Focus on short term leads to wrong reactions

My reaction to news about an increase in the cost of living probably differs from most other people’s.

Reports about the inflated cost of living often make me scowl, but not usually because of higher prices.

Certainly, I’m sympathetic to those having difficulty paying for life’s necessities. However, I scowl because discussions of the cost of living almost always miss a more important point. They address the magnitude of life’s daily expenses, which is a short-term issue.

Much more important is the long-term version. That’s the cost of being able to continue living on our planet — the sacrifices we must make if we’re going to halt climate change and keep our planet inhabitable.

If you need a reminder of what’s coming, consider that a recent climate-change report by the United Nations Environment Programme declared that “without big changes,” by 2050 we can expect “Oppressive heat. Species extinctions. Pollution-choked skies.” Additionally, climate change will expose “about 1.1 billion more people to heavy rains and an additional 900 million people to intense drought.” That’s a mere 24 years from now.

That will become much worse if we trigger climate tipping points. The report highlights that “the world is approaching a series of climate-related thresholds from which there may be no return.”

Ice sheets could melt, causing a dramatic sea level rise. Permafrost could thaw, releasing massive amounts of greenhouse gases. The Amazon rainforest could wither, eliminating its crucial absorption of carbon dioxide. Coral could disappear, threatening fisheries worldwide. Ocean currents and the jet stream could be disrupted, throwing the climate into disarray.

And all these impacts will, of course, have dire economic effects.

Now note that a recent federal report paints a dismal picture of Canada’s emissions-reduction progress, and that Environment and Climate Change Canada “forecasts 2026 to be among the hottest years on record.” Both reports indicate that we’re losing the battle.

People and politicians seem almost exclusively focused on minimizing short-term costs and maximizing short-term benefits, with minimal thought given to the long-term impact. Focusing on the short term often generates the wrong reaction to events.

People become distraught when gas or beef prices rise, even though higher prices could discourage their use and lessen the greenhouse gases generated by fossil fuels and cattle.

People worry that the construction of multi-family dwellings might affect their property values, even though a more compact city would limit transportation distances and greenhouse gases.

Our governments promote oil and gas pipelines to produce jobs, revenue, and political support, when boldly developing green industries so we can export climate-saving products would make much greater long-term sense.

The City of Winnipeg plans to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on new and expanded roads to address traffic concerns, when creating a world-class, mass transit system would be a far more Earth-friendly strategy.

Manitoba Hydro demonstrates phenomenally limited foresight by planning to construct gas generators for more power, when it could aggressively pursue proven methods of managing electrical demand, effective techniques for storing power, and power-generation using wind, solar, and modern nuclear technologies.

Governments most clearly demonstrate their prowess for short-term thinking when they provide cost-of-living relief by reducing gas taxes. That might be a quick popularity booster, but it’s bad for the climate, it’s a poor way of providing fair economic relief, and it gives up tax revenue could be used to support climate initiatives.

It sometimes feels as if too many people are just older versions of unconstrained children who will always choose candy over nutritious food. They choose quick gratification.

They either don’t understand or don’t care about the inevitable consequences.

Can people and politicians be diverted from obsessing about only the short-term cost of living? After elections, climate change seems to become an issue that’s barely acknowledged. When will more politicians appear with the courage and wisdom to continually prioritize our survival? How long will it be until a majority of voters loudly and persistently demand the necessary action?

As a country, we seem able to recognize possible military threats and willing to accept massive government expenditures to address the problem. Why can’t the same happen for the greater and more certain climate threat? Why can’t our leaders be as articulate and bold in leading the world’s so-called middle powers toward climate security?

Either we pay the costs now to halt global warming — which might require more taxes, fewer benefits, and an increased daily cost of living — or today’s children and grandchildren will pay a much higher price by enduring the increasingly rapid degradation of the planet and the economy. Our changing climate is presenting us with a “pay now” or “pay later” choice, where the cost of paying later will be appalling.

That’s what I think about when I encounter typical, short-sighted reports about “the cost of living.”

Calvin Brown writes from his home in the RM of St. Andrews.