It’s up to conservatives to lead the way on reasonable climate change, energy policies

It’s hot outside. Really hot. If you’ve lived in Texas as long as I have, you know that summers can string along weeks and weeks of 100-plus degree days.

In July 1980, I was a 10-year old on summer break without a care in the world, and I remember the thermometer reaching 113 degrees at least once. Bomb pops, ice water, plenty of air conditioning and my friend’s pool table helped us get through it.

But aspects of this year’s summer heat feel different. Our friends in Western Europe are experiencing record temperatures. Londoners are dealing with 101-degree weather in households that are not equipped with air conditioning.

Most scientists believe that the earth is slowly heating up, and I agree with them. Even if someone doesn’t trust the increasing land and ocean surface temperatures, it is impossible to ignore the shrinking polar ice caps captured on satellite images.

Many conservatives are justifiably skeptical about climate change predictions. We remember Al Gore’s 2009 forecast that the Arctic ice cap would be completely thawed by 2013. Boy, was he wrong.

Yet, there are some estimates from the 2019 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report (updated in May of 2021) that ring true. It accurately predicted Western Europe heat extremes, for example.

NASA and the international panel agree that the earth has warmed by 0.2 degrees Celsius in each of the past three decades. If we reach an increase over pre-industrial temperatures of 1.5 degrees, they predict that ocean levels will rise by about two-thirds of a foot. That’s a lot of water for coastal cities and developments to deal with.

The real rub on a political level is what to do about it. President Joe Biden has committed to lowering carbon output by making the U.S. electric grid carbon-neutral by 2035. China, by far the largest producer of greenhouse gas, is targeting carbon neutrality by 2070. India, fourth on the world’s list of carbon producers wants to reach the same goal by 2070.

It is quite unrealistic for America to reach this target. Although coal-fired energy production has markedly diminished in the past 10 years, renewable energy sources are providing just 21% of our very fast growing energy needs.

A Harvard University report has pointed out that it is cost-prohibitive to set up coastal wind farms and continental solar fields because of the difficulty in building thousands of miles of required transmission lines. Furthermore, we haven’t addressed what we will set up to accommodate the energy productivity lag when the wind doesn’t blow and solar cells sit dormant at nighttime.

Our local automobile retail folks tell me that the transition from gas-powered to electric vehicles is coming fast, and that is swelling our need for electric grid power. As I wrote last month, most of our nuclear power plants are more than 40 years old, and building a new one will take 20 years in the current regulatory environment.

The marketplace and our governments are engineering modest adjustments to our mix of energy sources, slowly shifting to renewable or low-carbon emitting sources like natural gas. Attempting that change too quickly will crater our economy, which is dependent on a steady supply of inexpensive energy. Job losses, foreclosures and homelessness would result.

As ocean levels rise, we can count on the fact that we humans have been remarkably good at adapting. Just look at the rebuilt levees in New Orleans, which sits below sea level. They stoutly withstood the latest hurricane sea surges. Governments can do the same the world-over.

Conservatives are right to question the climate emergency cries perpetually emanating from the left, but we shouldn’t ignore convincing data that points to a warmer earth and higher sea levels. On a policy level, we should proceed with what is reasonable for our economy, always keeping the bubble in the middle.

Brian Byrd, a former City Council member, is a physician in Fort Worth.