We know from decades of scientific research, and now from brutal experience, that global climate change is real. Few, if any, places in the U.S. are safe from its many consequences. They are as quick as flash floods and as slow as rising seas, but they are undeniably real and growing worse. 

They are the physical consequences of political decisions and a physical act — namely the burning of fossil fuels. Nevertheless, we still rely on fossil fuels to meet 86 percent of the world’s energy needs. Our lack of political will to change this puts us at odds with nature, ourselves, one another and our children. 

One result is personal and society-wide cognitive dissonance — the mental and emotional discomfort we feel when our actions clash with reality or beliefs. a recent Gallup poll shows that 63 percent of Americans believe global warming is underway, and that 48 percent — a record — believe it will seriously threaten their way of life. Yet more Americans are moving into places with high risks of climate-related disasters rather than out of them. 

Fifty-two percent of us, according to another survey, want global warming to be a high priority for the president and Congress. Nearly 70 percent support America’s transition to 100 percent clean energy by mid-century. And almost 80 percent want the U.S. to participate in the Paris climate agreement. 

Yet we tolerate a national government whose climate and energy policies are diametrically opposed to what most Americans say they want.  

National energy policy has become a pitched battle, not only between two political parties, but also between two classes of resources. One, which has dominated economic development since the 18th century, consists of the detritus of plants and animals that died hundreds of millions of years ago. We drill, blast and bulldoze the ground to get it. We foul the air and damage human health when we burn it. By transferring carbon from the Earth to the atmosphere, we are altering the conditions that have supported life for the past 12,000 years. 

The other group of energy resources includes sunlight, wind, water, geothermal temperatures, and other assets that are less expensive, ubiquitous, easily accessible, inexhaustible, indigenous and capable of liberating us from our dependence on foreign oil and utility monopolies. 

Shifting from old energy to new would be disruptive, but it could not be clearer why it’s necessary. Scientists say that to stabilize the climate, two-thirds of the world’s remaining fossil fuel reserves must stay in the ground. For obvious reasons (the reserves are said to be worth at least $20 trillion), the industry isn’t willing to accept this prescription. 

The battle between two energy futures became political in the 1990s, when Republicans shifted from supporting climate action to helping the fossil-energy sector discredit and deny climate science. The industry richly rewards Republicans for their support. One analysis found the oil sector spent $450 million on election campaigns, advertising and lobbying to influence the 118th Congress and Donald Trump’s positions during the 2024 election cycle. 

The dissonance between politics, policy and physical reality is causing dissonance between generations. Eight years ago, a study in the respected health journal The Lancet concluded, “Youth depression is a burgeoning illness that may be uniquely sensitive to changes in the global climate.” For example, the Oregon Health Authority found in 2020 that its young people felt stress, anxiety, isolation, frustration and depression because adults weren’t taking sufficient action to prevent climate change. Climate denial persists. After scanning the literature, artificial intelligence explains that climate denial is “a complex issue with psychological roots including motivated reasoning, ideological worldviews, fear and anxiety, social and cultural influences, and cognitive biases.” 

Denial can be explicit or implicit. Explicit denial rejects science and the need to shift our energy paradigm. It is irrational. Science is replete with issues that result in reasonable differences of opinion, but climate change is not one of them. As Psychology Today points out, “We can affirm without doubt that anthropogenic climate change is a real phenomenon that is already apparent and will, if not mitigated, cause terrible suffering and destruction before this century is over.” But for some, climate change is a reality “too big to believe.” 

Implicit denial accepts the science but fails to act. It is becoming more common as the weather worsens, but the majority don’t mobilize against fossil fuels. We have mobilized several times in the past to save industries that are “too big to fail.” None is more important than climate stability. 

There are hopeful signs. For example, Florida developers built a community the size of Manhattan where buildings are designed to withstand hurricanes. A 150-megawatt solar farm and underground transmission lines prevent extreme weather from interrupting power. The community preserves 90 percent of its land as wetlands to absorb stormwater and reduce flooding. During Hurricane Milton last fall, 2,000 Floridians found sanctuary and uninterrupted electricity in the community’s buildings. 

The insurance industry reportedly is innovating to keep its premiums affordable and losses lower. One idea is community-based catastrophe insurance, where the local government, a homeowners association, or another entity provides coverage for its members while reducing premiums with bulk purchasing and hazard mitigation measures. 

Moving people and property out of high-risk places is another idea that may be gaining traction. It remains relatively rare because no single federal program or agency provides adequate help. But “managed retreats” within municipal borders allow governments to retain their tax base. 

A study of 11 relocated communities in the Midwest found that it reduced flood exposure by over 95 percent. Another study concluded that moving properties out of flood zones was by far the most cost-effective way to reduce disaster risks, saving $6.50 for every dollar spent. 

There’s no mystery about what we should do to minimize dissonance. Congress wrote the prescription into America’s foundational environmental law in 1970. It said national policy should “create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans.” 

Time will tell whether we are smart enough to accomplish that mission. But we already know this: No nation is healthy when floods are sweeping children away, fires are burning families alive in their homes, and tornadoes are leveling entire towns as its people do nothing of consequence to keep those tragedies from becoming normal. 

William S. Becker is a former official at the U.S. Energy Department and founder of its Center of Excellence for Sustainable Development during the Clinton administration. He is the author of “The Creeks Will Rise: People Coexisting with Floods,” which tells the story of a community that moved away from a floodplain and proposes several FEMA reforms.