Editorial: US climate deal simple plea for urgent action

Scientists argue that aggressive action is needed now to restrict the damage to our warming planet. Photo / Time Cuff

Editorial

EDITORIAL

When Franklin D. Roosevelt introduced the New Deal in the 1930s, the US had been devastated by an economic depression. In four years from 1929, manufacturing output and prices fell while unemployment soared to 25 per cent.

People lost their savings when thousands of banks closed, and farm incomes dropped by half.

The ND was an umbrella of programmes, reforms and works that supported farmers, the poor and unemployed; reined in the banking sector and kickstarted the economy.

The President prescribed a treatment for an illness that was evident all around.

Now in 2019 the ND is being invoked once again as a think-big approach to tackling climate change.

The Green New Deal framework was outlined by Democrats last week.

Scientists argue that aggressive action is needed now to restrict the damage to our warming planet. A report last October by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that we have 12 years to limit global warming to moderate levels.

One of the barriers to inspiring urgency in the past has been climate change's status as a looming disaster movie a long way from its premiere.

In that, there's a key difference between the ND and GND. The ND was in reaction to a reality. The GND is in anticipation of an expected future reality.

The fact that the worst is expected to come rather than very obvious now, makes it tough to act boldly in the present. It adds to the difficulty of gaining public support for bold, costly changes and eroding resistance to GND goals, legislation and price tags.

But public concern has been growing. A survey by Yale and George Mason universities in December showed 73 per cent of Americans believed climate change was already happening and 69 per cent were worried about it. In March 2015 the figures were 63 per cent and 52 per cent.

Last week it was reported that four agencies had determined 2018 to be the fourth warmest year on record behind 2016, 2015 and 2017.

The UK Meteorological Office predicts the next five years will be hotter than the last four.

US agency NOAA said 14 natural disasters, costing at least US$1 billion ($1.48b) each, hit the US last year. Between 1980 and 2013 the US averaged about six such disasters a year. Since then it has been more than 12.

We will hear a lot about the GND as supporters build their case and opponents pick holes. The GND will be debated during the Democratic primary for the 2020 presidential election. Since GND legislation is unlikely to get through a divided government, planners have at least two years to work on bills.

It is also a vision of how the economy will have to be remodelled for a low-carbon future. Thrown in are progressive aspirations that may be a long way from seeing the light of day. So far it has been met with scepticism over whether it would be effective and criticism that it lacks detail, would be hugely costly and is wishful thinking.

The simple GND premise is that only an urgent, audacious, crisis-mode push will work.