Political leaders follow the poll numbers. In Europe, climate is a priority for almost all major parties. In the U.S., the issue is polarized; many Republicans are still skeptical.
Next month, many of those politicians, including President Joe Biden, head to the Scottish city of Glasgow for a summit. The purpose is to win new commitments — especially from China, which burns more coal than the rest of the world combined.
The International Energy Agency, which once championed fossil fuel industries, now says demand for oil, gas and coal could peak within a decade — thanks mostly to the rise of solar, wind and other low-carbon technologies.
“There is increasing optimism in the climate and energy communities that (carbon dioxide) emissions have plateaued or are now plateauing,” Dagomar Degroot, an environmental historian at Georgetown University, told me last week. “Scenarios that forecast soaring emissions now seem implausible.”
That doesn’t mean the problem is solving itself.
“Warming will continue until we release fewer emissions than can be absorbed. . . . That threshold still seems to be decades away. We need to work harder to bring it closer.”
But while there’s not much optimism in the short term, the long-run goal of slowing and then reversing global warming no longer looks unreachable. The problem can be solved with tools we have: evolving technologies, efficiency and conservation.
The environmental movement’s problem now, perversely, isn’t denialism; it’s “doomism,” the view that the planet’s collapse is inevitable, and efforts to prevent catastrophe are futile. “Fear-based messaging” was once useful because it grabbed people’s attention, but now it risks getting in the way, Katharine Hayhoe, chief scientist of the Nature Conservancy, told me.
Doomism “isn’t helpful when it leads to inaction,” she said.
The next three decades will still be hard. The IPCC report described five possible scenarios for the rest of this century; even the most optimistic forecasts that temperatures will continue to rise through at least 2050.
The question for the politicians who are about to gather in Glasgow is: How much will they do to reduce those numbers? Which scenario do they want to bequeath to their successors — and to their grandchildren?
But it’s just possible that this decade could be remembered as one in which humans began to tame climate change. That, at least, provides grounds for hope.