Furthermore, the natural carriers of science’s contributions to the public and the policy process—non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the media—have not afforded the climate issue the urgent priority that it deserves. For many environmental groups, climate is one priority on a long list; for some, it is not a priority at all. Meanwhile, the media, when it covers the climate story at all, is afflicted with “balanceitis,” striving to provide equal coverage to “the other side of the story” when it may deserve little or none at all. International comparisons of media demonstrate that US news reports on climate treat the issue as more uncertain, controversial, and theoretical than coverage in other countries.

And once the first three obstacles have been navigated, various economic and ideological interests offer stiff and skilled resistance. This effort ranges from traditional energy-industry lobbying to well-placed charlatans claiming that climate change is a hoax. The energy industry and others have orchestrated skillful media advertising campaigns, for instance, opposing the Kyoto Protocol and, more recently, promoting coal.

These factors might be thought of as the conventional reasons why good science is not heard and heeded. Beyond these barriers to action lie some newer and less conventional ones. The environmental community has recently faced charges, for example, of mishandling the climate issue. As Michael Schellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, authors of The Death of Environmentalism, have noted, environmental organizations and foundations have earned little return on millions of dollars of investment, perhaps because environmental leaders are not “articulating a vision of the future commensurate with the magnitude of the crisis. Instead they are promoting technical policy fixes like pollution controls and higher vehicle mileage standards—proposals that provide neither the popular inspiration nor the political alliances the community needs to deal with the problem.” While these criticisms may verge on blaming the victim, they underscore the need to communicate the importance of climate protection by appealing to the public’s values and aspirations.

Another issue gaining prominence—although actually a very old issue—is religion trumping science. Religious organizations have been at the forefront of environmental causes in the United States for a long time. One of the most powerful statements supporting action on climate, “Earth’s Climate Embraces Us All,” was organized by the National Religious Partnership for the Environment and signed by leaders of most religions and Christian denominations, including the National Association of Evangelicals. So, we must be cautious about generalizations and oversimplifying complex phenomena. But there is another side. Many among the one-third of US citizens who are evangelical Christians perceive liberals and scientists as contemptuous of their beliefs. Some see science as a threat or at least as a challenge. The New York Times reported in 2003 that “Americans are three times as likely to believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus (83 percent) as in evolution (28 percent).” Some Christian fundamentalists believe—as did former US Secretary of the Interior Jim Watt—that we are living in the End Time, so that the long-term environmental future of the planet is not a concern. Indeed, politically active groups associated with the Christian Right support many Washington politicians who have very low ratings from the League of Conservation Voters.

All of this suggests that good environmental science and forecasting are absolutely necessary but far from sufficient. If forecasting is to affect real-world events, strategies are needed to address the issues just catalogued, and probably others. Such strategies can be identified, and it is important to begin this task soon.

In the meantime, there is a job to do. The United States is tragically late in addressing climate change; irreparable damage will unfold in the decades ahead due to past negligence. The imperative now is to prevent the situation from deteriorating further. That, at least, we owe our children and grandchildren.

A Possible Way Out

Fortunately, the outlines of a climate strategy are visible, in part because of the good efforts already being made to move the United States in the right direction. What follows is an overview of action that builds on the many positive, encouraging initiatives already under way.

With the path forward blocked in Washington, states and localities across the country have moved to fill the breach. Twenty-eight states have developed or are developing action plans to reduce GHG emissions. Many of these, such as the programs in Massachusetts and Oregon, focus on reducing emissions from power plants. Other states, such as Connecticut and New Jersey, more ambitiously seek to reduce overall emissions in the state. New York aims to have 25 percent of its power from renewable energy sources by 2013. California has taken the lead in regulating GHGs from vehicles. In the years immediately ahead, state and local commitments must be deepened and strengthened. Every state should adopt an overall GHG-reduction plan, a renewable energy portfolio standard, the California plan for vehicles, and an energy efficiency program that encompasses everything from tighter building codes to transportation and land-use planning.

In the private sector, carrots and sticks must be provided for business. The good news is that many corporations are not waiting for federal action and are undertaking voluntary initiatives to reduce their GHG emissions. They anticipate they will be regulated one day; they seek to avoid shareholder pressure, consumer campaigns, lawsuits and liability for damages, and, in many cases, they feel a sense of responsibility. More recognition of and reward for positive performance by businesses, and serious pressure on reluctant businesses, can motivate them to further reduce emissions.

Additionally, the financial sector must be “greened.” The financial and insurance sectors are waking up to climate risks. Institutional investors, large lenders, and insurers are becoming increasingly sensitized to financial risks (and opportunities) presented by climate change. Investors large and small should use shareholder resolutions and negotiations to pressure companies to improve climate-risk disclosure and to take risk-reducing actions. The Securities and Exchange Commission should require companies to fully disclose the financial risks of global warming. Mutual fund managers and other investment managers should be pressed to develop climate-risk competence and to support climate-risk disclosure and action at companies in which they are investing.