One side effect of the politicization of climate change is that there is resistance to address or even recognize problems associated with it. This is unfortunate, because the harm for these problems will be costly and widespread. One example of such a problem is the apparent impact of the changing climate on bat migration.
One example is that bats which migrate from Mexico to Texas are arriving ever earlier for the summer and some do not migrate back for the winter. For those who care about bats, the problem for them is that the bats might not be able to get enough food, thus causing a decline in their population. This provides yet another moral reason to address climate change. Even those who do not care about bats have a good reason to be concerned about their plight, if only for selfish reasons.
Although bats have a Halloween reputation as scary monsters, they are quite beneficial to humans (at least when not infected with rabies). Bats seek and devour a huge quantity of insect pests that would otherwise devour key commercial crops, such as soybeans and potatoes. While an exact measure of the economic value of bats is not possible, it is estimated that the value of bats to the United States economy is about $23 billion dollars—making bats an incredible valuable resource.
If bat behavior is altered by climate change, especially if this reduces their population, the impact on United States agriculture could be devastating, especially if the changing climate also increases the population of crop damaging insects. As such, this provides yet another practical reason to address climate change. There is also a moral reason here as well. While agriculture would not be destroyed by the decline in the bat population, the loss of this free service would almost certainly lead to a reduction in available food and increase the costs of food. This would be an added burden on the many Americans who already have difficulty in affording enough food for themselves and their families. It would also be harmful to the farmers and those who work the farms.
One reasonable reply to the moral and practical concerns is to point out that pesticide companies and seed companies will see an opportunity to profit from this situation. They will create and sell new pesticides to kill the pests that the bats now eat for free. They will also develop and sell new patented plants that will resist these pests. Then, as the insects adapt, they will create and sell newer pesticides and seeds. As such, it could be argued that the decline of bats would be good for these companies—they can make a profit. The bats, after all, do the job for free and merely save the farmers money—they are practically socialists.
While this would be a boon for the seed and pesticide companies, it would still have the effect of increasing the price of food—the farmers would need to pay for what was once a free service. There are also the obvious concerns about the environmental and health impact of new pesticides and their widespread use. Those who are wary of genetically modified foods (I am not) would also be concerned about the engineered seeds. As such, it is preferable for everyone (other than the companies that would profit from the decline of the bats) to take efforts to address climate change and keep those socialist bats working for America.