Confronting Climate Change

From rapid extinctions of species to increasing ocean acidification to receding glaciers and to desertification, evidence of the changing climate is happening right before our eyes. The impact of human activity on the earth’s biodiversity and geochemical signature since the time of the industrial revolution is now considered so substantial that it has warranted the debut of a new geological epoch, dubbed the Anthropocene. It is therefore particularly unsettling that in 2020, forty years after the first world climate conference in 1979, the technological challenges involved in decarbonization of the economy seem negligible when compared to the barriers posed by political and corporate interests. Any viable solution must be cognizant of how and why economic, political, and cultural forces might suppress CO₂-emission-mitigation efforts. These forces seem to be manifested largely by the principal attitudes of the following: the outright denier, the neo-skeptic, the cop-out, and the defeatist.

Attitudes in the Anthropocene

One attitude in the Anthropocene is associated with that of an outright denier who claims that either climate change is not real or it is real but cyclical and therefore not influenced by humans. Unfortunately, despite solid scientific evidence, this belief is still expressed among many in government, industry, and business circles. This head-in-the-sand view of global warming has inevitably affected the views of large segments of the public.

The neo-skeptic accepts the role of human activities in climate change and yet wields uninformed skepticism to deny the risks of climate change, questions the integrity of climate scientists, and diminishes the worth of mitigation efforts.109 In facing neo-skeptical attitudes, the debate is shifted from the existence of climate change to the validity of response strategies. For example, neo-skeptics characteristically express concern for the economic and social consequences of adjusting our energy economy, often advertising the threat of job losses and irrecoverable economic demise. For them, the risk, uncertainty, and effectiveness associated with any proposed mitigation plan outweigh the consequences of no action at all.

At this point, let us reflect for a moment on two contrasting examples of urgent, yet seemingly impossible challenges that brought together groups of the brightest scientists and engineers working toward a common goal. The most prominent twentieth-century examples include the Manhattan Project and NASA’s Apollo 11 lunar landing. These projects, although different in scale and scope, are unmistakably distinguished by the common associations invoked by humankind’s most destructive and constructive potential. They express the conviction that anything is possible when we are willing and able to devote our full attention and work collaboratively to meet our most pressing challenges.

Climate change is, however, very different from the Manhattan Project and the Apollo 11 mission, which were concerted Western-led efforts motivated by warfare and geopolitical rivalry. Despite strong consensus among scientists around the world that anthropogenic emissions need to be reduced to zero, it remains challenging to meet targets when there is no silver bullet: emission-reduction strategies require a systems-level overhaul of the economy, from the local to the global. Moreover, physical climate models and anthropogenic warming predictions do face limitations. Even when climate-change policy is successful in reducing our emissions, there exists a strong possibility that the response of certain iconic climate quantities, such as mean global temperature, is slow and not in accordance with the initial predictions of models.110 The uncertainty intrinsic to climate modeling can unfortunately be misinterpreted as grounds for labeling scientific studies as inaccurate, leading to confusion among policymakers and the public about the causes and reality of climate change.111 This is particularly worrisome because in the majority of cases the uncertainty veers in the direction of underestimating – due to science’s inherent conservatism – the rate, severity, and risk of global temperature rise. Therefore, while dissonance is expected of a healthy academic conversation, it creates many challenges to solving a problem that requires the full commitment of all involved. Anything short of a definitive and fully endorsed plan unfortunately creates the perfect conditions for neo-skeptical viewpoints to flourish. It is therefore important that climate scientists and economists heighten the exactness of decision science and the accuracy of risk analysis of the effects of a changing climate, and, most important, take care in communicating the relevance of their results to non-experts. Although more reliable information and better transparency might help to inform policymakers, the information-deficit model – that is, the assumption that the lack of understanding can be remedied by passing on knowledge – may not necessarily apply to climate-change skeptics. The relationship between knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs, particularly for politically polarized issues like climate change, is complex, and the communication of scientific fact is not a guaranteed approach to changing someone’s view. Of course, this is not a reason for researchers and experts to cease engaging with the public; it just means that we cannot treat scientific- knowledge transfer as a guaranteed remedy to all false beliefs.

Defenders of a business-as-usual scenario, be they outright deniers or neo-skeptics, are often motivated by corporate interests and stand little chance of being swayed by refined risk analysis or further scientific evidence. This is because the scale of economic intervention that would be required to wean industries from fossil fuels stands in direct conflict to the current emphasis on quarterly profits that favors short-termism over long-term social, economic, and environmental well-being. The current state of the world economy has come at completely the wrong time for the transition from a fossil to a renewable energy economy because most business today is dictated by the logic of selecting the option that yields the highest net present value; that is, a benefit in the future is considered less valuable than the same benefit today.112 However, such reasoning assumes a static profile of the resources and environmental conditions upon which society is dependent and does not necessarily consider the dynamic and unpredictable response of temperature rise on our air, water, land, and health. And yet vocal opposition toward a swift climate-change response persists under the pretext that aggressive intervention risks the collapse of the current economic system. Indeed, the slightest call to cease production or ease consumption is deemed to be a threat to the free market’s requirement for continuous growth.*,112 As put by Naomi Klein in her 2014 book, This Changes Everything, “changing the earth’s climate in ways that will be chaotic and disastrous is easier to accept than the prospect of changing the fundamental, growth-based, profit-seeking logic of capitalism.”113

Net present value (NPV): a method of calculating one’s return on investment. It is computed by subtracting the initial investment from the present value of all future cash flows.

The third attitude posing a barrier to climate action is personified by the cop-out. Unlike the outright denier and the neo-skeptic, the cop-out is rarely motivated by financial interest; rather, the cop-out’s attitude is adopted by those who acknowledge the existence of climate change, endorse climate action, and yet absolve themselves of any responsibility in the matter. This attitude impedes calls to action through the excuse that nothing can be done in the face of the systems (political or corporate) that are responsible for mitigating emissions.

The attitude also encompasses the belief that cop-outs do not need to engage in further climate action because they have already “done their part,”114 as demonstrated in statements such as “I already recycle. What more can I possibly do?” While the individual or household may not have the power to change the emission intensity of global supply chains, we all have some degree of choice in the products we buy and the services we use. According to the IPCC’s 2018 report, lifestyle choices that lower energy demand are “key elements” to limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C. For example, investing in energy-saving appliances and devices can have a huge impact in reducing household energy consumption. After all, demand and supply go together in our current economy: a government’s decision to invest in electric-charging stations requires the concomitant inclination of individuals to purchase EVs.

Of course, government also has a role to play in making greener products and services affordable and accessible to all,* and ultimately no meaningful impact can be made without swift institutional intervention.115 In his book How Bad Are Bananas?, Mike Berners-Lee points to the limitations faced by consumers who wish to reduce their carbon footprint, and claims that “it’s virtually impossible for an individual in the developed world to get down to a 3-tonne/year lifestyle anytime soon.”55

The fixation on the role of individual action in fighting climate change is not particularly constructive considering the scale of the energy and industrial sector’s contribution to emissions. Indeed, Carbon Majors Report 2017 revealed that a mere one hundred companies are responsible for 71 percent of all carbon emissions.4

Given the complexity and scale of the climate challenge, institutional-level transformation is clearly needed. But while it is impossible that widespread behavioral change alone will achieve our emission goals in the time required, denying one’s own consumer power only risks slowing the market acceptance and adoption of new, low-emission technologies. Individuals have the capacity to induce institutional action by creating a culture of credibility and seriousness around climate change, which can in turn lead to changes in voting and even policy. We only have to look toward the examples of Greta Thunberg or Varshini Prakash to see how effective individual messaging can be. Furthermore, our individual commitment to becoming resource- conscious ancestors will matter in the long-term preservation of our environment.

The cop-out’s attitude becomes more problematic at an organizational, corporate, or political level if responsibility and blame are being constantly attributed to other entities. Many countries with small populations that contribute less to global emissions may see action on climate change as futile, claiming that their own impact is negligible compared to that of more populous countries. “Why should we be willing to make sacrifices when the real problem lies outside our borders?”

The idea that responsibility for climate change should be relegated strictly according to the national emissions output is, at best, a gross oversimplification of our global reality. While it true that China, for example, contributes more emissions than any other country does, nearly one-third of these are from export production.116 It is difficult to separate responsibility when we as consumers are inextricably tied to global supply chains.* More important, no progress can be made if everyone is waiting for others to take action. After all, why measure ourselves in terms of the problem when we could measure ourselves by how big a part we play in the solution? A comprehensive solution requires the coordinated efforts of individuals, markets, organizations, corporations, and government. We all have a role to play in the transition toward a sustainable economy and ultimately in meeting our collective emission targets.

The fourth and last type of attitude that stands in the way of effective action is that of the defeatist. As the name suggests, the defeatist is one who fully accepts the threat of anthropogenic climate change but sees no point in pursuing efforts because of the belief that there is nothing that can be done. It should come as no surprise that many of us have become hardened by the seemingly fruitless climate negotiations of the past thirty years and the impending environmental doom played out by our twenty-four-hour news media.119 Most befitting in this regard are the observations of the late American author Neil Postman, who wrote that “most of our daily news is inert, consisting of information that gives us something to talk about but cannot lead to any meaningful action.”120

It is particularly important that the outwardly alarming statements put out by the scientific literature, such as “[there is a] 13% risk that committed warming already exceeds 1.5°C,”121 and “less than 2°C warming by 2100 [is] unlikely,”122 must not be misinterpreted by non-experts as validation of defeat. For this reason, science communication is key to the successful implementation of mitigation and adaption strategies. The public is entitled and should be encouraged to access accurate reporting of the latest scientific research on climate change, especially given its far-reaching implications. Effective science communication, however, requires selecting and presenting information in a manner that upholds factual integrity, while keeping to the objective of equipping non-experts with meaningful knowledge. In the case of climate change, informing the public of the gravity of the matter without painting a hopeless scenario can certainly be challenging, though not impossible. Dr. Matto Mildenberger, an assistant professor of political science at the University of California at Santa Barbara who studies public opinion, behavior, and policy around climate change, suggests that there is indeed evidence that overwhelming people with information can lead to a fatalistic mind-set. In a recent interview with the CBC he proposed an alternative approach: “The trick is to communicate the seriousness of the climate threat ... with a sense of empowering people to take action.”123

On this note, we certainly do not wish to run the risk of triggering or stoking defeatism in the reader, particularly with this discussion on the challenges of overcoming climate-change inaction. Let us end this section with a positive thought: the earth’s climate has not yet equilibrated from the particularly intense anthropogenic forcing of the past decades, which means that there is still opportunity to correct, or at the very least ameliorate, the earth’s long-term response to the impulse of carbon emissions. In other words, we can choose to embrace a more dynamical view of the earth’s systems and plan accordingly.

A Call to Action for Chemists

Chemists are largely responsible for inventing many of the key molecules and materials constituting the technologies that will enable the push toward a sustainable carbon-neutral economy. We all should be very proud of our scientific and technological discoveries that will help drive this transition. However, despite the many research contributions of the past decades, from advances in battery technology to the enhancement of solar cell devices, the fact remains that the general scientific community has been painstakingly slow when it comes to assessing prospective gigatonne-scale solutions to our emissions crisis.124

This is not meant as a criticism of science or to say that scientists have not been doing their job. After all, incremental advances in science are what drive technological innovation. However, researchers too must deal with the fact that we are no longer facing a business-as-usual scenario. Effective climate-change solutions require a scale, scope, and speed that are beyond any single technology or research discipline, which presents a major challenge to the scientific community that has been tasked with advising government and policymakers. Although many climate scientists work to inform and mobilize the public, news media, and government about the urgency of fast-tracking the transition from a non-renewable to a renewable energy economy, those of us in other research fields often remain quiet. Indeed, we tend to leave to others the equally important task of lobbying for climate change-mitigation. The introductions and conclusions of our papers are filled with motivations to help win the battle against climate change, and yet too often we do little more than publish the results of our research in scientific journals.

Little wonder that public surveys and polls reveal a growing skepticism and criticism of “alarmists,” and a general distrust in even the most reliable data gathered and shared to date. It is our responsibility to correct this and to show how game-changing chemistry has the potential to drive the energy revolution. It is not enough to entrust lobby groups with doing our work for us.

We can show the impact of our work through worldwide outreach, high school and public education projects, and demonstration of the practicality of our innovations. These science communications must be highly visible and accessible to the public, otherwise pivotal contributions by the news corps will remain slow and sluggish, rather than fast-tracking our civilization to a sustainable future.

The time has come for those of us who passionately toil at laboratory benches to join the worldwide network of activists who are determined to make a difference. Our chemistry solutions cannot be implemented without us all working together to make them known, applicable, and effective. It is a commitment to our collective future that we all must make – to make it real.

Perception, Culture, and the Environment

The attitude of the defeatist is perhaps even more telling than that of the outright denier or the neo-skeptic because it reveals that, beyond technological and economic barriers, climate change remains a culturally challenging problem.125 Calling into question what is arguably the most important resource sustaining our modern lifestyle, together with the sheer scale of the problem, renders climate change overwhelmingly complex to even the most well-intentioned individuals.126 Perhaps the most difficult obstacle with which we struggle is the reality of perception: we look outside our windows and see a beautiful spring day, or we walk in open fields under blue summer skies, and can hardly believe there is anything wrong with our atmosphere that needs immediate care. As Tobias Haberkorn writes in his essay “The Coming Calamity,” “climate change is too large for our senses ... The incongruity between the perception of one’s own environment and that presented by the media is one of the most fundamental problems climate activists are facing.”127

Changing everything from individual consumption habits to government policy in order to favor action on climate change requires that there be concern for climate in the first place. Individual concern for climate change and the environment is driven by a multiplex of factors, from location to income level to political ideology. Understanding the wealth and diversity in perspectives on the environment is crucial to designing effective, community-specific prevention and mitigation strategies in the short term, as well as effecting widespread behavioral changes in the long term. Much has been written on this topic, and in the following section we address a mere tip of the iceberg of how cultural, economic, and political processes contribute to the shaping of individual responses to climate change.

The human-nature relationship varies dramatically across the globe and is inherently tied to many factors including location, income, lifestyle, and culture. The 70 percent of humans who live in cities, for example, might not share the same awareness of the earth’s changing land and climate as that of the world’s rural farmers whose livelihood demands acute awareness of the weather patterns. Urban dwellers with enough income can readily access tropical produce in the middle of winter, order any item to their home by the click of a button, and leave trash out on the curb never to be seen again. We may at times observe the sudden rise in the price of a particular food, experience the mild discomfort of extreme temperatures in the winter and summer months, or occasionally lose power for a few hours after a severe windstorm; however, for the most part, we can, remarkably, live day to day without much concern for our local geography and climate, let alone appreciate any global-scale changes that might be underway.

Our disconnection from commodity chains, particularly for those of us living in the global north, shields us from seeing both the impact of our consumption on the planet and, arguably even more important, our own dependence on the planet’s natural systems. The perception that we are somehow decoupled from our environment, though certainly fueled by our globalized economy, originates in the Western worldview that considers humans to be separate from the “natural” world and superior to all other species. This belief has been manifested throughout history, from colonialism all the way to modern-day capitalism, and has enabled justification and normalization of unabated extraction of the natural resources. The Western cultural viewpoint, however, is not the sole or standard perspective that societies have had on their environment. Anishinaabe* culture, for example, holds a uniquely intimate connection to the environment, best captured by scholar Lynn Gehl in her book Claiming Anishinaabe: Decolonizing the Human Spirit, in which she explains: “Inherent in an Indigenist approach ... is the need to care for, as well as the need to address the needs inclusive of all of Creation: sky, moon, water, trees, the winged, and the four-legged”; furthermore, “central to Indigenist knowledge philosophy is the appreciation of the limitations of the human-centered model of the world.”128 In fact, much of the language of today’s mitigation approaches (such as “circular economies,” “zero-waste technologies,” and “intergenerational responsibilities”) are mere echoes of concepts central to knowledge systems that have been forgotten or ignored or destroyed by Eurocentrism.

It might appear inevitable that the economy and culture that surround us are largely responsible for shaping our perspective on the environment and, in the present context, on climate change. The more we feel connected to or affected by our natural environment and climate, the more likely we are to take climate change seriously.

There are, however, less obvious social drivers, including political ideology, gender, race, and income level, that determine individual perspective on climate change, albeit in ways not necessarily related to the logic of environmental connectedness. For example, research has found that men and women, in general, hold different degrees of environmental concern, with women expressing slightly greater concern than do men.129 Women generally express greater concern for the health of their family and community, to which climate change poses a threat. The connection between political ideology and perceptions on climate change has also been explored by social scientists. McCright and Dunlap found that liberals (Democrats) and conservatives (Republicans) in the United States were exceptionally divided in their beliefs on climate change, with liberals being more likely to hold views that were more consistent with scientific evidence and to express greater concern for climate change compared to their conservative counterparts.130 The authors of the study suggest that differing news sources and targeted political messaging are the main proponents fueling this growing cultural rift.

Concern about climate change may also be linked to risk perception. People who experience marginalization, whether it be through gender, class, race, or sexual orientation may respond differently to the threat of climate change than those who do not. Our perception of risk is often informed by our experience. Specifically, marginalized peoples may perceive a risk as being more “real” because when the threat presents itself, they do not expect adequate policy response.72 In other words, people who have not experienced marginalization are more likely to trust that existing social systems will prioritize their safety and security in the event of a climate-change-related disaster; hence, they may be less concerned about the risk. On this note, in addressing the diversity of human perception of climate change, we cannot forget the hundreds of millions of people who have already been affected by one (or more) extreme weather events. The experiences of those who face disaster, from the family who lost its entire livelihood in a wildfire to the one that is without potable water after surviving a hurricane, will inevitably shape our species’ ever-evolving view of the natural world. With the alarming frequency at which climatic disasters continue to strike, the portion of the world’s population that falls into this category will, unfortunately, only continue to rise.

The varying levels of urgency for environmental protection and emission mitigation experienced by different peoples undoubtedly intensifies the social complexity of the climate-change problem. Recognizing the role of culture in informing individual knowledge and beliefs on climate change is critical to the successful implementation of mitigation and adaption strategies and must therefore not remain limited to the area of environmental philosophy.125

Climate Justice and the Road Ahead

When confronting climate change, we cannot ignore the fact that not everyone contributes equally to the net emissions caused by our species. Our consumption is determined by everything from income level to gender* to geography. Most of us in the global north undisputedly consume well beyond the minimum amount of energy required to achieve a decent standard of living† and a high level of well-being.‡,133 Extreme weather events and resources scarcity do not discriminate accordingly, and it is the most marginalized communities that will experience the greatest burden of the effects of climate change. The non-industrialized Inuit, for example, owing to the nature of air currents traveling from Asia and Europe toward the Arctic, are already suffering from some of the highest levels of pollution on the planet. Moreover, the non-localized climatic responses to fluctuations in the carbon cycle render it impossible for a single country, let alone a community, to manage and mitigate independently.136 Our current organizational structures were not designed to accommodate phenomena that sporadically and unpredictably transcend geopolitical barriers. Who, for instance, should be held accountable when Texas faces dangerous levels of ozone due to British Columbian forest fires?137 The spatial variability in temperature rise and weather, not to mention the very nature of wind and water currents, makes it exceedingly difficult to address climate change without the full commitment of all communities and nations.

Beyond national borders, climate change poses an intergenerational challenge, with the worst effects likely to be endured by those not yet born. At what point, then, do the risks imposed on future generations by our decisions become ethically unacceptable? These are non-trivial questions without obvious answers, which demand that we go beyond thinking of climate change as a purely environmental issue to be addressed with technological solutions. This is exactly where the concept of climate justice can be helpful. Climate justice is a framework that considers climate change as both an ethical issue and a political issue and demands that mitigation and adaption strategies be carried out in the spirit of promoting equity and upholding human rights.

Climate justice can be manifested in the form of legal action on climate issues, with individuals, households, cities, and organizations filing against both states and companies. This approach has proved to be successful in many instances worldwide, from the Netherlands138 to South Africa139 to the United States140 to Norway.141 Around the world, concerned citizens have taken different approaches: some lawsuits have targeted government for inadequate emission-reduction policy, and others have contested local industrial projects that pose serious climatic or environmental threats. At present, there are more than several hundred ongoing lawsuits worldwide related to climate change.

We should point out that although environmental activism is viewed by some as a radical pursuit in the West, it has been fundamental to survival in parts of the global south, particularly in tropical regions where livelihoods depend strongly on a thriving biodiversity.142 Indeed, Ecuador became the first country, in 2008, to recognize the Rights of Nature in its constitution.143 Since then, other countries, from New Zealand to India, have followed in granting legal justice to the natural entities, such as trees, rivers, and parks.144 It was only at the United Nations (UN) climate talks in Bonn, in November 2017, that world leaders finally offered a long-overdue acknowledgment of the indisputable leadership of Indigenous groups in jump-starting response efforts to global climate change.145

Climate change is a global-scale problem that will not be resolvable without confronting current socioeconomic inequities and fulfilling our obligation to future generations. The situation in which we currently find ourselves presents a veritable opportunity to reshape unequal patterns in consumption because it already demands a high degree of international cooperation and rebuilding of infrastructure. It is most important to ensure that the market for luxury emissions by the wealthy minority does not outweigh the needs of the majority.146 Lower-income countries, with less-established energy assets, could forgo altogether the West’s fossil approach to development and leapfrog into renewable technologies, as they have done with mobile telephones.147 Wealthier nations, in return, must do their part to assist lower-income countries financially in mitigating their emissions, and to take responsibility for managing the transition from fossil fuels while maintaining a stable and just economy.148 In short, any viable solution, be it technological or political, must accommodate the welfare of all communities and nations.

Despite the many institutional, cultural, and ethical challenges in solving climate change, there are many reasons to remain optimistic. Individuals, communities, companies, institutions, and government around the world continue to prove that we have the capacity to overhaul our hundred-year-old fossil economy and mend our environmental damage, without sacrificing social well-being and economic prosperity. In Germany recent polls revealed that nearly 90 percent of citizens support the national Energiewende project, which seeks to transition rapidly into a low-carbon economy by adopting sources of renewable energy in lieu of existing coal plants.149 In response to the exit of the United States from the Paris Agreement, businesses, cities, and entire states across that country have taken the initiative to maintain their original commitment of a 26 percent reduction in CO₂ emissions by 2025.150 Where government and corporate initiative is falling short, groups of dedicated citizens worldwide are taking matters into their own hands.

We also know that consumer behavior has the capacity for rapid change, as demonstrated by the growing popularity of online shopping. This behavioral shift is already having far-reaching effects on advertising strategies, sales and marketing, consumer habits, and the environment. The research shows that social and behavioral changes in favor of climate action can be encouraged by policies that are as simple as the employment of more strategic advertising and consumer education. For example, offering credible and specific information at the point of decision can encourage climate- conscious behaviors.151

The physical reality of climate change is making it increasingly difficult for even the staunchest advocates of capitalist ideals to ignore the impact of extreme weather events on the financial sector. A 2016 study published in the journal Nature used financial modeling to estimate the effect of climate change on the world’s financial sector. It reported that the total expected value at risk of global financial assets between 2015 and 2100 would be a shocking USD 2.5 trillion along a business-as-usual emissions path.152

In the same spirit, the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement was decried by America’s biggest companies, such as Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, and Walmart, for its anticipated economic repercussions, including dramatic loss of growth, jobs, and trade opportunities that participating nations would otherwise reap.153

Many governments are taking great strides to cut their carbon emissions, even at the expense of retiring their most enduring industries. In March of 2016, Scotland shut down Europe’s largest coal-power plant, which had previously generated one-fifth of the country’s carbon emissions, to become completely coal free.154 In 2019 the United Kingdom became the first country to have its parliament declare a climate emergency. Although the motion does not legally compel the government to act, it sets a new standard for government response to climate change.155 While language certainly does not equate to action, such a declaration from government can prompt industries to become serious about the prospect of radical decarbonization.

As we write this, the conversation around climate change continues to intensify. US congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and senator Ed Markey are forging a path toward national action on climate change with their introduction of a house resolution to create a Green New Deal that would see the decarbonization of the US economy within a few decades. What is novel about this proposal is that, unlike most environmental policies, which seek incremental progress through carbon-tax or -trade systems or targeted industry programs, it recognizes the need for a holistic approach in transforming the nation’s economy into one that is both greener and more equitable.156 In addition to achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, its mission includes job creation and security, infrastructure and industry investment, access to healthy food and clean air and water, and the promotion of social justice and equity.157 Initiatives such as the Green New Deal in the United States and the Leap Manifesto in Canada* provide excellent examples of the type of governance framework that will be needed for countries to mitigate and adapt to the realities of climate change in a socially and environmentally just manner.

These are just a couple of anecdotes illustrating how the transition toward a low-carbon economy is no longer a predicted trend of the future but a disruptive force that is well underway. The question now is how this transition can be managed to meet emission targets in an effective socially and economically responsible manner. It is not beyond the realm of imagination, however, that these facts will still fail to induce a response from those who are disillusioned by short-termism and our fossil legacy.

Despite the voices of deniers, neo-skeptics, cop-outs, and defeatists, movements pushing to meet our emission targets continue to prevail. Our whole world needs to embrace that same optimism and sense of hope that will enable our species to carry on for the next hundred years, and the words we choose with which to speak will inform the vision we choose to build for our planet.

Previous Extinctions and the Anthropocene

If climate change created mass extinction of life on earth, such a catastrophe would not be unprecedented; in fact, it would be the sixth mass extinction of life on our planet. The previous five mass extinctions, originating from natural disasters on a massive scale such as meteor impact or volcanic eruptions, managed to eliminate a significant fraction, or almost all, of the living species.

The historical record shows that the first mass extinction began around 400 million years ago, at the end of the Ordovician period. At this time the earth’s dominant inhabitants were tiny sea creatures called graptolites. A sudden ice age drastically lowered sea levels and consequently wiped out over 85 percent of graptolite species. The reduced sea level contributed to significant drops in atmospheric CO₂ and a resultant lowering of global temperature. This may be attributed to the vast amounts of freshly exposed silicate rock reacting with CO₂, effectively removing it from the atmosphere, although alternative theories suggest that a sudden massive onset of plant coverage sucked significant quantities of CO₂ from the atmosphere via photosynthesis.

The second extinction began roughly 380 million years ago and saw the loss of nearly three-quarters of all species, the most abundant of which were the trilobites. Trilobites were a type of invertebrate marine animal ranging from a few millimeters to tens of centimeters in length. Their well-preserved exoskeletons left behind an impressive fossil record. Although the exact cause remains unclear, their demise was likely due to a sudden drop in oxygen in the oceans.

The third extinction, also known as the Great Dying, occurred some 250 million years ago and was – as its name suggests – the most devastating. It resulted in the loss of up to 96 percent of all marine species and 70 percent of terrestrial species. Notably, this extinction was caused by a temperature increase beyond 6°C, resulting from a lava flow in Siberia together with a concomitant release of methane from the permafrost. A 2018 study revealed that increased ocean temperatures and reduced oxygen levels were the principal causes of the extinctions.158 It took about fifty million years for the earth’s complex organisms to recover from this natural catastrophe.

Much later, some 210 million years ago, another extinction saw the loss of 80 percent of all species. Although the exact cause is not clear, it is thought to be an increase in atmospheric CO₂ from volcanic activity, resulting in global warming and ocean acidification.

Finally, the most recent extinction occurred around sixty-five million years ago, which completely ended the era of the dinosaurs and eradicated about half of all species on the planet. It coincides with the huge crater that forms Mexico’s Yucatán Peninsula, which is also dated to about sixty-five million years ago.

Although the causes of the five mass extinctions were complicated, the annihilation of life was ultimately related to climate change. It was only about 2.6 million years ago that glaciation events, and associated climatic and environmental changes, caused the extinction of many species. Human activity began to have a noticeable effect on the rate of extinction of other species during the past twelve thousand years. The rapid release of anthropogenic fossil-fuel emissions into the atmosphere since the time of the industrial revolution has now blurred the distinction between planetary history and human history, and it has been proposed that we now find ourselves in a new geological epoch shaped by the human species: the Anthropocene.159

CO₂ on the Brain, and the Brain on CO₂

The adverse effects of high levels of CO₂ are well documented for space travel, scuba diving, submarines, aeroplanes, and firefighting situations. However, the impact of GHG emissions on human health from living in poorly ventilated environments is a disquieting surprise to many of us who are already worrying about the negative effects of GHG on our climate. Although we make and exhale CO₂, it is now apparent that we were not created to live in an atmosphere with increasingly high levels of CO₂. New research has shed light on the direct negative impact of CO₂ on cognitive functioning. We are not talking about the cause and effect of extraordinarily high levels of CO₂ but rather of concentrations that most of us would experience in closed, poorly ventilated spaces on a day-to-day basis, including homes, cars, and office and classroom spaces.

A public health study made in 2012 by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and one published in 2015 by the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health concurred that there were significant reductions in decision-making performance with increases in CO₂ levels from 600 to 1,000 to 2,500 ppm.160^,161 While these levels seem high in comparison to the 408 ppm of CO₂ currently recorded in our atmosphere, they are commonplace in poorly ventilated spaces of the kind mentioned earlier, where we spend most of our time. More recently, a 2019 study concluded that chronic exposure to CO₂ concentrations as low as 1,000 ppm could have adverse health effects, citing inflammation, reductions in higher-level cognitive abilities, and bone demineralization, to name a few.162 These risks can potentially be mitigated through building-design measures that prioritize indoor air quality. Green residential buildings have, in some instances, been shown to have lower CO₂ levels compared to those of other residential buildings.163 Fortunately there is push for the design of green buildings that optimize conditions for human health and productivity in addition to energy efficiency.164

Whether it be through extreme weather events, resource scarcity, or CO₂-concentrated air, climate change has a direct impact on human health. As such, it is crucial that our health-care systems be adapted for climate resiliency and that government and health-care professionals promote policy and behavior to reduce the health risks of climate change.165

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Any viable climate-change solution must consider how and why economic, cultural, and political forces might suppress emission-mitigation efforts.

• The uncertainty that is intrinsic to climate modeling should not be interpreted as grounds for labeling scientific studies as inaccurate.

• Effective education on climate change requires communication of the seriousness of risks associated with temperature rise, while also instilling in people a sense of empowerment to act.

• Widespread behavioral change alone will not achieve our emission goals in the time required; however, denying one’s own consumer power only risks slowing market acceptance and adoption of environmentally favorable technologies.

• Understanding the diversity of perspectives on the environment is crucial to designing effective, community-specific prevention and mitigation strategies in the short term and effecting widespread behavioral changes in the long term.

• Climate change is an ethical and political issue that cannot be resolved without confronting current socioeconomic inequities and fulfilling our obligation to future generations.

• The transition toward a low-carbon economy is no longer a predicted trend of the future but a disruptive force that is well underway.

__________________

* Here, by growth we refer to economic growth, that is, simply the increase in gross domestic product (GDP).

* Interestingly, incenting energy-efficient options through tax programs and rebates is often not enough to shift consumer habits. The assumption that consumers (and organizations) are always inclined to make “rational” choices fails to capture the complex behavioral habits that need to be addressed to ensure that markets embrace energy-efficient technologies.

* It is noteworthy that mass production of clean technology was largely a Chinese contribution.117 It was China that instigated an unprecedented scale of skilled labor and manufacturing capacity dedicated to the production of wind turbines, solar panels, lithium-ion batteries, and water electrolyzer technology, an investment that was needed to lower the initial barrier to bringing renewable infrastructure to the global market. A 2019 study found that China’s emissions are expected to peak at 13–14 Gt CO₂ per year between 2021 and 2025, approximately five to ten years ahead of the target set by the Paris Agreement.118

* The Anishinaabe comprise a diverse collection of Indigenous nations across northeastern North America, including the Odawa, Saulteaux, Ojibwe, Mississaugas, Potawatomi, Oji-Cree, and Algonquin peoples.

* Worldwide there exist gender differences in energy consumption, with women consuming on average less than men. The difference originates from various factors, such as spending power, diet, and transportation habits.131^,132

† The minimum threshold for an individual to achieve a good standard of living (that is, a life expectancy of above seventy years and full access to water, electricity, sanitation, and other infrastructure) is considered to be 30–40 GJ of energy.133

‡ In their 1974 Science paper, Mazur and Rosa presented a compelling result showing that increasing energy consumption had no positive effect on quality of life beyond certain levels.134 Their result holds true four decades later, with Mazur’s latest work revealing that consumption beyond 40 MWh (144 GJ) per capita produces no increase in longevity in industrialized countries.135

* The Leap Manifesto, created by a consortium of Canadian authors, activists, and leaders in 2015, calls for a holistic restructuring of the Canadian economy, democratization of the country’s energy sector, and the end of fossil-fuel use. See https://leapmanifesto.org/ for further details.