- The planet is warming, this isn't conjecture and it isn't political, it's the overwhelming conclusion of climate scientists from all over the world.

Now for a long time, the debate has been over whether and how we mitigate the threats posed by climate change.

But today's guest warns that debate needs to be expanded.

To include a discussion about the things we must do to adapt human existence, to a warmer planet.

She's Alice C. Hill this week, on Story in the Public Square.

(bright music) Hello, and welcome to Story in the Public Square, where storytelling meets public affairs, I'm Jim Ludes from The Pell Center at Salve Regina University.

- And I'm G.Wayne Miller with The Providence Journal.

- This week, we're joined by Alice C. Hill, the David M. Rubinstein senior fellow for energy, and the environment at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Alice is also the author of a great new book, The Fight for Climate After COVID-19.

Alice, thank you so much for being with us.

- No, thank you, my pleasure.

- So I mentioned the book, The Fight for Climate After COVID-19, give us the 30,000 foot overview.

- Well, the book captures the lessons that we can learn about dealing with catastrophic risk.

I examining what happened during the pandemic one catastrophic risk and seeing how we can learn to have better outcomes with another, unfortunately even worse, catastrophic risk climate change.

So, I called the lessons learned to try to help have a better future.

As we see these impacts from climate change, deeper droughts, bigger storms, greater heat events, food insecurity, water insecurity, all of these cascading impacts that come from a warming planet.

- You know, Alice I chuckled a little bit in the acknowledgements to your book.

You, you noted that when a friend of you had asked, what will it take to stop climate change?

You had responded before the pandemic, a pandemic.

You can see that you were wrong about that, what surprised you?

- Well, to be perfectly frank, this pandemic was not as deadly.

It has certainly has had massive consequences, shut down the economy of many nations, throwing people out of work, really increased a great trauma and tragedy for millions across the globe, but it wasn't as deadly.

And if it had been more deadly, of course, that would mean there was lowered economic activity.

And with lowered economic activity, we have lowered pollution levels and it's that pollution that's just accumulating around our globe really since the Industrial Revolution and that blanket pollution traps heat, which brings all these terrible impacts that result from the fact that temperatures are continuing to rise.

It's a little bit like when you were a kid and your mom might've come in your room and put a blanket on you.

And then you woke up in the middle of the night and you were just hotter.

You'd want to kick off that blanket.

Well, we can't kick off this blanket that we formed around the globe and what it's doing is trapping the heat and that is causing a great deal of havoc and will cause much more in the future.

- So in November, Alice, you were at the Glasgow Global Climate Change Summit.

What came out of that of importance that, that our audience should know that people should know if you can give us an overview of that and it just wrapped up, I would note as we're taping in November.

- Well, the most important outcome is that the 1.5 degree Celsius goal is still alive as the president of the COP 26 stated it's alive, but it has a weak pulse.

And what the importance of that is, is that scientists have told us that we need to contain the rise of temperatures to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial times, because it's all this human activity from burning coal, deforestation, our building practices that have shot up all this carbon pollution in the atmosphere.

And what we wanna do is make sure that that pollution doesn't cause more heating than 1.5 degrees.

Going into this Conference of the Parties.

That's what it's called by the UN, 197 nations are part of the UN framework convention on climate change and that has a group of nations have been meeting since the early nineties trying to tackle the problem of climate change.

Of course, there was a very important Conference of the Parties, that's what they call their annual conventions in Paris in 2015, where nations agreed on the Paris Agreement.

And ultimately the goal of that is to keep the heating below 1.5 degrees Celsius ,that's preferable.

So, the meeting in Glasgow twenty-five thousand people in the midst of COVID descended in Scotland.

And at the very last minute, they were able to include in the final document, it's called the Glasgow Pact.

They were able to include this goal that continues to be vibrant for the nations, whether we can accomplish that is another story, but at least we've set that as the ambition for the world.

- So you, you talk about carbon pollution, carbon emissions, and obviously the need is to reduce that, but it's difficult, why is it so difficult for one nation, all nations to reduce that?

I mean, that is clearly, you know, the number one step that could be taken to going forward.

- Well, it turns out the carbon pollution is systemic across our society.

It's in our agriculture, so we have our emissions and that would, it's also carbon pollution and methane, which is a nother form of heat trapping gas, but it isn't as long lived as carbon, carbon can be up in the atmosphere for several hundred years, methane, maybe two decades but during those two decades, it causes even more heating.

And so about a half of the heating that's already occurred so far, 1.1 degrees Celsius.

That's the amount we've heated so far about half of that has come from methane.

So, trying to contain all these gases is difficult because we're admitting them everywhere.

We admit them in with planes, with our shipping, with our building, with our transportation, fossil fuels that power our cars, or the way we create electricity.

Some of it's in many places of the world is still dependent on coal, which is the most carbon emitting way to create power.

So reeling back, all those choices that have been made over many decades, huge amounts of money invested in those choices turns out to be hard because they're economic consequences.

We've heard about coal miners who will lose their jobs.

There's all sorts of changes that cause loss to some.

And then of course long-term gain for all, but we're in that point of having to transition, which it proves is quite complex and will be at times quite contentious.

- Alice in fact in your new book, The Fight for Climate After COVID-19.

You argue that controlling carbon emissions is not enough that we need, we need to begin to move the debate beyond mitigation to adaptation.

Let's break this into two parts.

So first of all, what, why isn't mitigation enough?

- Well mitigation, which of course is cutting these harmful emissions would keep us from getting to truly unmanageable levels of heating.

But the way this blanket works is that there's a delay in the heating.

So, even if we got our emissions to zero and tomorrow, there would be continued impacts that we would suffer for some period of time, anywhere from 5 years to 20 years.

And those impacts bring the kinds of rain bombs that we've seen, where in Houston, we saw close to four feet of rainfall in just a few days, there's no place that we have built that can contain that much rain at once.

But with warmer temperatures, the clouds hold more moisture.

And then it just dumps all at once.

Similar to the wildfires that we've seen in California, you know, in 2017 and 2018, the wildfires there wiped out a quarter century worth of profits for insurance companies.

The insurers were caught by surprise.

These wildfires were bigger, more damaging, hotter than any that the state had experienced before.

And we will see more of those even if we get our emissions to zero, but we won't, we don't have a plan to get our missions to zero tomorrow.

Our goal right now is to be net-zero 2050 that's for the most nations that are part of the Paris Agreement.

There are a few, China has said 2060, India has said 27 there, 2070, they are both big emitters.

So, we're going to be dealing with the harm that climate change brings for quite some time.

And that means we need to make sure that certainly any new investments are resilient or can handle the types of impacts we'll see.

And then we need to figure out what we do with all those existing investments to make sure that they are resilient as well.

- All right?

So that brings us around to adaptation.

So what do you mean when you talk about adaptation in the context of climate change?

- Well, climate change is really typically talked about as two sides of the coin, the mitigation or adaptation, which is adjusting and preparing for these impacts.

There's also the broader term of resilience, which is for a variety of reasons, captured a great deal of attention recently because it's not so directly tied to adaptation.

Adaptation really means preparing for the things that climate change brings, resilience is a broader term.

It means the ability to prepare for, respond to and recover from disasters, including those that are worsened by climate change.

So, we have seen a great deal of attention in these last 30 plus years of talking about climate change on the cutting emission side, the mitigation and that's understandable.

That was if we, if we had been successful in doing that, we wouldn't really need to get to adaptation, but we haven't been successful.

So now we know, and we already have seen these impacts, just look at what's happened this past year, during the pandemic, flooding in China in the United States and Europe, we've seen the Arctic hit really unprecedented levels of heating, which causes that permanently frozen ground to thaw and the infrastructure begins to tilt and we have an entire ocean opening up for shipping in the Arctic.

And then of course we've seen wildfires in Greece, in the United States, across the globe, extreme heat, hitting in the Pacific Northwest and other areas.

So, we are being pounded right now by climate change.

And that has made it much more urgent for us to make better decisions about how to prepare for these very damaging events that kill people.

They destroy livelihoods and cause long-term economic harm.

- So despite this, despite what we see in the news can see with our own eyes, read about, see on television in the US it's nearly impossible to get bi-partisan political consensus about the reality of climate change.

What can be done to change that dynamic, which seems to me, has to be changed for us to make more progress?

- Well, you've raised a very important point and it's fascinating, The Washington Post just issued a new poll that showed the split between Democrats and Republicans is actually grown most recently.

And so we have most Democrats are concerned about climate change and we have less than 50% really of equivalent concern in the Republican Party.

That means garnering the support on a bi-partisan basis is quite difficult, one dynamic that we are seeing is that young people are much more attuned to what climate change means.

Of course they will just by the nature of their lives, the life they'll live during the times, they will see a lot more of this harm.

Then I will, for example, because they'll be living closer to 2100 where it's, it just will continuously get worse.

So, they have begun to express great frustration.

We saw this when I was in Glasgow, many, many young people, many young women, as a matter of fact, coming out and saying it's time for a different outcome.

So, that will grow in my opinion, because they're quite sensitive.

The young people are quite sensitive that the older generation is handling, handing them a problem that will play their lives and the lives of their children going forward.

- So when you say young people, you're talking, you know, teenagers as well as people in their twenties and thirties.

And it sounds to me like you're, you're finding a bit of optimism and hope in those people who now number of course, in great numbers and do you find hope there?

- Well, I think we also find depression there.

The reports are that something like 70% of youth around the world are greatly worried about climate change.

A significant percentage are deciding not to have children because they're concerned about the future those children would have.

So, there is a despondency and that's something that I see in my encounters, I speak to a lot of student groups and some will express despair.

The problem that they have to deal with my response to that is from my own experience, it is distressing learning about what's ahead with climate change and realizing that we could have a different future if we made different choices, but we're having a hard time doing that.

It can be quite concerning, but I find, and I encourage all young people to get engaged.

The amazing thing to me about climate change.

I'm a former judge and when I was on the bench, when I wore the robe, I remember we would have a problem before us in the courtroom and I might suggest, well, how about we solve this this way?

And often the judge, the lawyers would say, oh no, judge, sorry, you can't do that.

The law says you have to do it this way, or, oh no, we tried that, it doesn't work.

You never hear that with climate change because no human has ever confronted the problems that we are confronting today.

So, that means that it's all hands on deck.

And there's a great opportunity for innovation, for new ideas, for figuring out new solutions.

And that can give a, even a sense of joy in being engaged, in solving the problem, rather than passively sitting on the sidelines, feeling like it's happening to me.

So, that's my words to the young is if you're engaged, you could make a difference.

And certainly that will help you feel a better mastery of the challenge that's ahead and last, just sheer fear.

- So, beyond being politically engaged, you know, on the largest stage as it were, and this would be something that I would ask you to react to in terms of young people and older people, what can individuals do on sort of a daily basis, whether it's activity in their community, whether it's how the, you know, what they apply to their lawns or, or so forth and so on.

You see what I'm saying here?

That what's the micro view, you know, what can an average person quote, unquote, average person do if he or she can't engage in larger scale political activity?

- Well, the first and foremost is to talk about climate change.

We have far too few discussions about climate change and we're coming up on Thanksgiving or Christmas or whatever holiday you celebrate when you're all gathered around the family table.

It's time to talk, start talking about what the solutions are for climate change.

And we've seen that many people shy away from this.

So, it should be front and center of any discussion.

Now, just a personal aside, I know that it can get a little overbearing, my family in fact has me on timer because I'm really happy to talk about climate change all day long.

(all laughing) - I hope it's a long timer though.

- It's about five minutes, that's enough mom, we were done with climate change today, but I would encourage everyone to talk about climate change.

And the other thing is to start learning about what the climate impacts will be in your community, and then start asking, well, are we planning for the type of flooding that we see if you're in a coastal community, like you are in Rhode Island, if you are, do we have a heat plan?

What are we doing in terms of thinking about heat extremes, that mean that we won't have air conditioning because the power system won't work.

So, it's beginning to ask those questions and examine it.

And then all of us can start looking at how we we live and that means do we need to get on the plane as much to go to meetings?

Because air travel is one area where it's very difficult to reduce the carbon emissions.

Planes, we don't have an electric plane that can fly far enough, so, but short haul trips.

Could we do that on a train?

Can we do that in another way?

We're seeing a huge push for electric vehicles when you're considering your next vehicle, consider an electric vehicle, looking at your choices of what you eat, agriculture and in particular production of meat now produces a lot of harmful pollutants in terms of that gathering blanket.

So, can you cut down on your meat consumption?

Moved to a plant-based diet, thinking about your own reuse of materials and getting away from using a lot of plastics.

Do you have a water bottle that you reuse frequently?

Little things and can one individual make a material change to the outcome on climate change?

No, but all of us together can begin to make a material change in climate change, particularly those who live in a rich nation like the United States, we per capita per person produce a lot of emissions.

So, dialing back our own pollution levels can help.

And one of the important things that came out of a study that global, scientists across the globe issued this August in preparation for the Glasgow meeting, stated that every little incremental increase in heat brings greater interacts.

So, as we just find more and more ways to dial back, we can keep the globe from heating up to temperatures that will become unmanageable.

- Alice, I know a one of your jobs in the Obama Administration was to help the federal government think through how to plan for climate change, what's the current state of planning, both of the federal, the state, the local levels in the United States for the kind of climate change future you're talking about in the book.

- Well, right now the status is it's a bit checkered under President Biden, he ordered all agencies to produce adaptation plans, which they have.

So, those are plans for how each agency say, Housing Urban Development, the Department of Homeland Security, Environmental Protection Agency, how each of them will handle climate adaptation, but we don't yet in the United States have a national adaptation plan.

In my opinion, a national adaptation plan would really help define the role of the federal government in terms of climate change for all the stakeholders.

So cities, states, tribal communities.

They would understand what the federal government can do and what the federal government can't do.

And then we need adaptation plans for communities, for states and we have a very checkered outcome on that.

We have some cities that have been very forward-leaning for example, Boston, but we have other cities that simply haven't gotten to the issue of adaptation and the risk of not considering adaptation is the investments made today say in improving a road, building a bridge, deciding where a development could occur, could put people at risk and put those investments at risk because they don't consider that flooding will be much worse during the future decades.

And that will harm the choices that were made.

And we've seen that, quite clearly in the United States, you know, more investment has occurred, for example, in the State of New Jersey, in areas at risk of flooding than not in about the last 10 years or 15 years.

- Even despite Superstorm Sandy?

- Superstorm Sandy did not, it had an immediate impact.

And that's what we see immediately.

People were, oh, that's kind of dangerous, but over time no, definitely increases with turns out we all want to live with views of water, we love it, but we need to think about whether those properties will be safe going forward.

And we see a similar phenomenon in terms of building in what we call the Wildland-urban interface.

People wanna also live near forests or grasslands.

And of course, with greater drought and hotter conditions, those areas are at much greater risk for wildfire.

So, we're seeing those developments be harmed.

And when it comes to climate change, we need to think about land use.

Does it make sense to build where we're building?

If it's going to be a hotter world.

- Alice, we've got about a minute and a half left here, but I we're taping this in mid December, excuse me, mid November, where a lot of Americans are grappling with supply chains issues, whether it is for your holiday shopping or just going to the grocery store, you're a business owner and you can't get your, your products in, how might climate change affect future supply chains?

- Climate change will disrupt supply chains.

It already is disrupting supply chains.

We saw this after Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico turns out we all discovered that Puerto Rico is responsible for a lot manufacturer of medical tools, materials, including intravenous bags that are used across hospitals across the globe.

Once Hurricane Maria hit and power was lost for almost a year manufacturing plummeted, it was just too hard for employees to get to the plants, even if those plants had access to generators for power.

And so prices skyrocketed up to 600% and then hospitals looking at, we can't get any intravenous bags started using syringes to try to give these medicines or whatever they needed to give to sick patients.

The price of syringes skyrocketed.

And we just know that we have concentrated production in areas and if those areas are hit, it has ripples across the economy.

So, this is an area of great concern.

I have just chaired a working group for, for the National Academy of Engineering in Medicine and sciences, to look at this issue.

We have a lot of work ahead to get to real solutions, to understand how climate change will disrupt our supply chains, one thing we know it will.

- Oh, Alice, I think we could talk to you for another three days, but unfortunately we are out of time, she is Alice Hill.

The book is The Fight for Climate After COVID-19.

Thank you so much for being with us.

That is all the time we have this week, but if you wanna know more about Story in the Public Square, you can find us on Facebook and Twitter or visit Pellcenter.org for G.Wayne Miller, I'm Jim Ludes asking you to join us again next time.

For more Story in the Public Square (bright music)