The long awaited actions for addressing climate change have finally started to manifest throughout the globe. From the nations like the United States, investing in domestic clean energy, socio-economic revolution to major multilateral entities such as the European Union, the World Trade Organization, and the IMF who have created policies that aid and incentivize countries transition to climate resilient societies.
Recently, climate change has become more deeply integrated into the agenda of legal, economic, social, environmental, and political theorists and analysts. The knowability in identifying the influence of climate change have grown more visible with each passing year due to the ability to measure and identify intricate impacts. This implicates to the fabric of societies, legal systems, and every economic sector that climate change is deeply interconnected and poses serious financial risks. On March 31st, Brookings Institution welcomes a powerful panel of experts in climate science, finance, and the electricity sector to discuss what scientific, legal, energy, and financial sectors can do to ensure the response to climate change can sustain the American economy.
Science has and continues to raise awareness of the effects of climate change, and how it may have more intricate impacts on other parts of society. Although its original assessments in exposing climate change impacts, may have been primitive an dull remain this way, assessing climate change and incorporating business models into the economy to do so is changing rapidly. In doing so, it can further “motivate political action” claims expert science panelist and professor at Colombia University Adam Sobel.
However, Adam Sobel and other science experts on climate do acknowledge that there is still a lot we don’t know in terms of what is at risk. He admits “that the science needs ot advance rapidly, and that’s happening”. Nonetheless, uncertainty in being able to access the exact risk “shouldn’t be a reason not to act” warns Sobel. Uncertainty could in fact make things worse, which further demands the support and action given what we know already. While the science needs to improve, it shouldn’t prevent us from acting today. Adding that typical risk assessment may happen in response to event but more appropriate risk assessment should acknowledge the uncertainty of risk in the future,
While exact risk assessment knowledge is limited, we have sufficient knowledge on climate change thus far to encourage effective support for climate resiliency. More specifically, the government and academia should invest more into climate change funding and research. Academia should explore an interest in educating students and researching into it. While governments should supply more funding and incentivize people to work on this besides “leaving it to the private sector” says Sobel.
Climate change response should not be “left to any particular company or sector “. Instead, it should fundamentally be acknowledged as a value to society and viewed as a public good supported by federal incentive.