Earlier this month, the Council on Foreign Relations—an influential, nonpartisan think tank—launched the Climate Realism Initiative. The initiative will provide recommendations to the U.S. government for climate change policies and develop strategies to win the global clean energy tech race. Sounds great, right? Alas, its potential benefit for the planet isn’t so realistic.
According to career experts in climate science and policy, the concept of climate realism is little more than an evolution of climate doom, which in itself is an evolution of climate denial: It accepts the realities of human-caused warming but abandons hope of limiting the uptick to 1.5 degrees C or even 2 degrees C this century.
Realism could be used to undergird policy that values the American economy over cutting emissions, which could lead to, say, the continued use of fossil fuels rather than a full switch to green energy. “If [realism] is about facing hard truths and calling out political delay, then yes, it can serve a purpose,” says Sam Illingworth, a science communication expert at Edinburgh Napier University in Scotland with a background in atmospheric science. “The problem is when ‘realism’ becomes a synonym for resignation.”
Here’s what you need to know about the buzzy new philosophy—and a few alternative approaches that might serve us better in the actual climate reality to come.
What is climate realism?
There are three tenets of the climate realism doctrine: 1) Prepare for a world that blows through its climate targets; 2) invest in globally competitive clean technology; 3) lead international efforts to avert truly catastrophic climate change. None of these are terrible at face value. But the devil, as they say, is in the details.
The biggest problem with climate realism is that it accepts that the world is going to blow past 3 degrees C of warming this century, says Jason Thistlethwaite, a professor for the School of Environment, Enterprise and Development at the University of Waterloo in Canada. Even business-as-usual forecasts aren’t that grim, putting us closer to 2.6 degrees C. Thistlethwaite points out that, even without policy change, renewable energy will continue to grow, limiting warming, because of how cheap it has become. “[Realism is] doomerism, and it doesn’t serve a useful purpose to think that there’s nothing we can do about our existing emissions trajectories,” Thistlethwaite says. “It’s disempowering.”
Realism also holds that American emissions are small in the global picture, which means other nations should invest in reducing theirs—not the U.S. (The U.S. ranks second, behind China, in terms of total greenhouse-gas output.) This POV penalizes countries whose emissions are on the rise, including developing nations, to protect the U.S. from warming-fueled impacts like extreme weather. Although this could be effective, it obscures the fact that developing nations face the most danger from climate change.
Some parts of climate realism do have the right idea, says Thistlethwaite. For example, it says that instead of leaning into solar, a clean energy area that China dominates, the U.S. should be focusing more on tech it can own, like geothermal and nuclear. Realism holds that American dollars should be spent in climate resilience such as seawalls, drought-resistant crops, and heat wave action plans. But, he adds, none of that should come at the cost of abandoning mitigation.
If not this, then what?
If climate realism isn’t the right framing for attacking the climate crisis, then what is? We asked Illingworth, and he offered up three:
First is the philosophy of climate pragmatism, which recognizes the severity of the crisis, while highlighting the impact of policy change that takes root in collective action. Examples of this in the real world? Bans on short-haul flights in France, electric vehicle incentives in Norway, and emissions reductions from building efficiency in South Korea. “People will support bold policies if they are fair and viable,” Illingworth says.
Second is climate justice, which centers on equity and solutions for populations who disproportionately experience the negative impacts of human-caused warming. Lastly is the idea of climate empowerment, which is an everyone-at-the-table approach adopted by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that Illingworth says focuses “on how communities can build resilience, push for better infrastructure, and drive the cultural shift that real change requires.”