Your Opinion: Critical choices on climate change

Dear Editor:

It was good to see "Weathering the storm" in the News Tribune on June 1. Based largely on the National Climate Assessment, it informs us that climate change is real, happening now and with mostly negative effects. What it missed is that we can choose from more than one scenario as we move forward. We can choose an all-of-the-above energy plan, or we can choose to move away from fossil fuels. Our choice matters.

On page 421 of the assessment, Figure 18.2 shows what temperatures will look like in mid-Missouri by mid-century with the all-of-the-above plan, where fossil fuel emissions continue to rise. We can plan on an additional 20 days a year with temperatures over 95 degrees F, compared with the late 20th century. Humidity will increase too, so the "feels-like" temperature, the one that causes heat-related deaths, will go up even more.

One study referenced in the assessment projected an increase of between 166 and 2,217 excess deaths per year from heat-related mortality in Chicago alone near the end of this century. The 166-death number is based on a choice to move away from fossil fuels, the 2,217-death number is based on the all-of-the-above plan.

University of Missouri's Tony Lupo reduces concerns about our extreme weather events by calling them "just a little more variability." Tell that to someone dying of heatstroke or drowning in polluted floodwaters.

Lupo reassures us that rising oceans won't affect Missouri. Are we an economic island, disconnected from our coastal cities?

As one of the three percent of climate scientists who make light of climate change, Lupo is on the fossil-fuel funded Heartland Institute's expert list for a reason.

His quote, "this thing about the Antarctic ice ... it hasn't fallen yet," provides an excuse for more inaction and fossil fuel profits.

Each day we are comforted by scientists and politicians in the pocket of the fossil-fuel industry is another day of lost opportunity to use the ingenuity, technology and resources we have to move to renewable clean energy.

New EPA regulations are a small step forward in reducing emissions from power plants. A revenue-neutral fee and dividend enacted by Congress would put our markets to work and reduce emissions faster, cheaper and in all economic sectors. Will our representation in Congress fight climate action or support it? Will fossil-fuel money speak louder than citizens?

That choice is up to us.