cook, a fellow at the Climate Change Communication Research Hub at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. Cook and colleagues reviewed nearly 12,000 scientific papers to examine how aligned published research is on major findings on climate change. That study found that 97 percent of scholarly papers that take a position on climate change do endorse the consensus. The papers that rejected the consensus position contained errors, according to subsequent research .

In reviewing the papers, Cook has said he and his colleagues found the consensus to have been so widely accepted by 2013 that many researchers by then no longer felt a need to mention or reaffirm it in their research papers.

Also see: Causes of global warming: How scientists know that humans are responsible

Samantha Harrington

Samantha Harrington, director of audience experience for Yale Climate Connections, is a journalist and graphic designer with a background in digital media and entrepreneurship. Sam is especially interested... More by Samantha Harrington

Climate Change Essay

500+ words essay on climate change.

Climate change is a major global challenge today, and the world is becoming more vulnerable to this change. Climate change refers to the changes in Earth’s climate condition. It describes the changes in the atmosphere which have taken place over a period ranging from decades to millions of years. A recent report from the United Nations predicted that the average global temperature could increase by 6˚ Celsius at the end of the century. Climate change has an adverse effect on the environment and ecosystem. With the help of this essay, students will get to know the causes and effects of climate change and possible solutions. Also, they will be able to write essays on similar topics and can boost their writing skills.

What Causes Climate Change?

The Earth’s climate has always changed and evolved. Some of these changes have been due to natural causes such as volcanic eruptions, floods, forest fires etc., but quite a few of them are due to human activities. Human activities such as deforestation, burning fossil fuels, farming livestock etc., generate an enormous amount of greenhouse gases. This results in the greenhouse effect and global warming which are the major causes of climate change.

Effects of Climate Change

If the current situation of climate change continues in a similar manner, then it will impact all forms of life on the earth. The earth’s temperature will rise, the monsoon patterns will change, sea levels will rise, and storms, volcanic eruptions and natural disasters will occur frequently. The biological and ecological balance of the earth will get disturbed. The environment will get polluted and humans will not be able to get fresh air to breathe and fresh water to drink. Life on earth will come to an end.

Steps to be Taken to Reduce Climate Change

The Government of India has taken many measures to improve the dire situation of Climate Change. The Ministry of Environment and Forests is the nodal agency for climate change issues in India. It has initiated several climate-friendly measures, particularly in the area of renewable energy. India took several steps and policy initiatives to create awareness about climate change and help capacity building for adaptation measures. It has initiated a “Green India” programme under which various trees are planted to make the forest land more green and fertile.

We need to follow the path of sustainable development to effectively address the concerns of climate change. We need to minimise the use of fossil fuels, which is the major cause of global warming. We must adopt alternative sources of energy, such as hydropower, solar and wind energy to make a progressive transition to clean energy. Mahatma Gandhi said that “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not any man’s greed”. With this view, we must remodel our outlook and achieve the goal of sustainable development. By adopting clean technologies, equitable distribution of resources and addressing the issues of equity and justice, we can make our developmental process more harmonious with nature.

We hope students liked this essay on Climate Change and gathered useful information on this topic so that they can write essays in their own words. To get more study material related to the CBSE, ICSE, State Board and Competitive exams, keep visiting the BYJU’S website.

Frequently Asked Questions on climate change Essay

What are the reasons for climate change.

1. Deforestation 2. Excessive usage of fossil fuels 3. Water, Soil pollution 4. Plastic and other non-biodegradable waste 5. Wildlife and nature extinction

How can we save this climate change situation?

1. Avoid over usage of natural resources 2. Do not use or buy items made from animals 3. Avoid plastic usage and pollution

Are there any natural causes for climate change?

Yes, some of the natural causes for climate change are: 1. Solar variations 2. Volcanic eruption and tsunamis 3. Earth’s orbital changes

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

• Share Share

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

Counselling

Earlier this month, the European Court for Human Rights ruled that Switzerland violated its citizens’ human rights by inadequately combating climate change. More than 2,000 Swiss women 64 and older argued to the court that the Swiss government’s climate inaction put them at risk of death during the heat waves in Europe.

The Barcelona Institute for Global Health recorded more than 61,000 heat-related deaths in Europe during the summer of 2022, with 63% more women than men dying and the vast majority being older adults. The 17-judge panel meeting in Strasbourg, France, ruled that the Swiss government did not effectively protect Swiss citizens from “the serious adverse effects of climate change on lives, health, well-being and quality of life.” The court noted that the Swiss government did not meet its targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions and failed to set a national carbon budget. This ruling establishes a binding legal precedent for the 46 member countries to the European Convention on Human Rights.

It is noteworthy that at least 44 nations globally have adopted clauses related to environmental protection in their national constitutions. In addition, more than 150 countries now have laws that recognize a human right to a healthy environment. And, around 30 countries including Spain, Bolivia and Uganda have some legal recognition that nature, certain ecosystems or individual species possess inherent rights, including the right to exist and regenerate. The Aruba government recently joined this effort. Aruba intends to enshrine both a human right to a “clean, healthy and sustainable environment” and an acknowledgment that nature has rights to “protection, conservation and restoration” in its constitution.

Environmental activists increasingly use these legal guarantees to pressure countries to enforce environmental law. In the Netherlands, the leading court declared that climate change is a direct threat to human rights and ordered the Dutch government to do more to cut carbon emissions. In India, the supreme court recently ruled that the people’s right to be protected from the effects of climate change falls under the articles of the country’s constitution, which protects the right to equality and to life.

In Brazil, the supreme court declared that the Paris climate change agreement is a human rights treaty and should supersede national law. In Latin America and the Caribbean, indigenous peoples have used human rights law to campaign against logging, mining and oil exploration in protected areas. And the Inter-American Court is deliberating an advisory opinion on whether its member countries are required to protect citizens from climate change.

Spend your days with Hayes

Subscribe to our free Stephinitely newsletter

You’re all signed up!

Want more of our free, weekly newsletters in your inbox? Let’s get started.

In the United States, young people in Montana, ranging in age from 5 to 22, won a landmark lawsuit in August 2023 over the state’s failure to consider climate change when approving fossil fuel projects. The Montana state constitution guarantees residents “the right to a clean and healthful environment” and demands that the state maintain and improve the environment “for present and future generations.”

The Montana government had previously blocked the state from “an evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and corresponding impacts to the climate in the state or beyond the state’s borders” when deciding whether to approve new projects. In her ruling, Judge Kathy Seeley of the Montana District Court found that the state’s emissions “have been proven to be a substantial factor” in affecting the climate, and that these laws that limited the ability of regulators to consider climate effects were unconstitutional.

Other states have similar legal guarantees, and according to The New York Times, young people in Hawaii, Utah and Virginia have filed environmental lawsuits that are slowly working their way through the courts. In addition, many states, including Ohio, have safety and/or happiness provisions in their constitutions. It is becoming clear that state constitutions can provide a vehicle for environmental activists to push for action to protect the planet so that the happiness and safety of current and future generations is guaranteed. The ruling in Montana, for example, now means that the state, which gets one-third of its energy by burning coal, must now consider climate change when deciding to approve or renew fossil fuel projects.

In addition, cities and states are suing oil companies, including Exxon, Chevron and Shell, claiming that these companies knew for decades that their products were responsible for global warming and thus accountable for current climate disasters.

Scientific data documents that March was the world’s warmest month ever, extending a run of monthly temperature records. Climate scientists now fear that we are reaching a tipping point and the world will enter a new phase of even faster climate change. U.N. Climate Chief Simon Stiell stated in December that humanity has only two years left “to save the world” by making dramatic changes and cutting back on the ways it spews “heat-trapping emissions.” “We still have a chance to make greenhouse gas emissions tumble … but we need … stronger plans now.”

The young people of Montana and the senior women of Switzerland have shown us an effective legal strategy to push our government to take on the complex tasks necessary to protect our fragile planet. Children and the elderly are showing us a path forward.

William F. Felice is professor emeritus of political science at Eckerd College. He is the author of six books on human rights and international relations. Contact him via his website: williamfelice.com .

MORE FOR YOU

• Advertisement

ONLY AVAILABLE FOR SUBSCRIBERS

The Tampa Bay Times e-Newspaper is a digital replica of the printed paper seven days a week that is available to read on desktop, mobile, and our app for subscribers only. To enjoy the e-Newspaper every day, please subscribe.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

What the data says about Americans’ views of climate change

A recent report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has underscored the need for international action to avoid increasingly severe climate impacts in the years to come. Steps outlined in the report, and by climate experts, include major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from sectors such as energy production and transportation.

But how do Americans feel about climate change, and what steps do they think the United States should take to address it? Here are eight charts that illustrate Americans’ views on the issue, based on recent Pew Research Center surveys.

Pew Research Center published this collection of survey findings as part of its ongoing work to understand attitudes about climate change and energy issues. The most recent survey was conducted May 30-June 4, 2023, among 10,329 U.S. adults. Earlier findings have been previously published, and methodological information, including the sample sizes and field dates, can be found by following the links in the text.

Everyone who took part in the June 2023 survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way, nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used for this analysis , along with responses, and its methodology .

A majority of Americans support prioritizing the development of renewable energy sources. Two-thirds of U.S. adults say the country should prioritize developing renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, over expanding the production of oil, coal and natural gas, according to a survey conducted in June 2023.

In a previous Center survey conducted in 2022, nearly the same share of Americans (69%) favored the U.S. taking steps to become carbon neutral by 2050 , a goal outlined by President Joe Biden at the outset of his administration. Carbon neutrality means releasing no more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than is removed.

Nine-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say the U.S. should prioritize developing alternative energy sources to address America’s energy supply. Among Republicans and Republican leaners, 42% support developing alternative energy sources, while 58% say the country should prioritize expanding exploration and production of oil, coal and natural gas.

There are important differences by age within the GOP. Two-thirds of Republicans under age 30 (67%) prioritize the development of alternative energy sources. By contrast, 75% of Republicans ages 65 and older prioritize expanding the production of oil, coal and natural gas.

Americans are reluctant to phase out fossil fuels altogether, but younger adults are more open to it. Overall, about three-in-ten adults (31%) say the U.S. should completely phase out oil, coal and natural gas. More than twice as many (68%) say the country should use a mix of energy sources, including fossil fuels and renewables.

While the public is generally reluctant to phase out fossil fuels altogether, younger adults are more supportive of this idea. Among Americans ages 18 to 29, 48% say the U.S. should exclusively use renewables, compared with 52% who say the U.S. should use a mix of energy sources, including fossil fuels.

There are age differences within both political parties on this question. Among Democrats and Democratic leaners, 58% of those ages 18 to 29 favor phasing out fossil fuels entirely, compared with 42% of Democrats 65 and older. Republicans of all age groups back continuing to use a mix of energy sources, including oil, coal and natural gas. However, about three-in-ten (29%) Republicans ages 18 to 29 say the U.S. should phase out fossil fuels altogether, compared with fewer than one-in-ten Republicans 50 and older.

There are multiple potential routes to carbon neutrality in the U.S. All involve major reductions to carbon emissions in sectors such as energy and transportation by increasing the use of things like wind and solar power and electric vehicles. There are also ways to potentially remove carbon from the atmosphere and store it, such as capturing it directly from the air or using trees and algae to facilitate carbon sequestration.

The public supports the federal government incentivizing wind and solar energy production. In many sectors, including energy and transportation, federal incentives and regulations significantly influence investment and development.

Two-thirds of Americans think the federal government should encourage domestic production of wind and solar power. Just 7% say the government should discourage this, while 26% think it should neither encourage nor discourage it.

Views are more mixed on how the federal government should approach other activities that would reduce carbon emissions. On balance, more Americans think the government should encourage than discourage the use of electric vehicles and nuclear power production, though sizable shares say it should not exert an influence either way.

When it comes to oil and gas drilling, Americans’ views are also closely divided: 34% think the government should encourage drilling, while 30% say it should discourage this and 35% say it should do neither. Coal mining is the one activity included in the survey where public sentiment is negative on balance: More say the federal government should discourage than encourage coal mining (39% vs. 21%), while 39% say it should do neither.

Americans see room for multiple actors – including corporations and the federal government – to do more to address the impacts of climate change. Two-thirds of adults say large businesses and corporations are doing too little to reduce the effects of climate change. Far fewer say they are doing about the right amount (21%) or too much (10%).

Majorities also say their state elected officials (58%) and the energy industry (55%) are doing too little to address climate change, according to a March 2023 survey.

In a separate Center survey conducted in June 2023, a similar share of Americans (56%) said the federal government should do more to reduce the effects of global climate change.

When it comes to their own efforts, about half of Americans (51%) think they are doing about the right amount as an individual to help reduce the effects of climate change, according to the March 2023 survey. However, about four-in-ten (43%) say they are doing too little.

Democrats and Republicans have grown further apart over the last decade in their assessments of the threat posed by climate change. Overall, a majority of U.S. adults (54%) describe climate change as a major threat to the country’s well-being. This share is down slightly from 2020 but remains higher than in the early 2010s.

Nearly eight-in-ten Democrats (78%) describe climate change as a major threat to the country’s well-being, up from about six-in-ten (58%) a decade ago. By contrast, about one-in-four Republicans (23%) consider climate change a major threat, a share that’s almost identical to 10 years ago.

Concern over climate change has also risen internationally, as shown by separate Pew Research Center polling across 19 countries in 2022. People in many advanced economies express higher levels of concern than Americans . For instance, 81% of French adults and 73% of Germans describe climate change as a major threat.

Climate change is a lower priority for Americans than other national issues. While a majority of adults view climate change as a major threat, it is a lower priority than issues such as strengthening the economy and reducing health care costs.

Overall, 37% of Americans say addressing climate change should be a top priority for the president and Congress in 2023, and another 34% say it’s an important but lower priority. This ranks climate change 17th out of 21 national issues included in a Center survey from January.

As with views of the threat that climate change poses, there’s a striking contrast between how Republicans and Democrats prioritize the issue. For Democrats, it falls in the top half of priority issues, and 59% call it a top priority. By comparison, among Republicans, it ranks second to last, and just 13% describe it as a top priority.

Our analyses have found that partisan gaps on climate change are often widest on questions – such as this one – that measure the salience or importance of the issue. The gaps are more modest when it comes to some specific climate policies. For example, majorities of Republicans and Democrats alike say they would favor a proposal to provide a tax credit to businesses for developing technologies for carbon capture and storage.

Perceptions of local climate impacts vary by Americans’ political affiliation and whether they believe that climate change is a serious problem. A majority of Americans (61%) say that global climate change is affecting their local community either a great deal or some. About four-in-ten (39%) see little or no impact in their own community.

The perception that the effects of climate change are happening close to home is one factor that could drive public concern and calls for action on the issue. But perceptions are tied more strongly to people’s beliefs about climate change – and their partisan affiliation – than to local conditions.

For example, Americans living in the Pacific region – California, Washington, Oregon, Hawaii and Alaska – are more likely than those in other areas of the country to say that climate change is having a great deal of impact locally. But only Democrats in the Pacific region are more likely to say they are seeing effects of climate change where they live. Republicans in this region are no more likely than Republicans in other areas to say that climate change is affecting their local community.

Our previous surveys show that nearly all Democrats believe climate change is at least a somewhat serious problem, and a large majority believe that humans play a role in it. Republicans are much less likely to hold these beliefs, but views within the GOP do vary significantly by age and ideology. Younger Republicans and those who describe their views as moderate or liberal are much more likely than older and more conservative Republicans to describe climate change as at least a somewhat serious problem and to say human activity plays a role.

Democrats are also more likely than Republicans to report experiencing extreme weather events in their area over the past year – such as intense storms and floods, long periods of hot weather or droughts – and to see these events as connected with climate change.

About three-quarters of Americans support U.S. participation in international efforts to reduce the effects of climate change. Americans offer broad support for international engagement on climate change: 74% say they support U.S. participation in international efforts to reduce the effects of climate change.

Still, there’s little consensus on how current U.S. efforts stack up against those of other large economies. About one-in-three Americans (36%) think the U.S. is doing more than other large economies to reduce the effects of global climate change, while 30% say the U.S. is doing less than other large economies and 32% think it is doing about as much as others. The U.S. is the second-largest carbon dioxide emitter , contributing about 13.5% of the global total.

When asked what they think the right balance of responsibility is, a majority of Americans (56%) say the U.S. should do about as much as other large economies to reduce the effects of climate change, while 27% think it should do more than others.

A previous Center survey found that while Americans favor international cooperation on climate change in general terms, their support has its limits. In January 2022 , 59% of Americans said that the U.S. does not have a responsibility to provide financial assistance to developing countries to help them build renewable energy sources.

In recent years, the UN conference on climate change has grappled with how wealthier nations should assist developing countries in dealing with climate change. The most recent convening in fall 2022, known as COP27, established a “loss and damage” fund for vulnerable countries impacted by climate change.

Note: This is an update of a post originally published April 22, 2022. Here are the questions used for this analysis , along with responses, and its methodology .

• Climate, Energy & Environment
• Environment & Climate
• Partisanship & Issues
• Political Issues

Alec Tyson is an associate director of research at Pew Research Center

Cary Funk is director of science and society research at Pew Research Center

Brian Kennedy is a senior researcher focusing on science and society research at Pew Research Center

How Republicans view climate change and energy issues

How americans view future harms from climate change in their community and around the u.s., americans continue to have doubts about climate scientists’ understanding of climate change, growing share of americans favor more nuclear power, why some americans do not see urgency on climate change, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

Opinion: Is planting trees on Arbor Day one way we can all fight climate change? Not so much

• Show more sharing options
• Copy Link URL Copied!

Arbor Day has its roots in the 1870s, when the horticulturist J. Sterling Morton spearheaded a movement to green Nebraska’s largely treeless plains. Since then, citizens, businesses and governments have marked April 26 by planting trees in schoolyards, parks and neighborhoods.

In recent years, tree-planting has been touted as no less than a means of empowering people to combat climate change. Gratifying and photographable, planting a tree seems to be a small but tangible act that almost anyone can undertake to reduce their carbon footprint and feel good about it.

The science, however, suggests a more strategic use of our time and resources. Newly planted trees take many years to become effective carbon sinks. By contrast, properly caring for the forests we already have — and letting them grow older — can make a huge difference immediately.

Opinion: Here’s what’s wrong with your perfectly drought-tolerant Southern California landscaping

Los Angeles gardens and landscapes won’t support the environment and threatened wildlife unless they use native plants. Low water use isn’t enough.

Dec. 24, 2023

Instead of simply mass-planting saplings on Arbor Day or any other occasion, governments, businesses and people should look for ways to restore and conserve forests. The hard truth is that a singular focus on planting can cause us to literally and figuratively miss the forest — and its much greater import to the climate — for the trees.

Recent studies show widespread planting of trees isn’t the panacea it once promised to be. Thomas Crowther, the former chief scientific advisor for the U.N.’s Trillion Trees Campaign, came forward last year to un-sing the praises of the cause he once popularized, telling the COP28 climate conference that tree-planting isn’t as helpful as was once claimed. In a study published by Nature last year, more than 200 scientists joined Crowther in concluding that restoring and sustainably managing existing forests is the most efficient means to capture enough carbon to meet the Paris climate accord’s goals by 2030.

Investing in new trees is risky and slow to make a dent in climate change. They take decades of intensive management before they significantly reduce the level of carbon in the atmosphere. And climate stresses such as extreme weather, invasive pests and diseases, along with a lack of long-term investment, can cause new trees to fail.

Opinion: Why disappearing trees are so bad for our climate — and health

In 2022, the world lost more than 11 soccer fields of tropical forest per minute.

Jan. 5, 2024

Maintaining and reviving older, more natural forests is far more effective. And the science shows that in the United States in particular, allowing our largely young forests to mature is a critically important piece of the solution to the climate crisis.

Older, more natural forests clean the air we breathe, provide homes for wildlife, strengthen watersheds that provide clean water to more than 180 million Americans and give us amazing outdoor spaces to enjoy. And as trees age and grow, their carbon stores increase exponentially.

The Nature study found that worldwide forest restoration could remove a staggering 226 gigatons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the equivalent of approximately 20 years of global emissions from burning fossil fuels. But privately owned forests, which account for 60% of the U.S. total, are not adequately protected. Every year, the United States loses 2.2 million acres of forest, an area the size of Delaware, to development.

Calling for the restoration of whole forests is one thing, but realizing that goal is another. One way to prioritize responsible forest management is through conservation easements for managed forests, which pay landowners to permanently protect their forests while allowing sustainable timber production.

In California alone , easements and responsible management of forests have the potential to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by about 150 million to 300 million metric tons in a decade. That exceeds the estimated reductions in emissions the state would expect from electrification of the entire transportation sector.

Forests managed with a focus on climate resilience also decrease the likelihood of severe wildfires, which have caused more than $21 billion in damage in California over a recent five-year span. Management practices that promote more natural conditions not only make forests less vulnerable to fires but also improve watersheds and increase protection from climate challenges such as droughts.

Managing and conserving natural and working forests — much more than starting from scratch by planting trees that will take tens and hundreds of years to become forests — is key to our future. It deserves at least as much attention as the transition to clean energy and transportation.

I’m certainly looking forward to seeing volunteers out planting trees this Arbor Day, which beautifies cities, shades us from scorching temperatures and enhances air quality. But I’m more eager to see people, businesses and governments collaborate to make our forests the climate-change-fighting powerhouses they can and must be.

Laurie Wayburn is a co-founder and the president of Pacific Forest Trust.

More to Read

California wants to harness more than half its land to combat climate change by 2045. Here’s how

April 22, 2024

New scientific interventions are here to fight climate change. But they aren’t silver bullets

Letters to the Editor: Pinyon-juniper woodlands aren’t ‘invasive,’ they’re recovering

Feb. 21, 2024

A cure for the common opinion

Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

More From the Los Angeles Times

Climate & Environment

You’re gonna need a bigger number: Scientists consider a Category 6 for mega-hurricane era

Opinion: Is social media rewiring kids’ brains? Here’s what the science really says

Opinion: USC’s ‘security risk’ rationale to thwart peaceful protest is not justified

April 25, 2024

California battery storage increasing rapidly, but not enough to end blackouts, Gov. Newsom says

• Share full article

Advertisement

Subscriber-only Newsletter

To Fight Climate Change, We Need New ‘Political Technologies’

By Peter Coy

Opinion Writer

Science alone won’t stop the planet from overheating. But science coupled with political science just might.

That’s the theme of a new book, “Long Problems: Climate Change and the Challenge of Governing Across Time.” It’s by Thomas Hale, an American political scientist who teaches at the University of Oxford’s Blavatnik School of Government.

Hale argues that people are too quick to throw up their hands because the political will to stop climate change is lacking. For political scientists, he writes, “this is not the end but rather the start of the intellectual challenge.”

Hale has specific ideas for how to change institutions and procedures so that today’s inhabitants of Earth give more consideration to tomorrow’s inhabitants. He calls them, at one point, “political technologies,” a phrase I like.

Long problems such as climate change are ones in which there is a long lag between causes and effects. They are hard to solve, especially with today’s institutions. We don’t act early because we’re uncertain about how big the problem is, and it isn’t as salient as the daily emergencies all around us. Our hesitation gives an opening to obstructionist forces. Today’s decision makers vow to protect the planet for future generations, but the unborn multitudes are mere “shadows” to them, as Hale puts it.

On top of all that, Hale writes, “Institutions created to address the early phase of a long problem struggle to remain useful as the problem’s structure develops over time.” Case in point: The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was created in 1992. The original concept was for countries to make binding commitments to fight climate change. As the organization has evolved, though, “nothing is agreed until every country agrees on every point,” Hale writes.

That’s not useful. A better approach is the Paris Agreement of 2015, which went into effect the next year. It allows countries to set their own targets for greenhouse gas reductions while triggering a “norm cascade” that induces them to do more and more. Hale likes the Paris Agreement on the whole, though he says it’s not perfect.

Society has already invented institutions and systems that bring future considerations to the fore, Hale writes. The Congressional Budget Office and similar offices in other countries analyze how new legislation will affect economic growth and government finances in the long run. The bond market assesses whether bond issuers, such as governments, will be able to pay back what they owe. Insurance companies — which Hale doesn’t mention — won’t issue policies unless customers take steps to reduce their risks.

On climate, too, there have been efforts to create institutions and processes that help solve Hale’s long problems. Some governments are requiring business to incorporate the “social cost” of carbon into their decisions. And the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change brings together the world’s top experts and issues closely followed reports.

There are many more opportunities for political engineering, Hale writes. He approvingly mentions the Finnish Parliament’s cross-party Committee for the Future and the Finnish Government Report on the Future, which interact. He recommends more experimentation in policymaking — as Chinese leaders put it, crossing the river by feeling for stones.

To get the public and lawmakers thinking more about the future, he endorses Britain’s Climate Change Committee, which he writes “has become a significant political force for the long-term interest,” and similar organizations (some of them not as effective) in Hungary, Israel, Malta, Sweden, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates.

To insulate long problems from partisan politicking, he recommends the appointment of a trustee to oversee climate decisions, analogous to the way a politically insulated central bank is delegated the authority to conduct monetary policy. The California Air Resources Board is “perhaps the strongest, though still imperfect” example of such an institution in the realm of the environment, he writes. (Hale told me he’s not aware of anything quite like the California agency elsewhere in the world.)

“Long Problems” is a kind of nonfiction counterpart to Kim Stanley Robinson’s science fiction book from 2020, “The Ministry for the Future,” which took seriously the idea that future generations need to be given as much consideration as our own.

Hale is a co-leader of the Net Zero Tracker , which tracks the decarbonization progress of countries and companies, and the Net Zero Regulation and Policy Hub . He told me that he has been involved in helping people at the United Nations prepare for a Summit for the Future, which will be held Sept. 22-23. On the U.N. website is an early draft of a declaration to be issued at the summit, which says among other things that “our conduct today will impact future generations exponentially.”

Anne-Marie Slaughter, the chief executive of the think tank New America who was Hale’s adviser on his doctorate at Princeton, shared a byline with Hale and two of his Oxford colleagues on a policy brief , “Toward a Declaration on Future Generations,” that recommends the U.N. appoint “a special envoy or high commissioner” to be a voice for the future.

I kind of prefer “envoy” because it sounds like the person has literally come from the future.

No one solution will instantly end the political obstacles to fighting climate change. Some of the ideas in Hale’s book may not pan out at all. But I give him credit for focusing on how to solve problems in which the cause and the effect are separated by decades. Getting the “political technology” right is every bit as important as inventing better solar cells, wind turbines and batteries.

Outlook: Oliver Allen

Retail sales rose more than expected in March, but the “booming” pace of growth isn’t likely to last, Oliver Allen, a senior U.S. economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, wrote in a client note on Monday. “It is hard to see how the strength in consumption can continue for much longer, now that real after-tax income growth has slowed markedly, the bulk of excess savings from earlier in the pandemic has been spent, and a raft of leading indicators point to a marked softening in the labor market,” Allen wrote.

Quote of the Day

“Why do we need to make the rich richer to make them work harder but make the poor poorer for the same purpose?”

— Ha-Joon Chang, “Economics: The User’s Guide” (2014)

Peter Coy is a writer for the Opinion section of The Times, covering economics and business. Email him at [email protected] . @ petercoy

We've detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.

Why did this happen?

Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy .

For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.