‘Ōlelo No‘eau

E nānā ana i ka ‘ōpuao ka ‘āina.

Observing the horizon clouds of the land.

Kūkulu ka ‘ike i ka ‘ōpua.

Knowledge is set up in the clouds.

He hō’ailona ke ao i ‘ike ‘ia.

Clouds are recognized signs.

Learning Outcomes

1. Students will be able to describe the key processes of climate change and the impacts of climate change on human civilization and the environment.
2. Students will be able to discuss how climate change is shaped by the political, cultural, and economic systems.
3. Students will be able to discuss potential solutions to climate change and the challenges of their implementation on global, national, and local levels.

The Causes of Climate Change

The most significant global environmental crisis is climate change. The primary source of heat for the earth is the sun. Heat radiates from the sun and is trapped near the earth’s surface by the earth’s atmosphere, a thin layer of gasses above the surface of the earth. In contrast, the moon, which does not have an atmosphere, is very hot (224F) during the day and extremely cold (-298F) at night. It is the atmosphere which helps keep Earth within the narrow temperature range that makes life possible. The atmosphere is 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gasses. Although a very small percentage of the total, the carbon dioxide is extremely important in that it is a greenhouse gas, one of the gasses that traps the sun’s heat within the atmosphere. The increasing amount of carbon dioxide means that more heat is trapped near the earth’s surface. There are seasonal and natural fluctuations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. However, since the beginning of the industrial revolution when humans began using fossil fuels for energy, human activities have been releasing extra carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This extra carbon dioxide means that more of the sun’s heat is trapped close to the earth, increasing the average temperature. In addition to carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons are also greenhouse gasses. Although each of these occur naturally, human activities like mining, industry, transportation, and agriculture release additional greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.

Have you ever noticed that clear cloudless mornings are colder than cloudy mornings? That is because water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. The water vapor in the clouds traps the heat near the surface. Unlike other greenhouse gasses which can last hundreds or thousands of years in the atmosphere, water vapor only lasts 9 days in the atmosphere. Clouds, and how they will react to a warming planet, are one of the biggest and most challenging variables in large climate change computer models and could provide positive or negative feedback cycles that could accelerate or slow global warming.

Most of the global increase in temperature is caused by carbon dioxide, or CO₂. Carbon dioxide is largely released from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas. Of these three fossil fuels, coal releases the most carbon dioxide for the same amount of energy produced and natural gas releases the least. Most of the carbon dioxide released by human activities has been in the last several centuries as a result of the industrial revolution and the burning of fossil fuels for transportation, industrial production, and domestic uses. As trees and other plants grow, they absorb carbon dioxide, taking it out of the atmosphere while also releasing oxygen. Burning trees and deforestation releases stored carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. Currently, we are releasing more fossil fuels from burning fossil fuels and wildfires than growing forests are absorbing naturally.

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from 280 ppm to 415 ppm, increasing 50% from pre-industrial levels.^[1] Scientists can measure the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the last 800,000 years by looking at carbon dioxide trapped in air bubbles trapped in arctic ice cores. Although levels of carbon dioxide have fluctuated naturally over this time period, the current levels are the highest they have ever been in the last 800,000 years. Modern humans evolved roughly 200,000 years ago and have relied on the  relatively stable climatic patterns of the last 5000 years to develop agriculture and civilization, meaning that we are already in uncharted territory.

Methane is also a potent greenhouse gas.^[2] It traps 25 times more heat than carbon dioxide. Methane is released primarily by domesticated animals and their manure as part of digestion of grasses. This is one reason why reducing meat consumption can reduce your carbon footprint. Other sources of methane include natural gas leaks during the production, transportation, and distribution of fossil fuels and the decomposition of waste in landfills.

Nitrous oxide is released from soils in agriculture with the application of fertilizers but also from some burning fossil fuels, industrial processes and the treatment of sewage wastewater. Reducing the usage of fertilizers, managing manure, and improved catalytic converters on cars can all reduce these emissions.

Ozone, or O₃, is another greenhouse gas. The ozone layer is a section of the stratosphere with high concentrations of ozone which absorbs harmful UV radiation from the sun, protecting life on earth. In the 1990s the ozone layer was being depleted by CFCs, or Chlorofluorocarbons, which were used in aerosol sprays and other industrial uses. The Montreal Protocol, in 1987, was an international treaty that effectively reduced the production and use of CFCs. The hole in the ozone layer has been shrinking ever since. A lot of people still confuse the hole in the ozone layer with climate change. Because CFCs are greenhouse gasses, the hole in the ozone layer actually cools the planet somewhat but increases incidences of skin cancer from harmful radiation.

Chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons are all industrial created chemicals that have been around only for the last 100 years or so. They are used in refrigerators, aerosols, solvents, cleaning solutions, and other industrial applications. While the amounts of these chemicals are much smaller than CO₂, they are more potent greenhouse gasses, trapping heat at a rate of 7000-12000 times more than carbon dioxide. They can also stay in the atmosphere for a very long time. Even though CFC production is decreasing and even illegal in many places, there is much work to be done to locate  and safely dispose of older appliances, cars, and gas tanks. All together, these chemicals could have a disastrous effect if released.

As we can see, since the industrial revolution the developed world has shifted to using fossil fuels to do pretty much everything; produce electricity, move people and goods across the planet, and manufacture goods. All of this carbon dioxide is heating the planet. Agricultural and mining that produces methane and nitrous oxide and the industrial production of other chemicals add to the greenhouse effect. Because so much of what we produce and consume has an impact on global warming we need to radically change the way our society is organized to change direction.

Impacts of Climate Change

The impacts of climate change will be far reaching. Severe weather events like floods, hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, and wildfires will become more common and more severe. Warmer air holds more moisture which can impact the formation and size of hurricanes and subsequent floods. In fact, we are already seeing these impacts. These disasters can destroy homes and infrastructures, kill people, but perhaps even more significantly, challenge our ability to produce enough food to feed ourselves. The disruption of agriculture will be one of the biggest challenges. Domesticated plants and humans have co-evolved over the last 10,000 years to produce the food we need to survive. The continuity of these systems depends on stable climatic conditions. Numerous past civilizations have collapsed in response to much smaller regional climatic shifts. In fact, the rise of agriculture and civilization and the beginning of the Holocene, the current geological epoch, is a result of the end of the last ice age about 12,000 years ago.

Although natural variations in temperature have occurred over the history of the planet, the current warming is unprecedented and will be catastrophic. Without human production of greenhouse gasses, the planet should be cooling slightly. Therefore natural variation does not explain the current rise in global temperatures. The last seven years have been the hottest on record and the ten hottest years in recorded history have all happened since 2005.^[3]

The warming climate and failing agricultural systems will also create mass human migrations as people flee areas that are too hot to live and head to cooler areas or those that are less prone to natural disasters. In addition to migrations, armed conflict and destabilized governments are other potential responses to these natural disasters. Many scientists link the decade long conflict in Syria to a long term drought in the region. Increased migration into the US from Central and South America can also be linked to droughts impacted by climate change in the region.

The geopolitics of our dependence on fossil fuels is also problematic. US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are linked to their importance in fossil fuel production. The Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was funded by oil production. Even as sanctions were put into place, the market to buy Russian oil remained open because it was essential for many countries. It can be argued that our over reliance on fossil fuels has created a dangerous and politically volatile planet.

Another significant impact of climate change is sea level rise.  Here too, it has already begun to happen. Sea level rise is caused by two major factors: thermal expansion, in which warm water expands and takes up more space and the melting of polar ice caps. Because important cities and significant infrastructure are built next to the oceans; the financial, economic, and cultural impacts of sea level rise are enormous.

In addition to these impacts on human civilization and society, there are a number of impacts on other plants and animals. Warming ocean temperatures kill coral reefs which support huge amounts of biodiversity and impact fisheries worldwide. Forest fires will reduce wildlife populations already stressed by overhunting and habitat reductions. Shifting habitats as temperatures change will drive many more plant and animal species to extinction.

Feedback Loops

A number of impacts of climate change will be intensified by feedback loops. For instance, climate change has already increased droughts, which in turn leads to higher incidences of forest fires, which then contribute to increased climate change by releasing stored carbon from forests into the atmosphere while also impacting human homes and harming wildlife. If such impacts continue, much of the Amazon could be permanently transformed into savanna.^[4] Similarly,  increased temperatures in the arctic has led to the melting of the permafrost (areas that usually stay frozen from year to year). As the permafrost melts, it releases a staggering amount of methane which has been trapped in the frozen organic material for millenia, further accelerating climate change. Another feedback loop involves melting sea ice.  White ice is very reflective and most of the heat which hits it is reflected back. However, if the ice is melted the sea is much darker and absorbs the heat from the sunlight. These feedback loops mean that simply reducing our carbon emissions might not be enough, we also need to plan for the ways in which the planet will respond to the changes already underway.

Although we are describing geological and ecological processes, they are being driven by human organizations and institutions. Families and communities are sheltered from the impact of wildfires or floods by insurance companies that provide funds to rebuild after major natural disasters. In the US, flood insurance is underwritten by the federal government (at the taxpayers’ expense) because no major insurance company could make money off of it. As a result, homeowners often continue to rebuild homes in places that periodically flood. As the number, severity, and impact of natural disasters rise, many areas of the country will be uninsurable, shifting where people live and build homes. Even though we call hurricanes and floods natural disasters, they are not. They are natural processes, turned into disasters by human activities that build in inappropriate locations and fail to prepare and plan for these recurring natural events. In the case of climate change, the disasters themselves are exacerbated by government and corporate unwillingness to shift away from fossil fuels.

Unnatural Disasters

In addition, many governments actually subsidize fossil fuel extraction by providing fossil fuel companies with cheap leases to mine or extract resources from public lands, direct government incentives to extract fossil fuels, and tax breaks for fossil fuel companies. These direct and indirect subsidies are in the billions of dollars annually and have actually been increasing in recent years, even as the costs of global climate change are becoming increasingly apparent.^[5] While cheap energy promotes economic growth and development, these continued subsidies illustrate the challenge of governments trying to address climate change while simultaneously supporting the industries that are responsible for the problems.

The financial and banking industry provides the funding for fossil fuel exploration, extraction, and distribution. There are already some small shifts. Several major financial investment firms and university investments like the 42 billion dollar Harvard and 126 billion dollar University of California endowments have made commitments to divest from fossil fuel companies.^[6] Other large investments firms, like Blackrock, the world’s largest investment company holding 7.8 trillion dollars worth of investments, have signalled that they are concerned about their role in fossil fuel investments and made commitments to reduce their hiolding in fossil companies but are not moving as quickly as needed. ^[7]Once major financial institutions are unwilling to invest in fossil fuels, the industry will be unable to finance new exploration and development.

Examining the ways powerful political and economic organizations support fossil fuels shows how climate change is caused by structural forces and not individual decisions. My individual decisions to ride my bike to work will do very little compared to the billions of dollars of government subsidies. From this perspective, the most important individual decision we can make is to vote for politicians who will work to change the systems in place that promote unsustainable practices. However, removing these subsidies will increase the cost of gasoline and energy.  As consumers and citizens in a democracy, the most important thing we can do is support politicians who are willing to remove these subsidies, so that the economic signals encourage consumers to make the necessary choices.

Politics of Climate Change

As you are already aware, we feel that the only way to change the world fast enough is through institutional rather than personal action.  However, personal action is still important but for different reasons and in different ways than you might think.  This section  will attempt to tease out these relationships and provide a path forward for meaningful engagements with this existential crisis.

Personal actions are important to educate others and to shift cultural perceptions around climate change. Personal actions can also help us align our actions with our values and combine to build collective systems for composting, sustainable transportation, or community supported agriculture. However, individual decisions will never happen at the scale and speed necessary to solve this crisis. The primary vehicle for action must be the government. There is no worldwide government that has the authority to force individual nations to comply with any set of environmental goals. The United Nations has been active in providing a forum to discuss action and collating the data of the global scientific community to provide recommendations. But so far, this has not been enough to spur most nations to action.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations in 1988. Since then it has released 6 reports, with the latest released in 2022. These reports, produced by scientists from around the world, summarize thousands of scientific articles on climate change to present the current state of the world. These reports are the gold standard for scientific analysis and are meant to guide governmental response to climate change. The latest report was extremely worrying.

The Conference of Parties (COP) is an annual meeting of government representatives to discuss and decide on treaties to regulate climate change. 2021 was COP26, or the 26th year of meetings. The Paris Agreement in 2015 was the first in which all countries agreed to try to limit warming to 1.5-2 degrees Celsius above normal. Although important, these meetings largely illustrate the inability of international governments to make significant changes^[8]. Much of the conflict at these meetings revolves around who should bear the financial burden of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Since they developed first and have been emitting CO2 for longer, developed countries have contributed the lion’s share of total greenhouse gasses over time. However, developed countries now have the technology and financial resources to reduce or outsource their pollution to other areas.

Part of the problem is that no one wants to be first. The cost of transitioning away from fossil fuels is perceived to put that nation at a competitive disadvantage, when in fact the opposite may well be true. Every state has a different relationship towards global warming. In poorer states, those in charge might agree in theory, but feel like they do not have the resources to make this transition without aid from richer countries. They might be more concerned with economic development, some of which might involve deforestation for agriculture, which works against our global goals. Should richer states pay poorer states to not cut down their forests, so they can continue to provide global carbon removal?  If they do, how do we guarantee that funds are spent appropriately?  Unfortunately, the work of transitioning away from fossil fuels must happen within currently existing frameworks, which can be inefficient, unjust, or corrupt.

Developing countries like China and India are growing sources of greenhouse gasses as they become more industrialized and urbanized. So far, no countries (except Gambia) are meeting even the modest, non-binding goals they set for themselves. While there are a number of potential solutions and a lot of government meetings and plans, even the most environmentally progressive countries are failing to reduce their carbon footprints fast enough to reduce the worst harms of global warming.

The debates in these meetings revolve around issues of environmental justice. We believe the developed countries that created this problem bear the responsibility to fix it. In reality, poorer countries, especially in the tropics, will bear the brunt of impacts of global warming, such as hurricanes, floods, and other natural disasters and are the least able to mitigate those harms.

By any metric, the United States is the country with the greatest responsibility to act.  The US has just 5% of the world’s population but emits 25% of the world’s greenhouse gasses.  Until 2006, we were the country with the greatest annual CO₂ emissions.  We are still the country with the greatest total CO₂ emissions over time.  Our per capita emissions are among the worst of all the large countries, even in the developed world.  This combination of being a large, populous, wealthy country, as well as having the largest military means that America has a disproportionate influence. So far, we have failed to take a meaningful leadership role to move towards a global solution

The main reason America has failed to take climate change seriously is the influence of the fossil fuel corporations over the Republican party. The American political system is designed to make it difficult to get things done. When one party is committed to blocking progress, it can be nearly impossible. So, at the very minimum, the first step to preserving a viable planet for future generations is to vote for Democratic candidates (or Republican Candidates who will vote for climate legislation).  Although neither party has truly committed to action, the Democratic Party at least recognizes the need to act and considers stopping climate change an important goal. Although there are individual Republicans with some openness to climate change, far too few have shown the political courage to really challenge their party leadership and base on this incredibly important issue.

Even within the Democratic Party, there is a wide range of positions on what should be done. The inability of Democratic administrations to pass meaningful climate legislation stems from those differences. So, you should vote for the candidate with the most accurate assessment of climate change and the most commitment to change the system to achieve that goal. Unfortunately, there are not very many of these kinds of candidates. It is questionable whether or not someone who made climate change the central aspect of their candidacy would get elected, even in Democratic states. This illustrates the extent to which that vast majority of the electorate fails to understand the importance of the issue.

The only other set of political goals that make sense are those that make achieving our climate goals easier.  Currently Republicans hold disproportionate power due to the undemocratic nature of the electoral college, the Senate, the filibuster, and the single-winner elections.  Those interested in changing American politics should also be committed to making American government more democratic through electoral reform of these kinds. We should be working to dismantle all of these undemocratic ideas by whatever constitutional means necessary.

Impacts of Climate Change in Hawaii

How does Hawaii fit into this larger narrative of climate change? As part of a developed country, our per capita CO₂ emissions are similar to other Americans. (Hawaii ranks 30th of the 50 states in per capita emissions.)^[9]  Our diets and transportation habits are similar. If we are eating food not produced in Hawaii, bringing the food to the island emits carbon dioxide. Due to our tropical climate, we use no electricity for heating, but may use some for air conditioning. If we leave the state, we usually fly, which emits a lot of carbon dioxide. Although the state has the most solar panels per capita, on Oahu, most of the power comes from burning diesel and we even have a coal power plant as well. The state also has some of the highest electricity costs in the nation.

Hawaii’s main industry is tourism, followed by the military, with agriculture a distant third. This contributes to climate change through the consumption of fossil fuels, most notably jet fuel used by residents and tourists to travel to and from Hawaii. The Hawaii Tourism Authority’s 2021 Destination Management Plan treated growing trends for low carbon travel as a “threat” to the Hawaii tourism industry, illustrating their total denial of climate change and the need to transition towards more sustainable forms of tourism.^[10] Jet fuel is particularly problematic because there are currently few good alternatives to produce that kind of highly concentrated and portable fuel needed for aviation. In general, people in Hawaii produce a similar amount of greenhouse gas emissions as other Americans, who are among the worst in the world.

Hawaii will suffer a number of impacts from climate change. Sea level rise is the first and most obvious. Sea level has risen 10 inches in Hawaii since 1950 and is projected to rise 20 inches by 2050. Because of this Hawaii has already lost 13 miles of beaches around the state. 10% of the beaches on Oahu have already been lost and another 70% are in danger.^[11] In addition, miles of highways are vulnerable on the North Shore and Windward sides of Oahu, South Molokai and Maui, and other areas around the state. Houses along these beaches will be lost with sea level rise. We can see this already happening on the North Shore and Windward sides of Oahu. These changes will be exacerbated by hurricanes and floods. The historical patterns of hurricanes have been shifting northward and they are growing in intensity. It is only a matter of time before a major hurricane strikes Hawaii, dramatically destroying houses and businesses. Floods are also increasingly common, exacerbated by rising sea levels.

Coral bleaching is happening throughout the state as ocean temperatures rise. Researchers at the University of Hawaii of Marine Labs at Coconut Island are developing heat resistant corals that can survive the warming nearshore waters. The destruction of the reefs impacts tourism, local subsistence fisheries, and the ecological health of our coast. Currently, we are already experiencing coral bleaching events as sea water temperatures rise for weeks at a time during the summer.

On land, many endangered Hawaii forest birds are dying from Avian malaria.  As a result, they only live in the forests above 4,000 feet where there are no mosquitos to carry and transmit the disease. With global climate change, mosquitos are already entering higher altitudes, effectively eliminating habitat for native birds on Kauai and reducing it on Maui and Hawaii island. This could push these already endangered species to extinction. Sea level rise will cover many of the atolls in the Northwestern Hawaiian islands, reducing or eliminating nesting sites for millions of seabirds, driving the extinction of the several species endemic to those islands and reducing habitat for Hawaiian monk seals and sea turtles that rely on isolated beaches on the Northwestern Hawaiian islands to reproduce.

Unlike the federal government, the Hawaii state government has come to a consensus about the importance of climate change and the need to do something about it. Hawaii has committed to net zero carbon emission by the year 2045, although in practice the state has still failed to implement specific policies to reach that goal.  Kauai has made the most progress towards this goal. One key aspect of their success is that the electrical utility is a coop owned by ratepayers, so they do not have to answer to shareholders. On Oahu, HECO agrees with the states’ goals to address climate change, but drags their feet in taking the necessary actions to change.

Hawaii’s challenges are similar to those in Western Europe where politicians have agreed that we must do something but still haven’t committed the resources needed to actually implement change at the necessary scale. Even if the state of Hawaii achieves all of the goals we have set out, we will still only reduce carbon emission by a fraction of the required amount. We have no concrete plan to achieve our ambitious goal. This disconnect between what Hawaii state government officials are planning on doing and what actually needs to happen is frightening. It demonstrates a lack of really understanding the urgency and severity of the problem and an unwillingness to make the changes necessary. Politicians prefer to play it safe, trying to make small changes to the system without offending the tourism or construction industries, or large landowners that fund politics in Hawaii. They don’t want to inflict any pain on consumers for fear of losing reelection, although our current transportation and energy systems are unsustainable long term.

Solutions to Climate Change

This section will focus on larger systemic solutions and less on individual ones. This is because individual lifestyle choices like flying or driving less, walking or biking more, making your home more energy efficient, and eating meat, on their own, will not really solve the climate crisis. They will probably make you healthier and save you money on electricity, but focusing on them is often a corporate strategy to shift your attention away from more systemic and substantive issues like corporate and government corruption, complaisance, and collusion. Focusing on these solutions puts the responsibility on individuals rather than on the companies and governments who should actually be considered responsible for their continued inaction and who can create significant change. The CDP Carbon Majors report in 2017 found that 100 companies, mostly fossil fuel companies, are responsible for over 70% of global climate emission since 1988^[12]. We need to hold these companies accountable for their actions. Some of the potential solutions include reducing coal use, renewable energy, carbon storage, and a carbon tax or cap and trade system.

Coal is the poster child for irresponsible energy productions. It is the dirtiest form of energy production in terms of air pollution and also releases the most carbon dioxide. There is a large push to simply retire all coal burning power plants which would already significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions. These can easily be replaced or converted to burn other fossil fuels but even this relatively easy solution is taking time to implement. Hawaii’s only coal burning power plant is on Oahu where it produces 15-20% of the energy for the island and is slated to be shut down in September 2022.

There are other ways to generate electricity that do not require burning fossil fuels. These renewable resources include solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal, ocean thermal energy conversion, nuclear energy, tidal energy, and others. Much of this technology already exists and is cost competitive with fossil fuels. Overall, the cost of these new technologies is dropping fast. In order for renewable energy to work, we also need to electrify anything that currently runs on fossil fuels. This means getting rid of heaters, gas stoves, gas powered lawn mowers, leaf blowers, weed whackers, and most importantly, gasoline powered cars and trucks. A combination of renewable energy and electrification is essential in reducing carbon emissions everywhere.

However, the process of building new renewable energy infrastructure and replacing cars and appliances will take some time. Government programs and incentives can speed this transition along. Some car companies have already signed pledges to produce all electric vehicles within the next few decades. In addition to stopping to put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, we also need to remove the carbon that is already there.

The simplest way to do this is through the planting of trees. Trees use photosynthesis to absorb sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide to grow.  Their waste product is oxygen.  A significant amount of carbon dioxide can be removed by planting trees. Some environmental historians attribute the little Ice Age, a period of brief cooling in the North Atlantic from the 16th-19th centuries to depopulation of vast areas of the Americas because of introduced diseases and the natural regrowth of forests^[13]. Similar processes could have been at work in Europe after the black death during the Middle Ages.

Cutting down trees and forest fires, alternatively, can release stored carbon into the atmosphere. Preserving existing forests and replanting forests is a great way to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. How much carbon a tree will remove depends on the species, its growth rate, and how long it lives. Obviously it is better to preserve existing forests than to plant new ones which will take years to grow. Old growth forests remove more carbon than newly planted ones, so conservation of existing forests is critical. Forests can also impact regional climates through the water they release into the atmosphere.

Agriculture can also capture and store carbon if it is done correctly. Regenerative agriculture can build pastures that store huge amounts of carbon below the ground in root networks and plant tissues. Because of the scale of agriculture and pastures worldwide, these can have a significant impact on carbon removal strategies. Other technologies are being developed to capture carbon from the atmosphere and pump it into the ocean, underground, or use it in the production of building materials like cement. Many of these technologies are promising but still need to be refined in order to be cost effective and efficient enough to implement on a wide scale. It is unlikely that carbon capture alone will remove the excess carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere but it is one tool among many to reduce the impact of global climate change.

The problem with many of these developing technologies and agricultural practices is that they are more expensive than conventional options. Because fossil fuels are heavily subsidized and their costs (financial, health, and environmental) are borne by the public, the cheapest options are often the most destructive. Government subsidies make the production and distribution of fossil fuels cheaper than they should be. In fact, gas in the United States is among the most affordable in the world. Furthermore, companies are generally not held liable for the air, water, and other types of pollution they produce. They usually don’t pay the hospital bills of those who live next to polluting factories or even the full cost of cleaning up major environmental disasters like oil spills. One strategy to address this discrepancy is a carbon tax.

Although there are multiple ways to implement a carbon tax, the simplest is to charge any company extracting fossil fuels a tax per ton of carbon dioxide that would be released into the atmosphere. As a result, coal becomes more expensive in relation to other fossil fuels and all fossil fuels would be more expensive relative to renewable energy technologies. These prices would be passed down through the supply chain and make fossil fuel consumption more expensive at every level. It would make more sense for consumers to drive more fuel efficient cars, improve the efficiency of their homes, and fly less. Even more important, larger companies that use huge amounts of energy would find ways to reduce their energy usage and increase efficiency. This approach encourages companies to innovate and compete to find ways to reduce their carbon footprint and expand the production of renewable energy which becomes more economically competitive. This is an approach supported by most economists and many who are wary of government regulation and control.

Carbon pricing is already happening in a few dozen countries around the world and a handful of cities in the US. However, in most of these places the cost is too low. Only if carbon is appropriately priced (expensive enough to impact companies) will it really force companies to make the large scale transformations necessary. Many carbon pricing systems are set up to gradually increase over time, but even these need to be set at prices that realistically predict the impact of the damages of global warming. Estimates for the social cost of carbon range from $50-200 dollars per ton although most countries are currently pricing it much lower than $50 a ton. Several carbon tax bills have been introduced to the Hawaii State legislature but they haven’t gotten significant traction.^[14]

In addition, if one state, city, or group of countries has a carbon tax and others do not, energy intensive industries like steel or concrete production simply shift to areas without the carbon tax, making them less effective at reducing carbon dioxide emissions globally which is really the point. National legislation and international treaties that implement a carbon tax as widely as possible are significantly more likely to be effective.

An alternative way to put a price on carbon dioxide emission is cap and trade.   In a cap and trade system, companies are allotted an amount of carbon and if they use less, they can trade or sell that excess to other companies. This provides a universal incentive for everyone to reduce their carbon footprint. However,  in the EU and other areas that have implemented a cap and trade system, the upper limit was set so high as to make the program meaningless. Like all good ideas, the devil is in the details.

The biggest problem with a carbon tax is that it is regressive. Because electricity, gasoline for cars, and natural gas for heating or cooking are a bigger part of the overall expenses for poorer people, they are more likely to be negatively impacted than richer people. Thus, those who contributed the least to the problem are being asked to pay disproportionately to fix it. When French President Macron created a gas tax, it led to the Yellow Vest protests in 2018 where working class people, especially rural workers who relied on cars for transportation, took to the streets in protests of these increased expenses. Eventually the fuel tax was rescinded. This illustrates how policies to solve climate change must address social justice issues of equity or they will be unsuccessful.

A carbon tax is meant to shift individual behavior and, more importantly, shift corporate behavior. One solution to the regressive nature of the carbon tax is to use the money to give everyone a carbon dividend. Instead of the government keeping the money, it is divided and given back to people. Everyone gets some of the money back. For poorer people, this money might help them pay for basic necessities and any other products whose prices will inevitably rise from the carbon tax. But they will still have an incentive to buy a more fuel efficient car or make their homes more efficient because they will save even more money. For richer people, they will receive much less than they will be paying if they own businesses or live lifestyles that are carbon intensive. This will also make the carbon tax more politically viable as it reduces income inequality.

In addition to policies designed to reduce our carbon production, we also need to adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change. One necessary adaptation to climate change is moving away from coastlines that will soon be flooded, termed managed retreat. Many coastal areas will become uninhabitable and we need to stop building in those areas and start removing buildings. In Waikiki, many newly built hotels are already being designed with the possibility of the first floor being underwater. We need to have sensible policies that remove houses and buildings from vulnerable areas and build with sea level rise projections in mind. State legislation that prohibits new buildings in low lying areas near the ocean and disclosure of information about sea level rise faced pushback from the building and realtor lobbies which favored more studies. This kind of foot dragging is indicative of the lack of urgency and fear of upsetting businesses that hampers real change in Hawaii.

There are hundreds of solutions to climate change. Many of these solutions already exist and have proven to be effective. They are already being implemented throughout the world. However, in order to dramatically shift the global economy away from fossil fuels in the next ten years (the time frame scientists have suggested is necessary) we need government investment. Globally this simply hasn’t happened with US political leaders (primarily conservative but also some democrats) leading the way with misinformation, obfuscation, and outright stupidity. The biggest shift we need to solve climate change is to reform politics so that fossil fuel companies have less political power and vote in government leaders who are willing to implement national and global policy at a scale that is significant.

Classroom Ideas and Disciplinary Adaptations

Social Sciences

Collapse of Civilization- Read about the impacts of natural cooling and warming cycles, droughts, and other climate shifts on earlier human societies. How have people responded in the past?  How are our current responses similar or different?  What are some of the unique challenges of this particular moment? Some examples could include Harappa and Mohenjaro, Mayan Cities, Mesopotamia, and Rome.

Natural Sciences

Chemistry of climate change- Examine some of the more significant chemical processes at work in any of the following: the greenhouse effect, carbon capture technology, photosynthesis, methane production with livestock and trash decomposition.

Examine the impact on climate change on ecosystems like coral reefs or cloud forests.

Examine climate change impacts on human health and biology. See available CDC research.

Math and Business

Calculating Externalities- Research the mathematical models used to calculate the price of carbon and set carbon pricing.  What are some of the significant differences between the models?  Which do you think might be most successful, either politically, or environmentally?

Art and Humanities

Explore examples of climate fiction or apocalyptic TV and movies. How do authors imagine our global future? How do these depictions compare with the actual story of climate change? What about climate change makes it hard to portray dramatically? How do the stories we tell about the planet say about our relationship to nature, or about perhaps shape it?

Supplemental Materials

Books

Hawken, P. (Ed.). (2017). Drawdown: The most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse global warming. Penguin.

Klein, N. (2015). This changes everything: Capitalism vs. the climate. Simon and Schuster.

McKibben, B. (2006). The end of nature. Random House Incorporated.

Shriner, W. (2021) Resources for Teaching Climate Change Across the Curriculum www.oercommons.org. MHCC Press.

Wallace-Wells, D. (2020). The uninhabitable earth: Life after warming. Tim Duggan Books.

Websites

University of Hawaii at Manoa, School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology website on climate change. https://www.soest.hawaii.edu/soestwp/research/themes/climate/

National Aeronautics and Space Administration website on climate change. https://climate.nasa.gov/

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/

Articles

Kolbert, E. (2005) The Climate of Man: Disappearing islands, thawing permafrost, melting polar ice. How the earth is changing. New Yorker, April 18, 2005. 3 part series.

Films

Roberts, David. “Climate Change is Simple” TEDxTheEvergreenStateCollege, June 12, 2012.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pznsPkJy2x8

Baichwal, J. E. Burtynsky, and N. de Poncier (2018) Anthropocene: the human epoch.

Grossman, N. (2020) I am Greta.

Guggenheim, D. (2006). An inconvenient truth: a global warning.

Lewis, A. (2015) This Changes Everything.

Orlowski, J. (2012) Chasing Ice.

Psihoyos, L. (2015) Racing extinction.

Podcasts

Planet Money Episode 472: The one page plan to fix global warming revisited. July 18, 2018

TILClimate. 3 seasons, MIT podcast about climate change.