I would not be surprised if the period of time roughly between 2000 and 2050 looms large in the collective mind of humanity for centuries to come – and not in a good way. It is increasingly seeming like our behavior during this period is locking in a certain about of climate change, including sea level rises and loss of ice sheets, for centuries. Some climate changes are likely to be irreversible on human time scales.

A recent study adds to the mountain of evidence that this is the case. They find that under current climate policies emissions through 2050 lock in 0.3 meters of sea level rise through 2300. If current policy continues through 2090 then the locked in sea level rise will be about 0.8 meters. If, on the other hand, we make significant efforts to reduce emissions, we can reduce this locked in sea level rise by 0.6 meters.  The point is, what we do now will impact global coastlines for centuries. And while 0.8 meters may not sound like a lot, that is an average with some areas experiencing much more. That is also enough to cause significant displacement of coastal populations.

Meanwhile, it is during this time period (the first half of the 21st century) that the consensus of climate experts was pretty solid – the evidence is clear that greenhouse gas emissions are trapping heat and causing average global warming. You could argue that this consensus existed earlier, but 2000 is a convenient round number – by then there was no reasonable denial of that consensus. And of course, I am talking about the big picture, not all the tiny details. It was clear we needed to think of ways to move our civilization away from burning more and more fossil fuel. In 2016 the Paris Accords were signed, formalizing global recognition that we need to collectively address this issue. This makes it difficult to deny that we did not recognize there was a problem and that we urgently need to do something about it.

I would also argue that between 2000 and 2025 the technology to address our dependence on fossil fuel improved dramatically. Renewable forms of energy, including wind and solar, became the cheapest form of new energy to add to our production. Battery technology also improved dramatically. For example, typical commercial solar panels are about twice as efficient at converting sunlight to electricity in 2025 from 2000. The cost of solar energy has decreased by 80% over this same time. The price of Li-ion batteries has dropped by 97% in the last three decades. The cost of electric vehicles is also decreasing. Right now on average (there are lots of variables) you need to own an EV for about 5 years before they become cheaper to own than an ICE vehicle. On average people keep their cars for 8.4 years, which means for most people and most cars, EVs are cheaper overall.

I could (and have) do a deep dive on each individual technology, as well as nuclear, pumped-hydro grid storage, grid upgrades, geothermal, and others. The bottom line of all of this is that we currently have the technology to significantly transition our various technology sectors to be more electricity-based and for that electricity to be generated using low-carbon sources. Yes, this would require some investment. But these investments are largely in infrastructure, and they will be cost-effective in the long term. Yes there are challenges, and you can raise them as if they are deal-killers, but they are not. For every issue there is one or more potential solutions.

In other words – there really is no excuse. Future generations will likely look back at this time period as reckless, selfish, and dysfunctional. I know I am projecting into the future, which is extremely difficult, but this is a reasonable inference from all available data. There are many things we can be doing which we are not. Trump has also essentially made himself the poster child for this dysfunctional recklessness. Trump told the UN that climate change is “greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world”, that the notion of climate footprint is a “hoax” and that Europe must embrace “traditional energy sources” if they wish to be great again. It is easy to image these clips being shown endlessly in future historical documentaries, much like we see over and over again clips of FDR giving his fear speech, and JFK talking about the moon shot.  Scuttling attempts at addressing climate change are likely to be his most enduring legacy.

It’s all about priority. Extending the tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the top 1% of earners will likely increase the national debt by about $4 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. A small portion of that could have been used to invest in nuclear energy, upgrading the grid, public EV chargers, and grid storage. We already have the technology, and it continues to improve at an impressive rate – but we can make the transition faster by investing smartly in infrastructure that supports cleaner technologies. We can also streamline regulations to make sure the government is not getting in the way of advancements and investments.

The Trump administration is doing what it can to hamper clean energy. He is putting tariffs on goods aimed at clean energy components. He has targeted wind and solar projects to claw back already approved funding. He is increasing the regulatory burden on clean energy (I guess he is for some regulation, when it is aimed at things he does not like). He is also cancelling transmission projects. It’s not just that he is directing investments more towards fossil fuels, he is actively and needlessly stalling clean energy and the infrastructure investments that might facilitate them. This is beyond a priority shift – it seems somewhat performative, showing his base that he really hates clean energy.

Future administrations can shift policy again, but nothing will make up for the lost time. And as long as climate change remains part of the political culture wars, we will never be able to sustain investments in the way that is necessary to really work. As long as one major party insists on calling climate change a hoax, there really is no hope things will improve. The transition will still occur, because of the inherent and improving advantages of clean technology. The US will simply cede leadership in this technology to China and other countries. And the slowing of progress will mean worsening climate change that will affect the world for centuries.