In a recent interview leading up to World Water Day, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) argued that global emphasis should be shifted from climate change to the water crisis. Andrew Wheeler said the water crisis is "the largest and most immediate environmental and public health issues affecting the world right now.” Access to clean water is a public health and an environmental threat. The theme of World Water Day is "leave no one behind." However, I often argue that climate change is more than an environmental issue, it is an overarching challenge to humanity. I salute Administrator Wheeler for elevating the water crisis, equity, and access issues. However, there are three flaws in framing clean water access and climate change as rivals.
The first flaw is that the two topics were framed as "either/or." When a climate contrarian tells me climate changes naturally, I promise them that I didn't miss that point in my undergraduate or graduate training as an atmospheric scientist. More importantly, I point out that climate change is not an "either/or" proposition. Yes, the climate changes naturally and always will. However, there are anthropogenic or human influences superimposed onto the naturally-varying climate system now. For example, our lawn grass would grow naturally too, but there is human intervention with fertilizer, landscaping, and lawnmowers. The point here is that it is an "and" proposition.
When I see people say that topic X is more important than climate change, I immediately wonder why it has to be framed that way. I am also thinking that people really can chew gum and walk at the same time. I tried to find a logical fallacy that represents the "clean water vs climate change" tactic. The false dilemma/false dichotomy fallacy seems relevant. An article at TheBestSchools.com website lays out 15 logical fallacies. On false dilemma fallacy, the article says,
This fallacy has a few other names: “black-and-white fallacy,” “either-or fallacy,” “false dichotomy,” and “bifurcation fallacy.” This line of reasoning fails by limiting the options to two when there are in fact more options to choose from.
We certainly can and must deal with climate change and the water crisis. In fact, they are related, but I will say more about that later.
There is also the "smell" of the red herring fallacy with the "climate change vs water access" framing. The article goes on to point out,
A “red herring” is a distraction from the argument typically with some sentiment that seems to be relevant but isn’t really on-topic. Typically, the distraction sounds relevant but isn’t quite on-topic. This tactic is common when someone doesn’t like the current topic and wants to detour into something else instead, something easier or safer to address.
The water issue for some politicians or decision makers is safer to address. However, another flaw in the narrative is to decouple the water crises from the climate change challenge. I see the water crises as a subset of climate change. You are not going to solve the global water crisis until you deal with climate change. The United Nations (UN) Water website is crystal clear on this point:
Water is the primary medium through which we will feel the effects of climate change. Water availability is becoming less predictable in many places, and increased incidences of flooding threaten to destroy water points and sanitation facilities and contaminate water sources.
In some regions, droughts are exacerbating water scarcity and thereby negatively impacting people’s health and productivity. Ensuring that everyone has access to sustainable water and sanitation services is a critical climate change mitigation strategy for the years ahead.
In many areas, climate change is likely to increase water demand while shrinking water supplies. This shifting balance would challenge water managers to simultaneously meet the needs of growing communities, sensitive ecosystems, farmers, ranchers, energy producers, and manufacturers. In some areas, water shortages will be less of a problem than increases in runoff, flooding, or sea level rise. These effects can reduce the quality of water and can damage the infrastructure that we use to transport and deliver water.
My research group at the University of Georgia has recently developed a set of precipitation per person metrics to assess global water availability, stress from population, and climate change drivers (below).
The third flaw is apparent in many people's perceptions about climate change. They assume that it is way off in the future or about some polar bear in the Arctic. I opined in Forbes recently on the "kitchen table" issues being affected right now by climate change. To be fair, Wheeler is not entirely incorrect in noting that some of the worse consequences of climate change are 50 to 75 years out. It is encouraging that he is on record saying that. However, the suggestion in that statement is that things are not bad enough now to take action. They are. A National Academy of Science report on attribution laid out how climate change is affecting current extreme weather events. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) continues to lay out ways that public health is being affected by climate change and endangering our kids. Public infrastructure like roads, naval bases, and buildings are being compromised by a new "normal" of sea level rise, rapidly intensifying hurricanes, and mega-wildfires. Farmers are managing changing crop yields and shifts in optimal climate conditions for what they are growing. Climate refugees and migrants are being forced to leave their homes because the sea has swallowed parts of their land or food is hard to grow.
I could fill numerous volumes of Forbes magazine with examples of how climate change is impacting our lives right now. In some cases, the pace of changes in sea level, sea ice, and storm intensity are stunning scientists that have erred on the side of caution in messaging over the years. I commend Administrator Wheeler for his focus on water and acknowledging the looming threats of climate change. As great as our nation is, I know we can take on multiple challenges at one time. It is not "either/or." It's "and."
