Greenpeace chief finds hope amid devastating climate change impacts

It may sound counterintuitive, but Jennifer Morgan finds hope in new scientific studies that more precisely link devastating storms, fires and floods to climate change.

Morgan is the executive director of Greenpeace International, one of the world's most prominent environmental groups. When she reads about studies showing how much more likely Hurricane Harvey was because of rising temperatures — or what percentage of California's recent drought can be attributed to human emissions — she sees a tool to hold corporations and governments accountable for polluting the atmosphere.

"You now see a whole range of different litigation cases occurring around the world that are working to hold the major polluters accountable, whether it be the youth in Oregon, or the Philippines human rights commission, or the City of New York lodging a case against the five biggest oil companies," Morgan told USA TODAY in an interview. "That is truly disruptive, and I think gives me hope that we can accelerate the pace of change."

Climate Point: Subscribe to USA TODAY's climate change and energy newsletter

Al Gore Q&A: After year of disasters, former vice president still has hope

Those legal cases revolve around the idea that fossil fuel companies, and countries that have promoted fossil fuel extraction, have a legal responsibility to address the damage they have caused through their contributions to climate change. It's a legal theory supporters have compared to the lawsuits that forced tobacco companies to dramatically curtail their advertising and pay states to cover some of the medical expenses incurred by smokers.

In Oregon, where 21 children and teenagers are suing the federal government over climate change, an appellate court ruled this month that the lawsuit could proceed on merits, denying a request from the Justice Department to dismiss the case upfront.

USA TODAY interviewed Morgan about the Trump administration's policies, the role of corporations and governments and the power of regular people to make change.

The following transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Q: After a year of climate-fueled storms, fires and floods, what gives you hope?

A: I'd say two things. One is how many individuals there are around the world who are fighting and active, whether it be to try and get solar power into their homes and in their schools, whether it be working to stop a local coal-fired power plant, change what they buy, what they eat.

Another thing that gives me hope is the uptake of renewable energy and the fall of prices. That gives me hope that we can scale up, particularly in places where there are no energy sources yet, with renewables rather than fossil fuels.

Related: Solar industry employees 250,000 people in U.S., twice as many as coal

Also: Warren Buffett is rushing to build hundreds of wind turbines to power the West

Q: Do you think the world would be doing more to confront climate change if it weren't for the influence of corporations?

A: Corporate influence is a massive obstacle, and I think we're in a moment where we're seeing around the world that people are losing their faith in institutions like government. In the U.S., just look at who's funding the various elections. Even Germany, where you have a revolving door between the auto industry and the government, you can look at the corruption that occurs. It creates a very skewed power dynamic.

Q: Is that why you think there needs to be disruption, like the New York City and Oregon lawsuits?

A: At this point in time, yeah. What you're seeing is people and elected officials like mayors taking things into their own hands because they just can't wait anymore. In the U.S., to wait until the next administration, we just don't have that time. What you're seeing is driven by the urgency of the issue, individuals stepping up and doing things that I think wouldn't be imaginable a few years ago, but now are taken quite seriously. The students in Oregon moved on to the next level in their court case. And we'll see where the New York case lands and what other cities file lawsuits.

The thing for people to realize is that climate impacts cost a lot of money. If you take the intensity of hurricanes, or if you just take sea-level rise and look at the costs — Munich Re, the reinsurer, estimated it at $135 billion in uninsured losses from natural disasters in 2017. Who pays for that? That's what New York said: The citizens of New York shouldn't pay for those impacts because the citizens of New York didn't cause them.

Hurricane Harvey: Why the storm was yet another harbinger of climate change

Year in Review: In 2017, the state of the climate was not strong, scientists say

Q: Do you think cities and states can really tackle climate change on their own?

A: There is a responsibility of the federal government to act, and I think just because this president is saying what he's saying, it doesn't remove that responsibility. The world still expects the U.S. federal government to act.

And then I think it's really important to go into the details of where states and cities can actually play a big role. I think where you're seeing a lot of that is on the energy front and on the renewables side of things. But it doesn't let the White House off the hook.

Q:There has been a lot of focus on the falling costs of renewable energy, how quickly wind and solar are growing and also what's happening with electric vehicles. But when you get past electricity and transportation, quickly reducing emissions starts to look a lot harder, right?

A: Absolutely. I think meat and dairy is a big one, and it's a sector that has managed to avoid the spotlight. Yet that sector of agriculture has as great a percentage contribution to climate as the transportation sector. But there are solutions for lower-carbon agriculture. And we've just started a campaign about "less and better" — less meat and dairy and better meat and dairy. We just put out a road map about how to reduce meat and dairy consumption 50% by 2050.

Shipping and aviation are two sectors that have managed to be excluded from global climate governance. And with energy-intensive sectors like cement and steel-making, this is where if the world was really taking climate change seriously, the research and development that goes into these areas could be much more better deployed. We need steel to build wind turbines. There is some research into low-carbon materials, but not enough.

Climate impacts: 50% of U.S. military sites already threatened, report says

Also: How climate change could drive migration from Mexico to the U.S.

Q: What do you think is the biggest thing people can do to fight climate change?

A: They can eat less and better meat and dairy. And it doesn't mean becoming vegan overnight, it means eating less and better. It means being aware of what they're buying, how they're getting to work. People often think that doesn't make much of a difference, but it makes a big difference, because it sends a signal out into the market.

And people need to communicate with their politicians. As long as decision-makers aren't hearing from people that they want something different, it gives them this permission to continue with business as usual and gives more say in matters to large corporate donors.

I would say if they can do one thing, they should become politically active in their communities, and communicate with their senators, their mayors, what kind of world they want to see, how they want to get to work, that they want to put renewables on their roof in an affordable way.

Particularly in the U.S. right now, we need active citizens in this debate. We need people more than ever to speak up.

Sammy Roth writes about climate change for USA TODAY. He can be reached at sammy.roth@desertsun.com, (760) 778-4622 and on Twitter @Sammy_Roth.