How We Solve the Climate Crisis

There's truth in all of these points for sure.

Humans aren't going extinct due to the Climate Crisis, for sure. We are the most adaptable species. I asked ChatGPT to approximate the death toll and it came up with 5 million from direct causes (heat, storms, floods, fires, etc) and 14.5 million if you include indirect (food insecurity, disease spread, displacement, conflict, poverty, air-quality impacts, health-system collapse, etc.) by the year 2050 according to the World Economic Forum (Link). I think this is a huge underestimate for indirect causes, although 5 million from direct causes may be reasonable. I would argue the number is much more likely to be in the hundreds of millions if not a billion plus not to mention the fact that the quality of life of most people will be degraded.

But regardless of the number of deaths, the truly scary and heartwrenching effect is what will become of humanity. Desperate people do desperate things. When parts of the world start running out of water and other resources or when coastal areas become uninhabitable or when homes are destroyed, mass migration and even wars for resources are sure to come even if, on the surface, we give reasons for them other than climate change. Even in the United States, we have seen people migrate out of Los Angeles recently due to wildfires destroying their homes. And when these conflicts and mass migrations occur, they will most certainly be dealt with with a cruel lack of humanity. I would argue we are already seeing it with increased migration and harsher treatment of immigrants, not just in the United States, but in many parts of the world. Again, on the surface, there seems to be other reasons for this and there are, but climate change is a factor and it will become more and more of a factor. At a certain point, no wall will be big enough and no laws will be harsh enough to stop people from overwhelming borders. And, when that happens, naturally people will start considering certain people as less than human and a threat to justify slaughter, imprisonment and encampment and any other inhumane way to address the issue. I assure you, it will get ugly. What we're seeing today is nothing in comparison. So, with illegal immigration being such a hot topic these days, understand that the best way to handle the issue is to address the Climate Crisis (this is not to say that laws and enforcement are not factors, just much smaller factors). I challenge you to make the case otherwise. And, whichever side of the issue you are on (that we need to reduce illegal immigration or that we need to be more humane and accepting of immigrants), both sides of the issue will be much, much worse.

We are already seeing ground water drying up in many parts of the world. Surely this is due in part to increased usage, but it's also because it is recharging/replenishing less due to climate change. And the increased usage is also due to things like farmers needing more water because of climate change. It's going to get worse fast.

As far as mass extinction events go, human caused climate change may not even cause a mass extinction event if you define it by 50% or more species going extinct. Most estimates of species extinction due to climate change don't go above 30% (Link). But understand that, for biodiversity and ecosystems to recover, it could take millions of years. I don't know what to tell you if you don't see the collapse of coral reefs as a gigantic loss for both the Earth and humanity. As we know, climate change affects the oceans more rapidly than land. But, certainly, next on the chopping block are rainforests.

And, yes, climate change has occurred naturally over and over again in Earth's history and I actually agree that it does not make much of a difference whether it's caused by humans or it occurs naturally. Both, in the near term (hundreds of thousands of years), suck and should be avoided at all costs if your primary concern is your life and the lives of a hundred generations to come after you.

Finally, the idea that we are past the point of no return and there's no use in addressing it anyhow. I would say that there are multiple tipping points and some we have crossed and others we have not. Surely whatever action or inaction we take will have an impact and any measure that lessens the impact of climate change should be considered. Additionally, I believe that things that seem irreversible or past the tipping point we may find are reversible when we really commit to addressing this issue. Never underestimate the power of human ingenuity.

Whose Responsibility is it?

It's not the Brazilian cattle rancher's responsibility who, by trying to provide for their family and improve their lives, burns down rainforest to raise cattle. Nor is it the American's who wants a cheap hamburger. It's not the responsibility of the fossil fuel industry nor the meat industry who, by law, are required to deliver maximum profits to their shareholders. It's not the responsibility of the single mother living paycheck-to-paycheck who doesn't consider environmental issues at all when making day-to-day choices. And it's not my responsibility who still drives an internal combustion engine, likes luxury vacations including an occasional cruise, and still eats plenty of meat (though less than I used to!).

The responsibility lies squarely with our leaders in government around the world that can make policy changes and laws and regulations.

Do not let them fool you with ideas like "the free market needs to handle it" or "it's up to individuals to make different choices". That's an excuse for inaction. Personal choices that in turn affect the free market do have a huge impact and are important, but they certainly won't solve the crisis alone or fast enough, particularly because the majority of people can't afford to consider climate change when making day-to-day choices. I realize there are hard choices and changes to make when constituents are sometimes focused on issues they see as possibly improving their daily lives in the near term, but we entrust our leaders to do what's best for our nations and the world.

Our responsibility is simply to let our leaders know that they need to address this issue and prioritize it.

Another common excuse from our leaders goes like this: "It's only going to work if all nations are curbing carbon emissions and many are not so it makes no sense for us to restrict our carbon emissions. We'll fall behind economically and it won't make a difference!"

I remember when President George W. Bush made this exact excuse in 2001: "I oppose the Kyoto Protocol because it exempts 80 percent of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance..." (link). Imagine if, throughout American history, we had presidents and other leaders that said essentially, "We're not going to do the right thing because China's not doing it!" The America I know is a world leader. Frankly, I don't even believe that we need things like the Paris Climate Accords or endless negotiations and agreements between nations that often, even after signed agreements, aren't enforced. We need to lead on this issue and, I assure you, others will follow. Think of the impacts the United States had on the world with the civil rights movement, democracy, other humanitarian rights, consumer protections, public schools, the list goes on. We may no longer be the number one leader on some of these issues but that's almost the point: other countries saw what we were doing, saw that it worked, saw that it was the right thing to do and made these issues their own and became leaders themselves. We simply do not have to worry if other countries are addressing the issue. We just need to "be the change we want to see in the world".

I understand that this issue is arguably different from some that I mentioned in that it's not something we can simply address for our country in isolation. But, reality is that, as MLK said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly....Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children." And so, civil rights in America was, in fact, a global issue and addressing it nationally led to improvements in the issue globally. And inaction on the Climate Crisis is one of the greatest injustices of our time AND it's an injustice whose effects will increase exponentially with time.

Certainly, we aren't currently the number one leader on solving the climate crisis and we are perhaps getting farther away from it. But that doesn't mean we can't become a primary leader on the issue. And we can be that leader simply by focusing on what we do in our country without judging or forcing other countries to do the same.

Coming back to the free market and personal choices, there is an incredible carbon capture plant in Iceland called "Mammoth" built by a private company, "Climeworks" (link). Now, how did this come to be? A major part of it, of course, is that there are enough consumers who want to make environmentally friendly choices and, therefore, private companies that want their business want to be able to say they are carbon neutral or low emission. For many industries, this is only possible by purchasing carbon credits. And, therefore, a company like Climeworks rises up to provide that. It's an incredible plant and I believe this type of carbon capture is a major part of the solution to the Climate Crisis and how we could not only slow, but possibly reverse rising greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. But there's two really important facts to consider. First, just because there is a market for it doesn't mean it's a huge market. A far larger slice of consumers that companies cater to are consumers who want the cheapest possible product without considering environmental impacts. And who can blame them? Small and niche markets always get served in free markets but that doesn't mean they are the majority of the market. Second, there are many underlying government policies that contributed to this market and made the Climeworks model profitable including US policies: We "launched the Regional Direct Air Capture Hubs program in 2023 with $3.5 billion in funding provided by the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law. The DAC initiative was part of a broader push by the DOE to help the private sector deploy novel technologies at commercial scale" (link). Tell our leaders we want more plants like this in the United States and it will happen and I will be as happy as anyone else that it is the private sector that builds and runs them and profits from them.

What do We Need Our Leaders to do?

If any of these proposals sound extreme, consider the alternative and if that, in fact, is more extreme. Much of what we need to do involves simple carbon taxes and green subsidies to reshape our economy. Keep in mind that our government and other governments around the world have used taxes and subsidies to guide the economy throughout history. Furthermore, keep in mind that pure free market capitalism is anarchy and pure socialism is authoritarian and fascist. As a country, we have always tried to balance the two. Without socialism, we have no public roads and other infrastructure, no public schools, no public police force, no social safety nets, etc. Without free market capitalism, we stifle innovation, growth and even the arts, and we likely all become a lot more impoverished.

Let's start with the hardest pill to swallow and the one that will have one of the biggest impacts. We know that animal agriculture is the largest contributor of greenhouse gasses, not to mention requiring the largest amount of water. We need to subsidize plant foods and pay for it by taxing animal foods. And I am not talking about a small tax. I am talking about one significant enough to alter choices at the grocery store. I imagine at least 25-50% for the most carbon causing animal foods (beef). Sounds insane, right? I'm American through-and-through and I love a big, juicy bacon cheeseburger as much or more than I love a good, medium rare ribeye steak. I most certainly don't want to pay more for two of my favorite things to eat. You may think, you're never going to get American senators, representatives and presidents to make the case to their constituents that increasing the price of meat and animal foods is a good thing and, therefore, it's not possible. But you'd be wrong.

Tens of millions of Americans (if not a hundred million) agree that paying higher taxes for universal healthcare makes economic sense and actually is a net gain for their pocketbooks, for example. But there's a better example.

Our president has implemented huge tariffs on virtually every single country. Now, I'm not an economist and I can't definitively say whether these tariffs will really benefit Americans in the short and/or long term. But I would say that he's convinced me that these tariffs may bring more manufacturing back to the United States and that they may bring in revenue that we really need. Now, keep in mind that much of the media and experts were kicking and screaming that this was going to be so catastrophic for our economy that many Americans would go hungry. It has impacted the economy and potentially we haven't seen the biggest impacts yet and I don't deny that this affects the pocketbooks of many Americans. But our president stuck to his guns and did it and with much, much less justification than climate change. He campaigned on it and a large number of his constituents wanted it. Look, the reality is that it will have some negative and some positive effects and who knows which will outweigh the other. But the economy will adapt, people will adapt, and big changes can be made if our leaders have the will to do it. So far, it doesn't seem like Americans are starving due to tariffs, nor does it seem that we are in a recession or that consumers' ability to purchase luxury goods is vastly different from pre-tariff levels. The truth is that those economists who were kicking and screaming that the tariffs would be a critical blow to the American economy measure impacts to the economy by one thing: if it causes people to consume more, it's good. If it causes people to consume less, it's bad. The economy and how it affects people's well being is not as simple as GDP.

The funny thing is that tariffs are actually a form of carbon tax. The ideal way to implement them as a carbon tax would be to make it very low for our close neighbors and highest for countries that are farthest away or have the most carbon intensive shipping routes. But I digress.

The fact of the matter is that most Americans would accept such a drastic tax if they knew it was a major part of the solution to combat climate change AND if, in turn, plant foods become a lot cheaper.

You could begin to implement it in a way that makes sense according to carbon impact with beef and lamb (my two favorite meats) taxed higher for having a higher carbon footprint and perhaps eggs and wild-caught fish with the lowest. Over time, you could make it more nuanced with certain farming practices taken into account, etc. If you use 100% of these taxes to subsidize plant foods, you have a net zero impact on overall food prices.

The scientific consensus on nutrition is that eating more plant foods and less animal foods is generally beneficial for health and well being. Of course, it's not that simple and ultra processed plant foods aren't healthy. But I mention it because we do often accept taxes on unhealthy things. You might say, "Well, there's no comparison between animal foods and cigarettes". But when you consider the health impacts of climate change itself, then indeed there is a comparison. And, either way, people are willing to accept taxes on things that are bad for individuals and society.

Freedom is perhaps the most important American value. That includes the freedom to eat meat just as much as it includes the freedom to smoke cigarettes. Nobody's freedom to smoke has been taken away by taxes on cigarettes. Putting economic incentives on making the right choice is something that we want our government to do.

Some could also argue that I'm calling for a tax on animal foods because I can afford it and it won't affect me. I did make Reina Reborn with my own money after all. You could say that a tax on animal foods would only affect low income families. It's simply not true. Many rich folk make frugal choices every day. I think the rate of smoking is higher in low income individuals than high income. And, from personal experience, being raised by a single mother who did live paycheck to paycheck, I clearly remember my mom splurging on nice steaks when payday came around. In other words, it will affect the choices of both high income and low income folk without taking away any freedoms.

This type of carbon tax on animal foods and subsidies on plant foods will certainly reshape the economy but mostly in very positive ways. The huge corporations in the meat industry would certainly lobby against it as I mentioned above they are required to deliver maximum profits to their shareholders. I'm not against lending them a helping hand to transition some of their production. But more importantly it would lead to a renaissance in our food system overall, with greater food diversity, better health, and land opening up for more uses.

This type of approach merely reduces the amount of animal foods on a dinner plate, not removes them.

Why would the average person give an Impossible burger a chance when it costs twice as much as a beef burger? I've had many Impossible burgers. Are they the same as beef burgers? No. But, when done right, are they good and do they satisfy the burger craving? Yes. My wife genuinely likes them better than beef burgers. I don't. But I do like them and I'm happy to eat one instead of a real burger from time to time.

In summary, this is a necessary step in addressing the Climate Crisis and our leaders can do it and they can make the case to their constituents if they have the will and people will accept it if they understand it is a major part of the solution and if, while they will pay more for one thing on their dinner plate, they will pay less for another. There will be people who kick and scream that this will destroy the economy and make people poorer and ruin American diets and choices, but check their interests. It will reshape the economy: it will cause growth in some parts of the economy and shrinkage in others. And I don't see it as simple "winners" and "losers" any more than a pure free market without taxes or subsidies has winners and losers. And, again, I am all for the government helping the "losers" transition.

Now that I went on so long about that, I think I can be very brief on the next point: we do the same with energy: we tax carbon emitting fossil fuels and subsidize clean, renewable energy. Again, not with tiny taxes and subsidies, but with ones that will make a difference. Am I suggesting the sacreligious idea of purposely increasing the cost of a gallon of gas? Yes. But it also means that other energy sources become cheaper and the free market begins to develop more of those energy sources and technologies that use them. This is how we transform into a clean energy economy: we don't stifle the free market, we simply incentivize. Free market capitalism continues to thrive as money can be made more easily in one area and less easily in another.

Disregarding carbon taxes, we also need to invest heavily in nuclear fusion power development. If it is estimated that we could have many of these power plants in the 2040's or 2050's, let's make it the 2030's instead. Whatever the estimates are, let's try to cut them in half.

I also believe that permanent carbon capture solutions like the plant I mentioned above are a crucial part of the solution. I have heard people who really care about addressing the Climate Crisis argue that this just gives people an excuse to keep emitting greenhouse gases. I don't see it that way. We are past multiple tipping points. Actually taking measures to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere rather than just slowing the release of it is critical. To scale it up, in addition to plants that sell carbon credits to companies wanting to offset their carbon emissions (like the ClimeWorks plant), you could have some that are government contracts that private companies could compete to win to build that capture the carbon without selling the credits. In this situation, a company like ClimeWorks may themselves try to win those contracts and operate both types of plants.

I don't know all the solutions and I'm sure there's much that I am missing and other solutions that should be included. As we invest in making the major changes that we need to address the issue, people will innovate better and more efficient solutions as well. I don't know all the details of what was in the proposed "Green New Deal" or how good it was but, yes, we need some sort of Green New Deal.

I also want to be clear that I am not suggesting that there are not other important issues than addressing the Climate Crisis and that these should not be taken into consideration when we vote or what we ask from our leaders. But I ask that you let your leaders know that this is a top priority for you and for all of us and that it will heavily influence your vote and that you want major action taken soon and that you are willing to accept changes including some that would increase the cost of one thing you buy but decrease the cost of another. I know there are wars going on, starvation, extreme poverty, and more. I know that the Palestinians have not had basic human rights or sovereignty for the greater part of a century. We must and should take action on these things as well. And I know that there are so many important political issues like pro-choice vs pro-life, 2nd amendment rights vs gun control, reducing immigration vs immigrant rights and protections, and so, so much more. But the American Dream, that our children can have a better life and future than us, is important to all parts of the political spectrum and the Climate Crisis is its biggest threat. This is an issue that we can unite on. Both conservatives and liberals want to protect the planet. Both Democrats and Republicans want to have less natural disasters. Both left and right want to avoid a dystopian future that they wish they did more to prevent for their children. Do not let people try to make this a divisive issue. You are not an extremist for caring about this issue and wanting to address it. You are not asking for the impossible. You just want what most people want: less suffering, greater prosperity, health and well being and protection.

What Can I do Besides Asking and Waiting for Our Leaders to Make Necessary Changes?

As mentioned above, the millions and millions of people who care about this issue and make choices in their daily lives to reduce their impact and vote with their dollars have a huge impact and we would be far, far worse off without them. I only mean that we cannot possibly think this alone will solve the Climate Crisis when many people don't have the dollars to vote with and have so many other worries and concerns. I may make the choices necessary to have a smaller carbon footprint than the average American but that still leaves me with a larger carbon footprint than the majority of the world and, living in a country like the United States, it's nearly impossible to change that.

Here is how we can have the greatest impact in our personal lives:

Likely the biggest impact an average person can have is to eat more plant foods and less animal foods. My wife and I used to put down a ton of meat. In a single dinner, we would eat a whole family pack of chicken or each eat a 16-20oz steak. Today, we share a 16-20oz steak with our child and enjoy it and feel better after the meal and some meals we have are vegetarian. We do have meat alternatives like Impossible burgers sometimes. You can tell your favorite restaurant that you would like to see more vegan and vegetarian options on the menu and, if they listen, try it out.

If you have the money, I really recommend the Giving Green Fund as a way to donate to have the biggest impact although there are many other organizations that you can choose from that do great work.

Try to be less wasteful. Give up fast fashion and buy quality clothing that you love and that lasts. When you need a new appliance or a new car, go for quality and durability. This is something particularly difficult for low income families and is one way in which the poor pay more: they have to choose cheap over quality but then need to replace things more often. When you want to upgrade or buy something nice and new as we all do, see if you can give away what you're replacing rather than throw it away (or even sell it). You post that you have something free for pickup, you get so many responses in just hours. I know from personal experience. Do your best to understand and believe that consumerism (that buying more stuff is how you become happy) is being sold to you for profits and not because there are evil actors out there but just as a natural aspect of capitalism.

Ask your electric company if they provide any green options. Many have special programs if you ask for them.

And finally, try to unite rather than divide. Do not state who you think are the enemies of the solution, but rather try to make allies out of those who maybe don't have the knowledge and information that you do on the Climate Crisis. Remember, no one wants a worse planet. No one wants more natural disasters. No one wants their children to live in a world worse than the one they live in. No one wants other people around the world to have to flee their homes and become refugees. Try not to lecture, grandstand or be self-righteous (hopefully I didn't in this essay but I'm guilty of it too sometimes, even if not here). Rather than saying "you're wrong" ask "how do you think the issue can be best addressed?" Love, respect and kindness is the way.

Oh yeah, and, by the way, having sex is a great green activity!