Despite decades of worldwide efforts and hundreds of billions of dollars invested in addressing the climate crisis, the world is closer to climate doomsday. Yet three nascent technologies if fully developed could stop climate change. A massive investment in science is the best and perhaps the only path to defeating climate change.

::::::::

Over the last 15 years, bold and extensive worldwide programs have been initiated to defeat climate change. These include an extensive shift to green energy sources such as windmills, solar panels, hybrid and electric vehicles, as well as the introduction of carbon capture technology that can extract carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere. Even private citizens around the globe are contributing by adopting vegetarian diets or cutting back on meat consumption in the hope of shrinking the livestock industry. Farm animals, particularly cows, produce a significant amount of methane gas, which is a greenhouse gas that is eighty times more potent than CO₂in warming the earth.

We have also witnessed the emergence of an extensive climate industry in government, academia, the business world, and the public sector. Among the staggering number of eco groups, the Climate Reality Project inspired by Al Gore boasts representation in 174 countries with 42,377 trained climate reality leaders. Add to these the vast amount of financing that has poured into the fight against climate change. Since 1993 the U.S.alone has spent more than $150 billion on climate change activities. And the list of current initiatives and the numbers of participants worldwide in climate-related activities are so extensive they would fill several volumes.

Shouldn't this call for celebration? Indeed, many in the climate industry are celebrating and raising their hopes that climate change will be defeated.

Unfortunately, the sad and disturbing truth is that these impressive initiatives have not been extensive enough nor have they scaled quickly enough to combat the accelerating rate of planetary degradation. The world is now in worse shape than when Al Gore's groundbreaking 2006 film, An Inconvenient Truth, warned about the threat of climate change to sustaining life on planet earth.

Our planet is warming at an unprecedented pace. NASA reported that 2021 was tied for the 6th hottest year ever recorded, and "the past eight years are the warmest years since modern record-keeping began in 1880." Also alarming, the level of CO₂ in the atmosphere is greater than in past years. In 2008 scientists warned that the atmosphere should not exceed 350 parts per million (ppm) of CO₂. In January 2022 NASA reported the CO₂ level at 420ppm. Adding to these worries, a new study published on August 11^th, 2022 presented data confirming that the Arctic is warming four times faster than the rest of the world. Since the Arctic contributes significantly to regulating global temperature, a warming Arctic could accelerate the heating of the rest of the planet to dangerous levels. This means that today we are closer to unprecedented climate catastrophes or what scientists are calling doomsday.

Elizabeth Kolbert, distinguished science journalist and author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning bookThe Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History endorsed that conclusion. She told New Yorker editor David Remnick on NPR on August 13, 2022, that worldwide commitments and programs to address climate change were insufficient to prevent disasters. She added that "the problem is not one that gets solved...you simply make it worse or less worse." That is an astonishing statement that should be taken seriously and reflected on by all who are genuinely concerned about sustaining livability on our only home--a tiny rock floating in infinite space

Yet three existing technologies--nuclear fusion, carbon capture, and a 1000-mile fast-charging battery for vehicles--could stop climate change. Why there is not a comprehensive international program in place to bring these technologies to full capacity is baffling,"--considering the global acceleration of climate disasters, including deadly floods, out-of-control forest fires, and unprecedented extreme heat waves, with temperatures reaching as high as 120 degrees Fahrenheit in some countries.

Add to these terrifying events a new threat that has been confirmed in a study published by researchers at the University of Hawaii on August 8, 2022. After an exhaustive study of historic data, they concluded that "half of all human infectious diseases in recorded history have been exacerbated by the mounting impacts of greenhouse gas-driven climate change." They warned that climate change is supercharging infectious diseases through the effects of greenhouse gas emissions.

While individual companies are working on the three promising technologies, the current pace of development and projections for reaching full capacities are too slow to stop climate change in time to prevent worldwide catastrophes. Shouldn't that realization prompt a crash program to develop these technologies that can stop climate change? But that isn't happening.

The world continues to place its bet on commitments by governments and industries to accomplish net zero emissions--a strategy that has repeatedly failed and will continue to fail. Not only because the commitments are inadequate, to begin with, but also because of the serious political, economic, and social constraints. Consider too, the periodic disruptions in the energy supply chain--disruptions that revive the use of high carbon-emission sources. We have seen that recently. Sanctions blocking oil purchases from Russia following Putin's invasion of Ukraine resulted in countries resuming coal production and other atmosphere-poisoning practices. Similar disruptions in the future can be expected to compromise commitments. And despite the Paris agreement, signed in 2016, requiring countries to reduce emissions, carbon levels, as just noted, have increased since then in each successive year according to National Geographic.

Making matters worse, some countries refuse to make climate change a priority. In May 2022 The Democratic Republic of the Congo announced that it will allow oil drilling in their rain forests and other protected sanctuaries. This decision will not only diminish the forests' lung function for the atmosphere but will add significantly to carbon emissions. The Congo rainforests are critical to defeating climate change. They remove as much as 1.5 billion tons of CO₂ from the atmosphere annually. A spokesperson for Greenpeace warned of a global climate catastrophe if this new policy is enacted. On August 9, 2022, U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken urged the Congo to reconsider its decision.

The Congo's action illustrates the notorious unreliability of commitments made by countries. The New York Times reported that at a Climate Summit in Glasgow held ten months before Congo's disastrous policy was announced, Congo's president, Felix Thisekedi, endorsed a ten-year agreement to protect its rainforest.

In the U.S., the media is cheering President Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, which includes what has been hailed as a historic climate initiative with the goal of a 40% reduction in carbon emissions by 2030. Will it achieve that goal? A close examination invites skepticism. Similar to other commitments around the world, for governments to get consensus to adopt policies that reduce greenhouse emissions, compromises must be made to appease those who profit from industries that poison the atmosphere. That's why Biden's bill will fund green technologies, but at the same time will allow coal power plants to keep operating. Another concession requires the government to auction some public lands and waterways for oil drilling. Most discouraging, much of the astonishing nearly $400 billion that is allocated for climate actions is designated for relief from the effects of climate change disasters. The bill also offers tax credits for the purchase of electric vehicles and for encouraging businesses to develop low-carbon energy technologies. Although ambitious and generous these programs are the same ones that have repeatedly failed to stop climate change.

Even if this bill were to accomplish its goal it would not prevent climate change disasters. The climate crisis can't be solved locally. To stop climate change the entire world must be on board with extreme conservation measures. That is not happening and is unlikely to happen anytime soon, if ever.

Can the business world be counted on to drastically reduce carbon emissions? The Economist reported in 2021 that two thousand of the world's biggest publicly traded firms have embraced net zero emission goals for their operations. And in the U.S. "about a quarter of firms in the S&P 500 index have done so." Yet Microsoft, which earlier committed to a net zero carbon emissions program, reported a whopping increase of 21.5 percent of greenhouse gases from their operations in the twelve months ending June 2021. For the business world, in a faceoff between profits and conservation measures, the buck seems to always come first.

That's why science offers the only realistic possibility for stopping climate change short of nature's timetable for a climate apocalypse.

In February 2022, the UK-based Jet Laboratory announced the exciting news of a breakthrough in the development of nuclear fusion, which has the potential for producing "unlimited supplies" of clean energy with no greenhouse gases. And unlike nuclear fission, nuclear fusion doesn't produce radioactive waste. That was a WOW announcement that should have been followed by a proposal for a massive investment to fully develop the technology. Instead, the announcement cautioned that it will take as many as two decades to develop the technology and possibly additional decades to scale it up. Considering the dire threat of a climate apocalypse, this timetable seems ludicrous.

In 1961 when JFK set the goal of putting a man on the moon within a decade it sounded like science fiction since scientists knew virtually nothing about space travel then. Similarly, in 1942, when FDR officially launched the Manhattan Project to harness atomic energy to create a bomb to end World War II. science knew little about accessing atomic energy. But with commitment, determination, sufficient funding, and teams of expert scientists from around the world, the "impossible" was achieved in three years.

Shouldn't the same success be possible for advancing nuclear fusion to reasonably high functional capacity? And similarly for carbon-capture technology to efficiently capture carbon emissions before they reach the atmosphere and also efficiently extract CO₂ from the atmosphere. Add to these a fast charging 1000 mile battery that would mark the end of combustion engines for vehicles, which are a major polluter of greenhouse gasses in the world. In the U.S. alone trucks and cars account for as much as twenty percent of greenhouse gasses. Current vehicle batteries can travel an average of 250-300 miles on a single charge. Tesla claims a distance of 405 miles on a single charge for one of its models. Full recharges for most batteries can take as long as 8 hours.

The encouraging news is that for the three technologies scientists already have a trove of knowledge.

In a telephone interview on August 18, 2022, with professor Troy Carter, Director of the Plasma Science and Technology Institute at UCLA and a leading expert on nuclear fusion, I asked about the prospect of developing fusion technology in time to slow or defeat climate change. Dr. Carter is optimistic. He lamented the relatively skimpy funding for nuclear fusion compared to funding for other technologies and programs when nuclear fusion offers so much for resolving the climate change crisis by potentially replacing fossil fuels with an unlimited supply of clean energy. Nevertheless, he said, even at current levels of funding the dedication and tireless commitment of scientists around the globe working on fusion could bring the technology to limited functionality by 2040 and much greater functionality sooner with the unlimited financing that I suggested. His infectious enthusiasm about the prospects for getting the job done was inspiring.

Some might say that advancing these promising technologies to sufficient levels in time to prevent a climate apocalypse would require a miracle. If so, which is more likely to produce a miracle? Science or governments and industries? Science has a history of turning what appears to be science fiction into reality. Governments and industries have a history of creating mirages. As you take a closer look at their commitments they evaporate.

The Thompson Reuters Foundation reported on Oct. 28, 2021, that researchers at the World Resources Institute have estimated that climate finance needs to raise as much as $5 trillion a year globally by 2030 to successfully fight climate change. They warned that "transformation across economies is too slow to meet international temperature goals." The UN and other organizations have made projections of $90-150 trillion of mammoth financing requirements. These immense funds, if raised, would be used to expand the same strategies and programs that have not slowed the accelerating advance toward climate doomsday. Just a single infusion of $1-3 trillion for the rapid development of proven technologies might have a greater possibility of defeating climate change.

The odds for which path is more likely to yield success is clear. It's time to face the truth and make a big bet on science. Let's give science whatever resources are necessary to fully develop the technologies that can defeat climate change. On Feb 19. 2021, John Kerry Special Presidential Envoy for Climate said "Earth has 9 years to avert the worst consequences of the climate crisis."

Scientists are so terrified that that time is running out to prevent unprecedented and unstoppable climate catastrophes that on August 29, 2022. five climate scientists and a political scientist published an article ln the scientific journal Nature Climate Change calling on fellow scientists to engage in civil disobedience, even risking arrest, to pressure governments to take more aggressive and drastic action on the climate crisis.

The stakes couldn't be higher and compromise should not be an option.

Authors Bio:

Bernard Starr has written about climate change since 2007 often calling for a program modeled after the Manhattan Project. He is a psychologist and Professor Emeritus at CUNY, Brooklyn College where he taught developmental psychology to prospective teachers and research methods and statistics in a graduate program that he directed. He is also the lead author of a lifespan textbook-- Human Development and Behavior: Psychology in Nursing. Starr is the founder and for twenty-five years the managing editor of the cutting edge Annual Review of Gerontology and Geriatrics published by Springer; also was editor of the Springer Publishing Co. series Adulthood and Aging and Lifestyle and Issues in Aging. For several years he wrote for the Scripps Howard News Service on healthcare, the boomers, and issues of an aging society. And for seven years he was writer, producer, and host of an award-winning radio commentary, The Longevity Report, on WEVD-AM Radio in NYC. His book, The Starr-Weiner Report On Sex and Sexuality in the Mature years (co-authored with Dr. Marcella Bakur Weiner) provided the first comprehensive data on sexual activity after age 60. He is a past president of the Brooklyn Psychological Association and a past president of the Association for Spirituality and Psychotherapy. He is also the main United Nations representative for the Institute of Global Education (IGE), an NGO with ECOSOC status. His latest book, The Crucifixion of Truth, is a drama about historical antisemitism set in 16th- century Italy and Spain. He also authored Jesus, Jews, and Anti-Semitism in Art. and Jesus Uncensored: Restoring the Authentic Jew. His earlier book, Escape Your Own Prison: Why We Need Spirituality and Psychology to be Truly Free, published by Rowman and Littlefield, explores spirituality as a psychology of consciousness. Currently, his articles are published at OpEdNews. Previously, he published on the Huffington Post contributor platform. Starr has also published in Salon, Barons Financial Magazine, the Algemeiner, and the New York Daily News.