It's great to welcome to the program today, David Wallace, wells, who's a national fellow
at the new America Foundation columnist
and deputy editor at New York magazine and author of the book the uninhabitable Earth.
David, get great to talk to you today. I appreciate your time.
Thanks so much for having me. It's great to talk to you.
So let's just dive right into it. Increasingly, there have been, um, both sort of sober and
specific claims about how long until the earth may become inhabitable. What in hell on inhabitability
means like what do we really mean when we say that? And there have also been some sort
of very erratic caricature is nations, uh, of some of the claims that have been made
about this that are often not based in science. So if we're even going to start thinking about
this issue, like what would it mean for the earth to be uninhabitable? What are the metrics
or how should we be thinking about what that would even look like or mean? How would we
know if the earth was quote uninhabitable?
Well, technically it would mean that no humans were able to live on it. And I think that
we're very, very far from having that be the situation we're living in. I mean, probably
even in a complete worst case scenario where everything goes absolutely haywire and we
don't do anything to adjust our consumption patterns or production of carbon. We're probably
talking about several centuries at the absolute fastest. So it's not a scenario that is coming
in the near term, but what is coming quite close is the devastation of particular parts
of the planet, many of which are now quite densely inhabited, um, which could make them
a much, much harder to live in. So as soon as 20, 50, um, many scientists who study the
direct heat effects of global warming, which is to say literally how much, um, the human
body can take, um, I'm going to temperature and humidity of the human body can take before
risking heatstroke.
And possibly he does say that many of the biggest cities in South Asia and the Middle
East, um, would be so hot in summer that you wouldn't really be able to go outside during
the day. You certainly wouldn't be able to work outside during the day without risking
heatstroke. And these are cities that today hold 10, 12, 15 million people and it's possible
that as soon as 2050, which may sound a little far away, but it's, you know, just the length
of an American mortgage from now, um, those cities would literally not be able to support
human life in the way that we understand it today. Um, which is one reason why the UN
expects that also by 2050, we could have as many as 200 million climate refugees or possibly
more.
Right. So what we're talking about in a sense is the underestimating that is taking place
as to the effects of climate change. When we're talking about habitability, we're talking
about parts of the planet. We're talking about in particular ways. I mean, some of that I
think of our sea level rise putting certain cities underwater. It's not the earth is uninhabitable,
but it's, we're sort of being pushed further inland in some sense when we talk pollution
from industrialization and continued burning of fossil fuels, it's not uninhabitable, but
it's how much technology are we going to need just to be able to breathe when we go outdoors
or will we not be able to go outdoors at a certain point. What, what are some of the
other ways that in the immediate we should be thinking about these restraints on the
habitability of parts of the planet?
Well, actually air pollution is one that I find really striking. There was a major study
I've talked about a lot in 2018 looking at, um, just the difference between 1.5 degrees
of warming and two degrees of warming and to give your, um, your audience a sense where
we're already at 1.1 degrees of warming above the what's called the preindustrial average
that puts us already outside the entire window of temperatures that enclose all of human
history. So the earth is now already warmer than it's ever been during the entire history
of humanity. Stretching back all through the time in which we evolved. We developed agriculture
and civilization and modern civilization so that you can think of, um, really everything
we know about human life is having developed under climate conditions that already are
out of date. That's where we are now. 1.1 degrees of warming. Um, and um, uh, we're
on track for about 4.3 degrees of warming, but just between 1.5 degrees and two degrees.
The scientist estimated just through the impact of air pollution, which is not narrowly, um,
a result of climate change. But it's produced by the same thing that producers climate change,
which is to say the burning of fossil fuels, they estimated air pollution would kill 153
million additional people. Um, and you know, when I tell that to audiences, when I tell
that to interview her as when I tell it to friends, their faces go ash in their eyes
go wide. They think, my God, this is a completely unconscionable level of suffering. It's depth
at the scale of 25 Holocaust and they're right, it is unconscionable and yet 9 million people
are already dying every year from the effects of air pollution. So we're already turning
away from some of these impacts today. Um, even though we might like to think that we
could, we wouldn't turn away from them and we would find, um, the, you know, a moral
obligation to address them.
We see already that we're dealing with many of these impacts, um, without doing much to
address them at all. And you know, take another example. I recently wrote a piece about Internet
magazine about the California wildfires. I spoke to Eric, our study, the mayor of La.
He's 48 years old. The year he was born, 60,000 acres of forest burned in California. The
year he was elected mayor in 2013 it was 600,000, a tenfold increase the year he was reelected
mayor in 2017 it was 1.2 million acres, which means twice as much as had just been the case
for years before. And last year of 2018 1.9 million at group Burns to these trajectories
are inescapable to anyone who lives in California. And scientists say that again, just by 2050,
which is again, you know, if you're buying a home in California, it's just don't like
have a mortgage from now just by 2050.
Scientists expect that wildfires, we'll get at least twice as bad and maybe four times
as bad as they are now and ask in the second half of the century. The estimates are even
more dramatic. Um, there are some responsible science. I think it's a little high. So there's
some responsible science that says that, um, by the end of the century, 2100 wildfires
in California could get 64 times worse, which would mean something like 75% of the state
of California would be burning every single year. Now again, I think that there are reasons
to think that those numbers are a little high, but they give you a sense of just how dramatically
transformed the planet can be by even one of these impacts. And there are so many that
you can't even count them, you know, hurricanes, extreme weather, a drought, famine, the public
health issues that arise when mosquitoes that used to be trapped in the tropics are finding
as far north as the Arctic circle as will be the case very shortly.
There's a relationship between temperature and war so that, um, for every half degree
of warming, um, those who study it suggested we would get between 10 and 20% increase of
conflict. So if we ended up at four degrees at the end of the century, which is what we're
on track with, where we could have twice as much work as we have today, and then there's
a major impact on economic growth so that by the end of the century, 2100, we could
be dealing with at least 20% smaller, perhaps 30% smaller global GDP than we would have
without climate change. 30% is an impact. It's twice as big as the Great Depression
and it would be permanent. There'll be, um, parts of the planet. It would be hit by six
climate driven natural disasters at once. So this is a sort of inescapable all encompassing
threat. I look at these impacts and they seem really dramatic. They seemed terrifying as
they should be.
I also think that we'll find a way to adapt and live among some of these impacts, but
what it will mean for the way that we organize our societies, the way that we organize our
politics, how much empathy we extend to those around the world. These are really big open
questions. I think they may be as profound as the ones about direct climate impacts and
we haven't really yet begun to think about just how scrambled out lives will be by the
sports, which is I think as big and all encompassing the force as say modernity was in the 19th
century or you know, you could say financial capitalism wasn't a late 20th it will dominate
the coming century in ways that we don't even yet know how to anticipate.
When I cover this stuff. I want to be as precise and accurate as possible as someone who lives
in the United States about how bad or not bad of an actor, the US climate, skepticism,
climate denial sort of status quo is in the grand scheme of things. And there are obviously
lots of reasons to think that the United States is a bad actor here and acutely. So there
are some defenses like for example, listen, most of the carbon is not being burned in
the US even though disproportionately it is being burned in the u s in sort of raw numbers.
It's not the US is just one player. Even though these other countries are doing some stuff,
they're still just trying to slow the growth of the problem rather than actually reduced
the size of the problem. How bad of an actor is the u s in all of this?
It really depends on your perspective. So you know, I think it's important for everyone
to understand. The US is now producing about 15% of carbon emissions globally. Um, that
puts us in the second, second place, which is not a good place today. Um, but China is
producing about twice as much. They're at 28% of global population today. Um, that's
one perspective, but another perspective is historically, so how much were responsible
for putting the carbon in the atmosphere to begin with. And from that perspective, we,
um, the US is responsible for actually, but, um, I think the majority of all carbon emissions
that have ever been produced by humanity. So in that sense, we have a kind of, um, there's
a moral imperative for us to act even if today we're doing better than, um, than some other
nations in the world in terms of, you know, denial and skepticism. I personally think
that those forces are completely villainous. I think that the fossil fuel companies are
doing great damage to, on the future of the planet in a way that they've captured at least.
Um, you know, the perspective of one of the two parties in the US is a tragedy and an
outrage. On the other hand, when you look around the world, um, at countries that where
it pops up, your interests have a much less of a, put, a much less political power.
Yes.
And governments that are much more committed to green policies, at least rhetorically.
Basically none of them are doing any better in terms of reducing carbon emissions than
the u s is. And that makes me think that I'm the problem here maybe a bit deeper than simply
the force of denial, um, or you know, or, or climate skepticism and that we may be distracting
ourselves and, um, sort of giving ourselves a pat on the back when we, when we need it
as American liberal. Um, when we point the finger out the other side and say it's all
their fault. I think, you know, the UK is doing a bit better than the u s is on their
few countries in the EU that were doing a little bit better. But, you know, generally
speaking, we signed the Paris accord three years ago. All of the countries of the world,
no major country in the world is on track to me those commitments.
Right. Even if all of them did, we'd still be on track for north of three degrees of
warming century, which would be completely catastrophic. You by almost every metric.
Um, the only nations in the entire world that are even compatible at this point with the
goals of the Paris accord on Morocco and Gambia, two countries. That's it. Um, so I think we're
dealing with a much, much bigger problem than simply the force of denial. I'm in the u s
you know, and, and, and the ways that the Republican party has been captured by the
forces. On the other hand, I don't want to let those people off the hook because I think,
um, they're very much fighting on the wrong side of history and doing, um, doing your
kind of moral damage to the country and the world. Even if practically speaking, I think
that their, their role is a bit overstated sometime.
So you said a few minutes ago that you do think that in the face of all of these coming
negative consequences that we will in many ways find ways to cope. But I want to sort
of go a step further than that, which is to say, uh, is the fact that you chose to have
a kid while writing this book assigned that in a more general sense, you're optimistic
that this is something humans will deal with appropriately?
I think of myself as an optimist. Yes. I mean, I think it's really important to keep in mind
what, or to think about what you're basing your expectations office. So if you're hoping
that the world is going to stay roughly as it is today, um, which is already a quite
degraded climate where three, 500 a hundred year storms that hit Houston in the last three
years where we've had those catastrophic wildfires is unprecedented heat waves. You know, the
biggest storm in 50 years to hit Mozambique followed by the big and even bigger storm
less than a month later. Um, all of these kinds of impacts that are, would have been
unconscionable just a generation ago were already in that kind of unprecedented heroin
climate situation. And if you're hoping to preserve this climate, that terrible damage
climate, even that I think is hopeless, there's no way that we're going to stabilize the climate
and anything like our present situation, which means from that perspective, um, there's,
you know, that's a strong argument for pessimism, but I like to think that our best baseline
of expectation is the track we're headed on, which is to say four degrees of warming.
And I think there's quite a lot that we can do and we'll do to revert that level of warming.
I mean it's really important to keep in mind when I talk about some of these really catastrophic
impacts of the wildfires in the economic impacts that twice as much war, all that stuff, these
impacts can seem overwhelmingly large, but there are also a reminder that we have power
over the climate. There were a reflection of our power of this climate. If we get to
that four degree of level and we're dealing with all of those impacts, it will be because
of what we do from here through the end of the century. That means that our hands are
on those levers. And we can theoretically change course, theoretically there are a lot
of human obstacles in the way that are preventing us or at least slowing down that action. But
theoretically it's up to us to write the story of this, um, of our near future.
And I think, you know, part of the reason that I had a child, I mean partly it's that
I'm living in delusion and compartmentalization like so many other people, um, and want to
live my life as I want to live it as some of the other people do. Not Thinking about
these issues. But to the extent that I was focused on the climate question in thinking
about the choice to have a child, I think, you know, I was very mindful of the fact that
this story is not yet written. It is up to us to write it. And a huge range of outcomes
are possible from, um, a little bit worse than we have today to quite dramatically worse.
And I think on climate, as with everything, um, you have to fight for the kind of world
that you want to live in and you want your loved ones to live, live in rather than giving
up before the story has even been written, has been determined.
And I think for all, for all those reasons, um, I think it's up to us and we should, you
know, see the, see as the opportunities for optimism, interaction rather than retreating
into fatalism in despair. Because the truth is, even though the climate as we know it
today is already done, already gone, there's no hope for saving it. The story is not at
all over yet. And we fall into a trap often thinking of climate as a binary system where
it's either there's no climate change or climate changes here or you know, it's livable or
it's catastrophic, but it's a spectrum. And every ticket word of temperature that we get
is going to make life worse with more pain and more suffering around the world. Um, most
of it concentrated in the global south, but every tick upward that we can avoid is that
life will be better, healthier, more prosperous. And I think we owe it to all of us and our
children and grandchildren to fight for that future as much as we can every day.
The book is called the uninhabitable Earth. We've been speaking with the book's author,
David Wallace Wells, who's also a national fellow at the new America Foundation and colonists
and, and deputy editor at New York magazine. David, really appreciate your time today starting
from a strategy. Good stuff.