Turning Climate Skepticism into Climate Action: A Conversation

A paper for the club by Will Parish

February 10, 2020

Scene: A small bar in a Midwestern university town on a hot August afternoon, 2020. A half hour before, cameras and reporters surrounded three people on a stage outside Branford University. They were holding a press conference to announce a $100,000,000 pledge by James Gold. He’s 70 years old, and his astute investment recommendations have made him a billionaire. He started his career as a petroleum engineer and joined an oil exploration company. His specialty became simulating future performance using sophisticated computer models. In his thirties, he was hired by a venture capital firm, and began a career financing oil exploration.

With him on stage was the university president, Kristina Packard. She has an extensive background in education, including having been a high school history teacher. She is proud to have secured Mr. Gold’s pledge to fund the building of the nation’s first quantum computer lab.

The third person on stage was a Branford senior, double majoring in environmental science and math, Sanjay Gupta, whom President Packard invited to say a few words about how the lab would attract math students to Branford. Gupta and his family moved from Bangladesh before he started college. After the press conference, Mr. Gold suggested that they go to the local bar to celebrate.

The scene opens with President Packard toasting Mr. Gold.

Packard: Here’s to the visionary Mr. James Gold. With your incredible gift, Brandford will attract more students like Sanjay, who will use the power of quantum computing to solve the world’s most complex problems!

They clink their glasses.

Gold: Thanks, President Packard. Finally, you’ll have something that MIT will covet.

(Mr. Gold tugs at his collar.)

Gold: We should’ve made that press announcement inside, in an air-conditioned room. It’s a scorcher today! 

Gupta: Last month was actually the hottest July on record! And at the rate we're using fossil fuels, it's only going to get worse.

Gold: According to CNN.

(Mr. Gold scoffs. The President looks at him with guarded alarm, as if she doesn’t know what to say.)

Gupta: The IPCC Assessment last December pointed to human activities, primarily burning fossil fuels, as the only plausible explanation for the increase in global temperatures.

The President starts to say something, but Gold cuts her off.

Gold: Well, from what I’ve heard the science is all over the map on what’s causing this planetary warming, including whether humans have anything to do with it!  Those overzealous environmentalists know how to get the media’s attention, that’s for sure. You’re a smart kid. President Packard told me you put Branford on the map by winning the 2019 International Mathematical Olympiad! You must see that blaming humans doesn’t, well, add up!

Savvy President Packard jumps in, sensing a potential train wreck.

Packard: You’re right about the media. CNN coverage does take a different view than, say, Fox News.

Gold: I’ll say! As far as I’m concerned, all these stories of “extreme sea level rise” and “out-of-control forest fires” and annual “100-year floods” are exaggerations.  People have to accept the natural course of nature.

Gupta: My family was forced to flee our home on the coast of Bangladesh six years ago. Sea level rise was the reason. The sea flooded my town, my school, and all the fields. We had to stop drinking our well water because of salt contamination.

Gold: I’m sorry to hear about you being forced to leave your home, Sanjay. But tell me, how can you prove that humans are causing the rising sea levels? I don’t think you can!

Gupta: You can prove it with simple math. Mind if I give it shot?

Gold: Be my guest. I’m always up for a stimulating conversation.

Gupta: OK. Consider carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. The more CO2, the stronger the greenhouse effect. The stronger the greenhouse effect, the more the Earth warms, causing thermal expansion of ocean waters and ice sheets to melt. Both cause the sea level to rise. Before the Industrial Revolution, there were 280 CO2 molecules in every million molecules of air. That’s called parts per million. Last year, on May 7, 2019, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 reached 415 parts per million for the first time in recorded history. Divide 280 by 415. You get 67 percent. That’s how much CO2 concentration has increased in the last 150 years.

Gold: Now you’re spouting conjecture.

Gupta: Not conjecture, Mr. Gold. The measurement of 415 parts per million has been confirmed by hundreds of stations scattered across 66 countries which all report the same rising trend.

Gold: OK, so what? If we didn’t have the greenhouse effect acting like a blanket to prevent heat escaping into space, our planet would be a lifeless rock like Venus and Mars.

Gupta: That’s definitely true. But the blanket has gotten too thick too fast! To us, 150 years is gradual, but in geologic time-

Packard interrupts.

Packard: It’s a blink of the eye.

Gupta: Right. And every time CO2 has spiked, it’s been disastrous for life forms. The last time CO2 concentration was so high was more than 800,000 years ago!

Gold: Eight hundred thousand years? Come on, how could anyone possibly know what was going on back then. Sounds like a wild theory to me.

Gupta: Not a theory. There are actual proven scientific records! One proven method of looking back in time to figure out historic temperatures is where scientists insert long tubes straight down into glaciers and bring up ice core samples. The bubbles in the ice tell a story about atmospheric composition throughout history. Scientists have carbon dated samples going back 800,000 years. Up until the 1700s, atmospheric CO2 concentration stayed below 280 parts per million. It began a relentless rise in the 1800s toward 415! Fossil fuel burning beginning with the Industrial Revolution is the only plausible explanation. Over two billion smoke stacks and exhaust pipes are constantly injecting carbon dioxide directly into the atmosphere!  

Gold: There are many other natural sources of CO2 like volcanoes and forest fires.

Gupta: Actually, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by burning fossil fuels is 60 times more than from volcanic eruptions. Scientific measurements can even tell you where the carbon is from since CO2 from burning oil, coal and natural gas has a different isotopic ratio.

Gold: You’re taking me back to my petroleum engineering days. We talked about isotopes and carbon signatures, but didn’t do much with the information as I recall.

Gupta: Now let’s look at wildfires. They make up around 10% of global CO2 emissions each year. But they’re no longer being considered “natural causes,” since human activity has aggravated conditions so much. Last year, these fires burned acreage more than five times bigger than was common 50 years ago. Plus the annual wildfire season is 78 days longer. Why? Because the mountain snowpack is melting earlier, and summers are hotter and drier. Why? Because humans can’t kick the habit of using gasoline, coal and natural gas. We’ve created a vicious feedback loop and it’s accelerating!

Gold shifts in his chair and squints at Gupta.

Gold: Sounds like you’re making a circular argument and ignoring a fundamental fact: the Earth has always adjusted to changes in the environment. Fossil fuel use is the latest change, but the Earth will continue along its merry way as it has for the last four billion years of evolution.

Gold gloats. Gupta collects himself, wanting to remain respectful, while being true to himself.

Gupta: I agree with you about the Earth being fine.

Gold: Well then, what’s the point of this discussion? 

Gupta: Will the way the Earth responds leave conditions hospitable to humans?

The question pauses the conversation. After a few seconds, Packard speaks.

Packard: That’s the rub, isn’t it?  People can distance themselves if they think about climate change as only affecting the environment. I’ve noticed when the discussion turns toward saving humans from the climate chaos, it’s harder to ignore.

Gupta: Prior to the Industrial Revolution, human influence had always been local, never impacting other communities, let alone altering the whole planet. Now, smoke from Utah’s coal burning power plants creates smog in the Grand Canyon. Worse yet, Beijing’s foul air blows all the way to California! Halfway around the globe!

Another pause in the conversation.

Gold: Sanjay, where do you get all your information? People make all sorts of claims to support their favorite ideas! I don’t trust information unless I know where it’s from.

Gupta: From the Assessment Reports coming out of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Scientific American, National Geographic, and many books and articles.

Gold: I like your sources, except for the IPCC. I don’t trust that outfit.

Gupta: Why not? 

Gold: I‘ve read about how biased those IPCC scientific researchers are, and how they’re all in the pockets of liberal funders.

Gupta: Ah, a common misunderstanding persists about the IPCC doing its own research. They don’t. The IPCC is a group of scientists from 200 countries. They volunteer their time to assess the thousands of scientific papers published each year. The IPCC Assessment Reports represent the consensus of the international scientific community on what’s causing climate change and the implications.

Gold: Good for the IPCC. Look. I can see the correlation of fossil fuel use and temperature rise they write about. But that’s not causation. There are so many natural things causing temperatures to rise. Take the Melania cycles. We’re in a hot period where more intense sunlight is hitting Earth.

Again, Gupta is tempted to roll his eyes. He remains respectful and ignores Mr. Gold’s mispronunciation of the cycles.

Gupta: Yes, I’m very familiar with the Milankovitch Cycles. They’re named for the Serbian mathematician who discovered them in the 1920s. You’re right about them defining Earth’s movement on its axis as it orbits the sun. But here’s the thing, Mr. Gold. The cycles take more than 21,000 years to complete. The Earth’s position today is practically the same as when the Aztecs worshipped the sun! No matter what, those cycles cannot possibly account for the rapid increase in warming that we’ve seen.

Gold: Huh. I was unaware.

Packard speaks up with a question that aligns her with Mr. Gold.

Packard: Sanjay, the sun’s intensity varies over the years, so couldn’t we be in a period of stronger sun output? Like more intense sunspots?

Gupta: We could, but we aren’t. There are instruments in satellites and on the ground measuring the sun’s intensity, and it has actually decreased over the past many decades, which has had a cooling effect.

Gold: How about the placement of the data-gathering instruments? I’ve read how scientists have cherry-picked hotter locations so as to exaggerate the temperature measurements.

Gupta: Yeah, climate skeptics love questioning the measurements. They say things like, “We found US Weather stations mounted on blistering hot asphalt rooftops.” Such misinformation. Here are the facts: Surface temperature measurements are collected by 30,000 stations around the world. About 7,000 have been in place for decades and have long consistent records. They’ve been monitored, updated, and maintained. The data sets use several different methods to record temperatures. They all agree about the warming trend.

Mr. Gold is impressed with Gupta’s calm demeanor, clear arguments, and ability to not get defensive. Even though he has other natural causes of global warming on his mind, he decides to try another angle. 

Gold: OK, you’re very convincing about how natural causes don’t seem to be linked to the global warming we’ve been experiencing. So, let’s say humans are causing it. That’s not actually a bad thing. In fact, it’ll do some good. Agriculture will benefit, since more CO2 means more food for plants, which means more food for people. Also, I bet a lot of people in cold countries would love to be a little warmer! I know the environmental extremists hate good news about climate change. But then, they’d destroy the economy to save a few trees, wouldn’t they?

Mr. Gold raises his eyebrows at Gupta. President Packard leans forward and interjects a deflecting comment.

Packard: Extremists in any group make it harder to find common ground, that’s for sure.

Gupta doesn’t rise to the challenge, and stays calm, and looks at Mr. Gold.

Gupta: You’re right about plants growing better when they absorb more carbon. And yes, I’m sure Siberians wouldn’t mind some warmer winters! But other things accompany global warming that counteract those benefits. Droughts increase and damage crops in parts of the world, while extreme precipitation and soil erosion damage agriculture in other places. Insects that destroy crops and kill trees proliferate exponentially without cold winters.

Packard: Back in my home state of Colorado, it’s already happening in the pine forests. We’ve lost millions of acres over the past 25 years. Scientists point to climate change.

Gupta: I FaceTime my cousins in Bangladesh. It’s gotten worse than when I lived there. Last year, thousands of acres of crops got wiped out by massive monsoons. And economically, the whole country is reeling from the cost of food imports.

Gold: I’m sorry to hear that. But tell me why the human population is growing faster than ever. Overall, we’re doing fine with climate change, whatever the cause. Malthus and Paul Ehrlich’s predictions were so wrong about mass starvation from exceeding Earth’s carrying capacity.

Both President Packard and Gupta look at Mr. Gold with pleasant surprise. 

Gold: What? You don’t think I’ve heard of “carrying capacity”?

Packard: I guess it’s consistent with someone interested in quantum computing to solve complex problems, like population growth.

Gupta: Feeding the world’s population. For the short term, we’re looking good. The first Green Revolution helped Bangladesh, Pakistan, India and so many other countries become more food secure. However, another green revolution has recently begun. Consumers are the drivers of this one rather than corporate food giants. In this revolution, consumers are insisting on knowing where their food comes from. They’re done with fake food! Consumers in the industrialized countries are driving increased regulatory oversight, and have big fears about chemicals, like glyphosate, being used in agriculture and the effects they have on human health. We’ll see agriculture switch to more sustainable practices like biological pesticides, biostimulants, precision agriculture, Artificial Intelligence, robotics, and yes genetic modification too.

Packard: Another topic for another day. With the new approaches, does it mean that a changing climate won’t be as big of a problem?

Gupta:  Not really. No matter what the technology brings, crops need water and in many vast agricultural regions, like California, they’re not getting enough rain to replenish the exhausted aquifers. And droughts are getting worse. Plus, billions of people will soon be unable to grow crops, raise animals, and catch fish in the same ways and in the same places as they’ve done in the past because of shifting climate. There will be a wrenching gap in the food supply, as technology is unable to keep up with the long head start that climate change has.

Gold remembers something he learned on his most recent scuba diving adventure.

Gold: I know billions of people depend on coastal marine systems for their food. Last month I was scuba diving in the Maldives and saw my first bleached coral reefs. Our guide took us outside the Marine Protected Area and I could not believe the expanse of bleached white coral. The guides attributed it to acidification of the ocean coming from too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which astonished me! I learned how the ocean and atmosphere interact to create carbonic acid that eats away the coral.

Gupta: I’ve dreamt of going to the Maldives before it disappears like Atlantis. While these tiny low-lying nations contribute the least to carbon emissions, they’re the ones who are suffering the most from climate change.

The conversation pauses. President Packard relaxes as Mr. Gold seems to be unwinding some of his confirmation bias about global warming.

Gold: Sonay, why did you bring your coffee in a paper cup to the press conference this morning instead of in a refillable mug? It seems to me that individuals taking responsibility for their actions really matters.

Gold smiles.

Gupta: I agree that individual action is important, but using a paper coffee cup is nothing in comparison to the amount of damage that the fossil fuel industry inflicts on the environment. So Mr. Gold, can you help me understand something?

Gold: Sure. I think I see where you’re going, and I’ll give it a whirl.

Before Sanjay can ask his question, a waitress appears.

Waitress: Another round? 

Gold: Sure thing, although I may regret it!

Gold chuckles good naturedly and Packard and Gupta join in.

Gold: Continue, Sanjay. What’s your question?

Gupta: What impact has the divestment movement had on the value of fossil fuel stocks?

Gold tilts his head and gazes up as he contemplates the question.

Packard: Interesting question, Sanjay. This spring, a student group advocated for Branford to divest from all oil stocks because of their contribution to an unsustainable future. They also warned us about the risk of stock values crashing due to stranded assets! It makes sense to us that if it’s left in the ground, then the value of a company’s assets decreases. Sanjay, you were in that group. Wasn’t that research yours? 

Gupta: Yes it was. I’ve read a lot about social impact investing and advocates for leaving fossil fuels in the ground. Last September, climate activists got the University of California to divest from all oil company stocks.

Packard: Your group handled the communication to the administration and student body masterfully. Messaging is a crucial piece of the climate change movement. 

Gold: For any effort! That’s why big corporations hire skilled PR firms to launch marketing campaigns to get their message out. They cost a fortune, and the largest corporations definitely have an edge over everyone else.

Packard: Definitely. Remember back in the 60s, how the tobacco companies bought millions in advertising about cigarettes being good for you? They hired a PR firm to publish those lies! They duped hundreds of thousands of people, including my dad, for decades, and he died a horrible death from lung cancer.

Gold: Jesus. My wife couldn’t stop smoking, either. She used to quote the ads on TV saying smoking was a good way to relax. Those ads took her to her grave last year.

Gupta: My sincerest condolences.

Gupta presses his palms together and nods to each of them, then continues.

Gupta: In doing the divest-invest research, I learned that oil companies hired that same firm used by the tobacco companies to produce the lies about how burning fossil fuels is harmless! A tiny network of fossil fuel zealots like the Koch brothers and the largest oil and gas companies paid for them. Billions of dollars!

Gold: Really? The same firm?

Gupta: Yes. Exxon’s been using them to tell lies for decades. If you haven’t already, read the book, “Merchants of Doubt.” A team of science historians uncovered secret Exxon papers dating back to 1968. The executives were worried back then about burning fossil fuels causing climate change, and decided to cover it up!

Packard: I can tell you, Mr. Gold, from an educator’s point of view, this deception goes even further. In 2017, the Heartland Institute sent a climate deniers handbook to 200,000 teachers.

Gupta: Koch Industries even paid for that. And for political candidates that oppose climate action!

Another pause in the conversation as Gold considers what President Packard and Gupta have recounted.

Gold: Sanjay, you’ve countered each of my assertions with scientific data or logical reasoning. You’ve been effective. Got me to really think. Opened my eyes.

Gupta: Thank you, Mr. Gold. 

Gold: But now I’m going to have a problem with my climate doubting colleagues.

Packard: Perhaps a risk management approach might help.

Gold: As in making plans for a range of outcomes to reduce exposure?

Packard: Right. That kind of thinking can be used to figure out the best course of action for mitigation of climate risk. Computer models aren’t perfect, but maybe our quantum computer will be!

Gold: So what we’ve heard tonight is that the risk of a climate disaster from fossil fuel burning is very high. And the chance of climate warming being beneficial is exceedingly low. So we should hedge our bets and quit fossil fuels?

Packard: Yes.

Gupta: Burning fossil fuels is changing the chemical composition of our atmosphere and oceans. It’s a danger-filled experiment with the entire global system. So why not be safe instead of sorry and end the fossil fuel era?

Gold: Renewable energy technologies are attracting capital, but slowly. Plus, such a drastic departure from fossil fuels is also a global experiment. Without fossil fuels, watch the global economic meltdown begin! We’ll need to change everything. Renewable energy is only the beginning. Create an all-electric vehicle fleet. Develop pollution-free agriculture. Shift our diets away from meat. Stop deforestation. Develop some vast carbon dioxide-sucking machines. You’re proposing to re-design the world economy. Ten trillion dollars at least. Impossible.

Gupta thinks back to a lecture by Washington’s governor Jay Inslee last fall.

Gupta: Definitely daunting, Mr. Gold! But someone’s already done the math! Washington’s Governor Jay Inslee. His team wrote the Evergreen Economic Plan about how to get to a post-fossil fuel world. The number of jobs created by the renewable energy economy is much greater than fossil fuel job loss. Workers take fewer sick days. Installing solar will employ more people than coal mining and oil drilling. On and on! Nine trillion dollars cost over ten years, yes, but also an equal amount of revenue generated. If you take JP Morgan Chase’s $200 billion loaned in the last three years to perpetuate the oil economy and instead invest it in renewable energy innovations, you’ll mitigate risk, reduce emissions, stop oil-induced wars, and create more jobs than you lose.

Mr. Gold nods, contemplatively. Gupta continues.

Gupta: There are more items in the plus column. Indigenous people get their lands back from the oil exploiters. Fracking stops polluting water. Asthma from automobile exhaust disappears. Wind and solar produces hydrogen from ocean water to power fuel cells that produce electricity for the world. Oil wars stop. Mining lithium for batteries scales back. Investment funds switch to non-fossil fuel stocks. We pass a carbon tax!

Mr. Gold takes his last sip of beer. He gets up, pushes his chair in, and leans on it.

Gold: I became a billionaire by making big bets, mitigating my exposure to risk, and sometimes getting lucky. Sanjay, you’ve made me come to grips with the reality of what the IPCC and practically every single scientist on the planet is saying: Humans cause climate change. Continued use of fossil fuels will be catastrophic for life on Earth.

Gold shakes his head and pushes off his chair. Gupta and President Packard stand up.

Gold: Sanjay, I’m about to make another bet. I bet that I should prepare for the divest-invest movement to become a dominant force. It’s good risk management. So, what if I asked you to work for me? Start as an analyst like I did. Learn the ropes. Do the research and help me change the investment strategy of the firm. What do you think?

Gupta is gobsmacked.

Gupta: Uh. Sure! That could be great. I think...

Gold: Good. Give my assistant a call next week, to set up an appointment. We’ll see where all this goes. President Packard has the contact info. Thanks for the beer. Good night.

Mr. Gold walks out of the bar.

Packard: (Incredulously) Mr. Gold came in here seriously doubting climate change and you not only changed his mind, but got a job offer! Good job, Sanjay.

Gupta: Thanks. I was a little nervous! And now I’m overwhelmed.

Packard: You got him to see the consequences of climate change are scientifically and mathematically provable. You could be a real asset to him!

Gupta: Maybe he’ll change the course of banking and start investing in renewables. Maybe he’ll convince his colleagues to switch their lending to the renewable energy industry. Maybe he sees the reality of being a life or death situation for humanity!

Packard: Maybe. Let’s hope so.

The end.