A day will come when Michigan and the entire United States must make sweeping and dramatic changes to combat global warming. We can say that with certainty because, as a vast body of climate science proves, we have no choice if we want our children and their children to enjoy this beautiful planet as we know it. 

The coming cataclysm was portrayed most recently in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, released February 28, 2022.  The report is 3,676 pages of science that builds a broad case against a failure of global climate leadership. The top level findings are generally things we have all heard a thousand times—coral reefs dying, forests burning, low ocean shoreline communities moving inland, crop productivity declining, and so much more. (I know, you want to turn away. So do I.)

But there is one important sentence from the IPCC report I ask you to take in, a plainly stated 17 words, no bold face, no exclamation point, found on page SPM-8: 

“The extent and magnitude of climate change impacts are larger than estimated in previous assessments (high confidence).”

This sentence is monumentally important to Michigan leaders this very week as two critical and contradictory climate change issues land almost simultaneously in the state’s policy realm. It’s a juxtaposition that poignantly encapsulates the climate choice facing our entire nation. One issue involves building a massive piece of oil infrastructure that would help warm the planet with billions of tons of CO2 during its proposed 99-year lifespan. The other involves finalizing a plan to eliminate the state’s contribution to atmospheric carbon within 28 years. 

It’s tempting to wonder if the universe had a reason for landing these two side by side in the middle of the greatest expanse of fresh water on the planet. After all, Michigan and the precious Great Lakes region has already warmed 30% more than the other regions of the Lower 48. Global warming is gripping our region more quickly and more tightly, and we must act with the bold urgency the situation demands. The pairing of the issues helps Michiganders see that our day for making sweeping and dramatic change has already arrived. 

The most radical and catastrophically expensive thing we can do is move slowly and cautiously, or as millions of Americans continue to advocate, embrace the fossil fuel future whole hog.

So what happens now? First, on March 11, the Michigan Public Service Commission accepted final briefs and entered a decision-making period to determine if a Line 5 oil pipeline tunnel in the Straits of Mackinac should be allowed to be built. A central argument against the oil tunnel is based on its potential contribution to global warming. Internationally renowned environmental scientists and economists (who built the case for the intervenors Environmental Law and Policy Center and Michigan Climate Action Network) have calculated that if the tunnel is built it will result in CO2 emissions equal to that from about 6 million cars each year when compared to not building the tunnel. The pipeline’s lifespan is nearly a century, during which the annual CO2 increase would add up to about 6 trillion pounds of CO2.

In contrast, just three days after the Line 5 case milestone, the state closed the comment period for the state’s MI Healthy Climate Plan. The plan is designed to create a roadmap to reach Gov. Whitmer’s executive order goal of achieving a net zero economy by 2050. A net zero economy means that carbon emissions would be reduced so far that whatever remaining carbon is being released, an equal or greater amount of carbon would be being taken up by our forests, grasslands, and waters, so the state would not be adding to carbon in the atmosphere. 

We can get to net zero by trusting human ingenuity, juicing it with investment, and blessing it with societal encouragement—if we aren’t simultaneously authorizing massive fossil fuel infrastructure that will push global CO2 concentrations to ever higher extremes. Even a speed read of the IPCC executive summary reveals that the most radical and catastrophically expensive thing we can do is move slowly and cautiously, or as millions of Americans continue to advocate, embrace the fossil fuel future whole hog. 

A couple years back, my organization interviewed the president of one of the largest coal-dominant electric utilities in the nation, based in Michigan. He said, “Five years ago if you had asked anybody in the country about the low prices we are seeing today for solar, there’s not a person other than a futurist who would have predicted it.” But as we can see, in just five years, those dramatic advances were made, and we’ve barely begun this journey. 

Consider that in the five years between when the Paris climate agreement was signed, in 2016, and 2021, the world’s largest banks invested $3.8 trillion into expanding the oil industry. Imagine if a $3.8 trillion-torrent had gushed into renewable energy during that same time. Yes, we can do this.

Michigan, like all of the nation, finds itself at a climate policy crossroads, but there is only one science-based, cost-effective, and morally defensible path forward. We must stop expanding fossil fuel infrastructure, and in the case of Line 5, refuse to authorize the oil tunnel based on legally justifiable grounds of climate harm under the Michigan Environmental Protection Act.

And as for the MI Healthy Climate Plan, we must capitalize on this opportunity to make it as visionary and bold as our future generations deserve. We have no time to waste, as the extent and magnitude of the climate crisis continues to surprise us by accelerating beyond past predictions of harm.

Ashley has conducted wildlife research in Africa, Australia, and the United States, has a master degree in public administration with a focus on environmental policy from Cornell University, and previously served as Chapter Director for the Utah Sierra Club. She currently directs Groundwork’s Climate & Environment program.