Humanity’s efforts to curb climate change amount to too little, too late.
Climatologists are increasingly sounding this fatalistic message. Many experts say policymakers must cut global CO2 emissions in half within the next 50 years to avoid a climatic tipping point, while others contend we have already passed that fateful point. A full two years ago now, the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a sobering study stating the inevitability of climate change and its devastating impact on the world’s ecosystems. The study even suggested human efforts should transition from solely preventing climate change to also devising vital adaptations to preserve human life on a planet with unpredictable climate patterns.
One of my good friends, a veteran climate change advocate who works closely with the hard facts, recently announced she suffers from “climate depression.” And she is certainly not alone. This raises a question: How can people stay optimistic in the face of apocalyptic predictions? One might strive to preserve a sense of “apocalyptic optimism,” as environmental journalist and author Fred Pearce has claimed to do, finding promise in the Obama administration’s progressive goals to curb American CO2 emissions.
Yet another coping mechanism may be to embrace the impending changes to our global climate as the natural course of events. Many people will no doubt bristle at the thought, arguing that such a suggestion denies human responsibility for the climate changes being wrought; I am inclined to feel the same. Yet for the sake of a thought-provoking discussion, allow me to explain the possible pillars of an “embrace climate change” philosophy:
- Humans are part of the natural world. People have argued for hundreds of years now that human activities like burning fossil fuels, manufacturing chemicals and clear-cutting forests go against the laws of nature, yet if human beings are a species that evolved naturally, all of our activities must also be a natural progression of evolution. The great exponential swell in our global human population, fed by fossil fuels and the expansion they have enabled, is no different than an ant colony that grows and thrives in an area where food is abundant, only to collapse as soon as the food source is depleted.
- Change is the only constant. Modern humans have enjoyed an unusually calm climate during the last 10,000 years, but quick and violent climate changes have been the norm for much of the planet’s history, argues Fred Pearce, who recently penned a book titled “With Speed and Violence: Why Scientists Fear Tipping Points in Climate Change.” As we perceive the approach of rapid climate alterations, humans are scrambling to stave off change and preserve the peaceful climate our species has always known. Perhaps our inability to accept change, then, is simply the tale of a species so new to the planet that it doesn’t yet realize the long-term ways of the world.
- Human fossil fuel burning may be a natural part of carbon’s life cycle. Burning fossil fuels and releasing the tons of CO2 that have been trapped underground for ages will facilitate the earth’s next climatic stage – could it be inevitable that some force (be it humans, another species, volcanic eruptions, etc.) would eventually cause the release of this sequestered carbon? The consequences of our fossil fuel addiction may seem detrimental to us now within our narrow temporal perspective on this earth, but human-caused climate changes may prove in the long term to usher in a new and even more advanced phase of life’s evolution.
A Brighter Future?
The devastation of a natural forest fire isn’t pretty, but the ensuing regeneration of an even healthier forest is a beneficial long term result. In fact, many forest ecosystems rely on fires to cleanse the forest of accumulating dead matter and recycle those nutrients into the soil. Similarly, the planet isn’t equipped to forever maintain billions of humans in symbiosis with other ecosystems, and so perhaps we must view our fossil fuel era with its ballooning human population as a phase leading up to the “forest fire” of climate change, after which an even healthier world will emerge.
| Learn More | ||||||
|
If our actions naturally shift the climate and correct our human population to more sustainable levels, the changes may create endless new possibilities for future advancements: the development of higher intelligence in humans, the evolution of new species that allow humans to flourish in unimaginable and more sustainable ways, or miracles of evolution that no human can yet imagine. The climate changes that caused the mass extinction of the dinosaurs were tragically unfortunate for the planet’s life at the time, yet those events set the stage for human beings to evolve. The imminent changes we face today, however difficult, may in turn be setting the stage for amazing new stages of life on earth.
Adopting an “embrace climate change” philosophy would mean we must relinquish our foolish dreams of finding new technologies that will allow us to maintain our current over-consumptive life styles unabated. Rather, we would need to start thinking of our species’ long term survival and seeking technologies and modes of living that will accommodate a more climatically turbulent and unpredictable world. If we truly embraced this mode of thought and acted accordingly, we would actually be making great strides toward reduced CO2 emissions in the process – and that’s something everyone can get behind.
What Do You Think?
Is climate change inevitable? Do we still have time to reverse course? Are changes to the earth’s climate and species a natural process that humans should accept, or do we have an obligation and responsibility to mitigate our own species’ negative impact on the planet?
– Jennifer Colletti
14 Comments
Subscribe to Comments for this Post via RSS
To me, the philosophy of embracing climate change might be a healthy attitude. However, my fear is that a “forest fire” of climate change could result in a healthier world…but maybe a world with no humans.
In that sense, embracing climate change sort of feels like giving up. We might not have time to reverse climate change, but if we don’t try, we’ll never know.
(Great article, by the way!)
To the extent that climate change is already happening and we aren’t doing much to slow the rate of future change, I think we can say it’s inevitable. The only question is how severe it’s going to get, and whether we’re going to allow it to reach the point where Earth’s systems create a runaway, feedback loop over which we have no control.
I have no problem accepting climate change caused by nature’s forces alone, but to lump the actions of humankind in with the forces of nature, gets into some dangerous, and I think perverse, philosophical territory.
Death is inevitable, but we don’t accept genocide as simply hurrying the inevitable, nor do we excuse perpetrators of genocide as victims of human nature. Instead, we presume that humans exercise free will and hold one another accountable for how we use it. To think otherwise is to deny the social contracts that form the basis of civilization.
If anthropogenic climate change leads to conditions that send Earth’s systems into a runaway feedback loop, we could be facing near extinction of our own species. Maybe we weren’t aware of that 100 or 50 years ago, but we are now, and so, cannot escape responsibility for at least trying to do something about that which we have brought on.
Finally, while it often makes sense to view ourselves from the perspective of the planet, we also must acknowledge that the planet doesn’t really care whether we’re here or not. We’re just another influence upon its systems, and whether we’re here or not nature will adapt.
As to whether we should prepare for climate change or work toward lessening its severity, I think you have to do both. The more we do to mitigate our contribution, the less severe will be the conditions we have to prepare for. Then again, if we wait too long, it could be everyone for his or herself.
I’m not sure if we can realistically change the course of climate change, but embracing it seems like a way of denying responsibility for the damage we’ve caused. On the other hand, though, embracing climate change could be a more healthy attitude than some of the scientific ideas of putting giant mirrors into space, etc., because those “solutions” may just create a whole new type of environmental problem.
This article made me realize – when we talk about “protecting the environment” what we really mean is protecting environment that humans can live in, because the environment and life on earth will likely continue long after climate change has run its course.
These are great points. The one constant is that climate change is evolutionary… it has always been there and shall always be there, with and without humans; however, there is also no doubt that today’s global warming trends are at least in part attributed to human activity and short-sightedness. Yes, we should embrace climate change, but by doing so, we should also embrace our responsibility to live and meet our needs responsibly as to not alter the preordained natural life of our home. Just as certain as Earth’s tectonic plates will continue to shift and alter the landscape, our climate will continue to change and all life will adapt or make way for new species. Of all species to live on Earth, humans have the greatest ability to adapt, to improve and survive, as well to destroy. Certainly, we have the greatest ability to improve life, including how what we do affects our global climate.
Climate change is something that will definitely take effort to embrace. Coal, nuclear etc. are types of power that we have used for such a long time, it has been so set into our society; it takes a real understanding of the negative effects of dirty power to fully spark the want for change to a clean energy system in the U.S.
Great article, very though provoking!
–This article was really illuminating for me. It presented an unusual perspective which made me really think about my opinion on the matter.
As nice as it would be to believe that the climate changes are natural parts of the earth’s meteorological cycle, I’m afraid that any lapse in determination to end the pollution of the atmosphere could have disastrous consequences, and in more ways than one. First of all, while it’s possible that humans haven’t caused climate change, it seems unlikely that our incessant pollution for centuries hasn’t manifested in some way. Also, environmental benefits aren’t the only reason to lessen dependence on fossil fuels– we’re running out of oil! Plus, fossil fuels are the cause behind so much strife– just take a look at some of the analysis in Thomas Friedman’s First Law of Petropolitics (though not his numbers), as well as conflicts involving Russia, Iraq, the US over fossil fuels…
Perhaps it is inevitable that our species will succumb to an environmental disaster over which we have no control. But we can’t give up without a fight.
Unfortunately everything has an expiration date. One day, our time here will end, but we don’t have to rush ourselves into extinction. As one commenter said, “We can’t give up without a fight!”
I think embracing climate change is dangerous because it sounds a lot like denial. We should embrace the fact that we have made mistakes, but we should still strive to reduce our impact on the planet.
Great article!
I think we must both embrace climate change and do our part to stop it: we must embrace what has already happened, but do our part to stop contributing to it. We can mitigate its effects and find innovative ways to make due with what happens as a result of climate change without continuing to pollute our atmosphere. A forest fire may be natural, but a wildfire is uncontrollable and deadly, and destroys everything in its path. We have a forest fire now, but if we keep feeding it, we may end up with a wildfire.
I love these fire metaphors! Good point, Katie, that while we have a forest fire now, a wild fire may result if human reactions remain unchecked — and wild fires seldom end with long-term beneficial consequences.
Jen –
I think you’ve asked a lot of thought-provoking questions and certainly offered a perspective I hadn’t considered before.
Perhaps we’re already beyond “the tipping point,” but I think as a world society we need to band together and make the effort to cut down our harmful practices. We may still be on a road to disaster, but perhaps we’ll survive in some way. It seems that we are all guilty, though, of living selfishly in the now – forgetting that we may be risking a later.
How do we truly get ourselves in gear and in what way can we REALLY make an impact? Those are my burning questions.
Great article Jen! I think climate change is inevitable, and whether we are causing it or rather causing it to change sooner, I like the evolution perspective you bring! The scariest thing is that we are impacting the Earth in unsustainable ways and it is definitely our responsibility as an intelligent species to find ways to fix that negative impact. I agree with previous comments–don’t give up without a fight!
An excellent article that illustrates the evolution of human populations up to this time, plus population projections into the near future.
While I certainly haven’t read all of the articles on our potential climate changes and future population growths, the very real possibility that we may need to develop formulas to control future human population numbers, seems to be being ignored.
The larger our earth wide populations become, the more we will impact our earthly environment.
One simple illustration is how the numerical growth in our mobile human populations will increase the ease of viruses, bacteria and other diseases and their mutations to spread from person to person.
We will continue to discover and develop new technologies that, in the hands of rouge individuals, cliques or nations, might spread death and destruction, far and wide.
Many of the sentiments in this article remind me of the novel by Daniel Quinn called “Ishmael.” Perhaps humanity is not evolution’s pinnacle. Perhaps another species is destined to ‘rule’ the world as we humans believe we now do. A quote from “Ishmael”: “With man gone, will there be hope for gorilla?”
Great article expanding the debate about the meaning of climate change.
I totally agree. It is too little too late. Humans for the most part are basically control freaks. The problem is there is no changing a natural progression. The arctic, unlike the antarctic, is not a continent. It’s melting was and is inevitable in that the arctic is devised of glaciers. The earth is not a westinghouse freezer. We cannot create glaciers that have melted, regardless of what we do. Scientifically speaking climate change caused creation as we see it presently. We should respect our earth more without question, however our latest fad to prevent climate change is like us trying to end tzunami’s, volcanic eruption, plate tectonics, continental drift etc.