Paul S. Chinowsky
October 5, 2020
In the middle of a hurricane, extreme heatwave, or out of control wildfire, discussions inevitably ensue as to the role of climate change in the natural disaster. However, this discussion leads to a subsequent debate centered on the cause of climate change. At that point, the participants often devolve into tribal positions regarding the role of human activity in climate change.
I know that what I am about to say may not sit well with some. But stay with me and allow me a few minutes to make my case.
The science around the cause of climate change is strong, the vast majority of scientists would assert it is unequivocal. Understanding this science and building a global coalition in an attempt to counter climate change is critical. However, this movement will take time. In respect to building climate resilient communities, time has run out. While we keep pursuing climate mitigation, we need at the same time to take immediate action to build resilient communities.
It is in this context that I assert that climate tribalism is preventing communities from enhancing resiliency. Specifically, this debate is misplaced when we are talking about climate resilience and adaptation planning. I am not saying that the cause of climate change is not important. Rather, when it comes to making decisions regarding how to increase resiliency and put in place adaptation policies, the only fact that matters is that climate change is a reality and communities have to respond.
What we are witnessing because of this tribalism is the failure to address the critical need for resiliency action. Each camp on this issue is equally passionate about their position. On one side is the much larger camp that insists that climate change is wholly or mostly attributable to human activity. On the other is a smaller, but equally vocal camp, that holds the position that climate change is a natural process. And of course, there is an even smaller camp that insists there is no such thing as climate change.
I am not here to critique these positions. Rather, if we want resilient communities, we must move beyond whether you believe climate change is human-caused or whether you believe it is a natural phenomenon. In fact, holding on to these positions as prerequisites for whether officials will engage in resiliency discussions is simply unproductive.
Without a move to aggressive resiliency action, advocates of every camp may soon watch their houses either burn in a wildfire, flood from sea level rise, or experience damage from hurricane-force winds. However, this result is not inevitable. We can look at the response to earthquakes as a prime example. Science tells us that major earthquakes are inevitable. Rather than questioning this prediction, we focus on improving buildings, creating emergency plans, and investing in earthquake research. We do this on the basis that it is for the general good.
The time is overdue for us to start addressing climate change resiliency in the same manner that we address the prospect of other natural events such as earthquakes. Thousands of lives have been saved by the advances we have made in understanding earthquakes. Unfortunately, this lesson is not being transferred to climate change. As a country, we are not making significant progress in making communities climate resilient. We are not putting sufficient funds in place to create the barriers, natural defenses, or changes in building materials that are required for climate resiliency. We are not providing local communities with the funds required to prevent the failure of infrastructure in the next storm. We are not putting in place the successful lessons that we have learned.
It is important to recognize that many communities and states are doing commendable jobs creating resiliency and climate action plans. These are necessary. But a plan without implementation is just interesting dinner party discussion. This situation is not impossible to solve. All we have to do is look at how cities such as San Francisco and Seattle have invested in earthquake resilience to realize that our great communities can put in place the innovations needed to be prepared for natural events. However, it will take everyone moving past their individual tribal lines in the sand to achieve a similar result for climate change. Just as extreme political tribalism never leads to a stronger country, extreme climate tribalism will not save a house, a community center, or lives. It is our choice.