Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to University of Austin Research Associate Todd Davidson, preparing for war on climate change means we should disregard scientific uncertainty.
Commentary: We Should Prepare for Climate Change Like We Prepare for War
Climate change poses a more significant threat to global security than the low probability event of a ground war with China. And yet, we spent $590 billion on defensein 2017 and maintained readiness against the unlikely prospect of a large conventional war. It’s time for conservatives to recognize our constitutional mandate to provide for the common defense by addressing the rising threat of climate change.
There are three primary explanations that are used to justify inaction on climate change: The science is uncertain; we cannot afford to address the problem; and other counties will keep polluting, so our actions won’t matter.
First: Is the science settled? It does not matter—we have an obligation to be prepared to defend the country, even if the threat is uncertain.
Despite the uncertainty in the timing and location of military threats, we are always ready for war just in case. The same approach of readiness should be used for climate action, because despite the uncertainty in how climate change could impact the world, the threat on the horizon is real and has the potential to be catastrophic.
The problem with rushing headlong into expenditure is the money being demanded is utterly astronomical.
For example, Professor Aled Jones, Professor & Director of the Global Sustainability Institute, declared back in February that the $300 billion per year currently spent on renewables is far short of the money required to address the climate threat.
Waving away uncertainties when that kind of money is on the table is simply unacceptable.