From a strictly logical perspective, it’s hard to understand how we can be doing so little to slow global warming. Greg Craven summarized why by examining the extreme possible outcomes in his viral climate ‘decision grid’ video.

In short, if we take action to slow global warming, the worst case scenario involves draconian government regulations that trigger an economic recession. If we don’t, the worst case scenario involves an economic recession too, but also a host of other global and societal catastrophes.

Although Craven doesn’t look at the probabilities of these worst case scenarios, they’re also heavily weighted towards the case for taking action to curb global warming. There are lots of options to slow global warming that don’t involve drastic government regulation, and that can even be beneficial for the economy. If we decide that we’ve gone too far in cutting carbon pollution, it’s relatively easy to scale back government policies.



On the other hand, evidence from past climate change events indicates that triggering tipping points pushing the climate into a dramatically different state is a real possibility. Unlike government policies, as the latest IPCC report noted, many climate change impacts will be irreversible.



In other words, if we take too much action to curb climate change, the worst case scenario (upper left grid) is easily avoided. If we don’t take enough action, we may not be able to avoid some of the worst consequences in the bottom right grid.

Of course there’s a wide spectrum of possible actions and outcomes between the extremes. However, the more action we take to reduce carbon pollution, the fewer harmful climate change consequences we’ll trigger.

Support for climate action is broad and growing

In fact, there are few groups that don’t support significant action to curb carbon pollution. The US military views climate change as a serious threat. The Pope is rumored to be planning a major effort to encourage an international agreement on climate policy targets in 2015. A growing number of faith groups support climate action, viewing it as an issue of stewardship. Even a majority of non-Tea Party Republicans agree that the planet is warming and support an international treaty that requires the United States to cut its emissions of carbon dioxide 90% by the year 2050.

More climate scientists are beginning to speak up. At the fall AGU conference, I spoke in a great session to a room full of about 200 climate scientists who were eager to learn about effective science communication. And more policymakers are starting to listen to them. The presidents of the two largest carbon polluting countries recently agreed to curb their emissions, and a couple of Republicans in the House of Representatives recently voiced concerns about climate change.

So far, most of those House Republicans have been unwilling to do anything to slow global warming, and in fact have tried to undermine President Obama’s efforts to tackle the problem. However, the EPA greenhouse gas regulations are here to stay. Republicans’ best option to rid America of these government regulations is to replace them with a small government, free market alternative.

Extreme weather events will only become more intense, and tackling climate change is becoming a generational issue. 61% of Republicans under the age of 50 support government action to cut carbon pollution. Conservative policymakers in the USA, Australia, and Canada are among the last major holdouts obstructing action to curb climate change, but in the face of physical reality and growing public will, that’s not a sustainable political position.



The longer they hold out and the more carbon pollution we pump into the atmosphere, the greater the risks of dangerous climate consequences. Climate action is inevitable, but the clock is ticking.

