why I can't stop talking about climate change

My mom emailed me this morning with a continuation of a discussion we've been having about climate change. Although she's made arguments on both sides of the issue, I was under the impression that she didn't think there was sufficient evidence for human activities causing global warming. However, in her email today, she told me that she actually has always been in favor of getting off fossil fuels; it's just that she's irritated with people talking about a problem without addressing solutions. Here are some excerpts from my response, for everyone who's tired of hearing me--and everyone else--harp on about the issue:

You say that if we agree on a problem, then we should stop talking about the problem and move toward solutions. I absolutely agree--I think everyone who agrees on the problem probably agrees. But the reason people are still talking about the problem is that we haven't agreed on the problem. There are still plenty of people who want to continue burning CO2 indefinitely. Of course, in the past year there has been a lot more consensus. The scientific community was the first to come to agreement, followed by the majority of citizens (as demonstrated by this international poll, showing that 65% of world population and 59% of U.S. population say we need to take major steps to address climate change very soon: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7010522.stm), but some politicians are still lagging behind. President Bush, for instance, didn't admit that climate change was human-induced until February of this year, after the release of the IPCC report. And his response was not to propose action, but to organize an international climate summit to talk about possible carbon emission goals (not mandatory targets), ignoring the fact that the U.N. had already held lengthy talks (over the past few years), talked through the issue thoroughly, and tried to set mandatory targets which the U.S. wouldn't agree to. Which sounds to me like a lot more useless talking about the problem that avoids any movement toward solutions.

However, if you look at the majority of talk about the issue, you'll find that it is very much a conversation about solutions. The scientific consensus is that an 80% reduction in carbon emissions below 1990 levels by 2050 would be enough to turn back the tide of warming and get us back from the "tipping point". All of the activist work I've done on this issue has been asking for a federal standard of 80% reduction in U.S. carbon emissions by 2050. However, there are still many businesses and lobby groups that either oppose any carbon emissions standard or want one that is much more gradual than this, and many politicians are still gun shy of signing on to legislation to this effect--even though the number of voters who consider this an important issue for the presidential election is growing (http://www.thedailygreen.com/2007/10/01/global-warming-is-a-primary-issue-for-40-of-us-presidential-voters/7405/). Among Republican presidential candidates, so far only McCain has any kind of comprehensive energy proposal, and his bill only calls for a 65% reduction by 2050; among top-tier candidates, Edwards and Obama are the only ones who propose meeting the science-based goal of 80% reduction by 2050 (http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/07/06/candidates/).

I agree with you entirely that locally produced energy (and while we're at it, locally produced everything, so it takes less energy to get it from producer to consumer) needs to be a big part of the answer. But it's an answer that is still mostly opposed by big businesses that need widespread consumer bases. Not to mention the fact that locally produced goods are going to be more expensive, and who wants to agree with a plan that will forever dispense with the everyday low prices of Walmart? Goods that are manufactured in China by factory workers paid $6 a day (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22507-2004Feb7?language=printer) are always going to be more expensive than goods manufactured locally, even if they're manufactured by illegal immigrants paid $5 an hour http://www.boisestate.edu/history/issuesonline/fall2005_issues/5f_numbers_mex.html). And while Americans are willing to pay a little more for new cars or for electricity (up to $500 more for a new car, or $100 a year for electricity) in order to reduce carbon emissions, most are still opposed to any kind of carbon tax, which is probably the most effective--and the most free-market-friendly--method for lowering carbon emissions quickly. We agree with the problem in principle, but we don't agree on a solution if it touches our pocketbooks. And the solution will touch our pocketbooks; it'll have to. Fossil fuels are our main source of energy because they're our cheapest form of energy. Make them more expensive, and some prices are going to go up. So I guess that's one of the reasons why I feel so obligated to talk about it, and to keep talking about it, and to not shy away from talking about the problem as well as solutions. In order to make a wise decision, people need to realize that the consequences of not acting--and not acting FAST (we really don't have time to thoroughly test solutions as much as we'd like to)--will be much, much worse than any short-term (or even long-term) damages to their pocketbooks or the economy. We have to realize the level of danger that we're in before we can make sacrifices toward a solution. And while many aspects of the solution will be easy, simple, and painless, many others of them will probably be difficult and painful--especially when peak oil and the decline of available energy starts to come into play. So for me, talking about the problem (in a solution-oriented way, but not a way that downplays the problem) is kind of a marketing campaign, the same sort of campaign that governments apply during wartime. It's an attempt at inspiring people to be willing to make sacrifices for the greater good.