“Not being able to relate to other people isn’t a badge of honor” — American Fiction (2023)

“The very nature of appealing to people means telling them what they want to hear” — anonymous

When it comes to addressing climate change, there are several distinct paths one can take:

• Climate Deniers: For those who deny climate change, there’s no issue to address. They believe that any perceived problem is fabricated by those they label as “pinkos” who want to impose their lifestyle choices on the rest of society.
• Techno-Optimists: These individuals acknowledge the challenges but believe that innovation and technology will save us, provided we elect the right leaders and support initiatives for sustainable energy production and carbon reduction.
• Mainstream Liberals: Many liberals recognize the gravity of climate change, engage in discussions, and express concern, yet often continue their lives unchanged, traveling frequently and consuming without second thoughts. This behavior may stem from a psychological defense mechanism known as “disavowal,” as highlighted in Britt Wray’s book “Generation Dread,” which describes a state of being simultaneously aware yet dismissive.
• Doomers: On the other hand, doomers argue that climate change is beyond repair. They distinguish between a solvable problem and a predicament that cannot be fixed. While some concede that mitigation is a form of solution, others claim that even mitigation efforts are futile. However, mitigation is fundamentally about reducing negative impacts, which are quantifiable and ongoing.

Ultimately, we are either contributing to climate change or striving to minimize our impact. Reducing harm necessitates a dual approach of building resilience while also mitigating damage; these strategies are not mutually exclusive. The rigid viewpoints of denialism, optimism, or doomsaying reflect fundamentalist ideologies bolstered by the incentives of social media algorithms.

What options remain? The options are limited.

The path forward is indeed narrow.

At the core, our actions hold more weight than our stated beliefs. The idea of “be the change” resonates here. What are you doing in reality? Are you conscious of your consumption patterns? Are you involved in climate initiatives, political advocacy, or local community efforts to promote sustainability? Are you cutting back on unnecessary travel or purchases? If you have children, are you nurturing them to be responsible caretakers of the environment rather than mere consumers?

Regarding parenthood, some doomers might argue that having children is indefensible. This perspective is a classic nirvana fallacy and a desperate defense of a worldview. The next Greta Thunberg or influential environmental advocate could emerge from anywhere. Each individual has the potential to contribute positively.

Bringing children into our complex world is a nuanced decision that cannot be simplified to good or bad. Moreover, if a doomer disparages parenthood while exhibiting no restraint regarding their own consumption, they lack a solid foundation for their argument.

However, these debates lead us nowhere. Our response to climate change shouldn’t revolve around notions of purity or virtue. We often devise excuses to evade personal accountability, but the reality is straightforward: we must do our best with the resources we have, regardless of our circumstances.

I believe we all possess a moral compass that helps us discern when we’re exploiting our privileges on Earth versus when we’re genuinely striving to improve it.

Throughout my three years as a Medium member, I’ve penned numerous articles on climate and explored countless others. The variety of perspectives on climate change is vast.

Some assert that individual actions matter, and collectively, we can make a difference. Others believe that convincing people to change is futile, arguing for top-down reforms enforced by governments. Conversely, some advocate for change through private sector innovation and consumer choice, viewing capitalism as a path to mitigation.

On the flip side, many perceive capitalism as the root of the problem, believing it will only expedite our downfall.

Disagreements abound, and each faction is steadfast in its views. Some declare geoengineering as the sole solution, while others deem it disastrous. Focusing on anything other than fossil fuel reduction is seen as misguided; yet fossil fuels remain integral to our energy systems. The debate over nuclear power is equally polarizing—some hail it as the best option, while others denounce it.

Moderation and flexibility in views seem scarce. Such positions rarely gain traction in today’s divisive, winner-takes-all media landscape. (You can gauge this by the feedback this article receives and its overall reach.)

But what if our stance wasn’t confined to Only This or Only That?

What if it encompassed Everything We’ve Got?

What if public and private sectors collaborated on climate initiatives, similar to their joint efforts in space exploration? (For instance, SpaceX facilitates transportation for astronauts and supplies to the International Space Station.)

What if we pursued policy changes while also taking personal action within our means now?

What if we prepared for the worst (Doom) while striving for the best (Techno-optimism)?

Are we really in disagreement because these strategies are inherently exclusive, or are we merely caught in a communication landscape that rewards polarized opinions and sensationalized content?

In a world where Donald Trump was elected President and might be again, can we trust our information sources? Are we not witnessing some of the same phenomena that fuel rampant conspiracy theories and political division in our climate discourse?

Is it not this pervasive communication environment that reinforces unwavering stances, characterized by echo chambers, short attention spans, and confirmation bias?

It’s going to be fine! Studies indicate we can transition to renewables while enjoying limitless growth! Keep consuming!

No! Nothing can change, and anyone who says otherwise is spreading false hope! The ship is sinking!

What if we carved a narrow path through the center?

Epilogue

Recently, I received an invitation to London for my publisher’s ten-year anniversary celebration. They generously offered to cover my travel and part of my accommodation costs. Given my long-standing relationship with this publisher, it would have been a momentous occasion.

I turned it down.

While it could have been a memorable experience, it wasn't essential. It wouldn't boost my book sales or involve visiting someone in need or attending a significant event. It wouldn’t contribute positively to climate change.

On the contrary, the jet fuel and resources consumed during my trip would further strain an already burdened environment.

I understand the arguments for accepting the invitation—I’ve faced similar reasoning when I recently agreed to take a long-overdue honeymoon with my wife.

That plane is flying regardless of whether you're on it.

Who knows what the future holds? You say it yourself. Enjoy life now. Expand your horizons.

Your carbon footprint pales in comparison to that of billionaires, corporations, and the military-industrial complex.

In a million years, none of this will matter!

But if I don’t establish boundaries, what’s the point?

What I express online or the articles I write are inconsequential. What truly matters is what I do.

If I can’t decline a trivial trip abroad, I have no stake in this issue. All my articles, conversations, and efforts would be for naught.

Even if a perfect carbon footprint calculator could justify my actions, validating a trip to London would still be the wrong choice.

Do you see the significance?

This issue—this monumental challenge—is confronted through every choice we make, every dollar spent, every action taken, no matter how minor.

We have triumphed over darkness and found light. We’ve endured plagues, wars, and suffering. The history of human existence on Earth has been a blend of violence and beauty.

Our current situation is the result of countless individual actions. Every person who resisted oppression, every individual who aspired to change, every sacrifice made.

If you’re unwilling to sacrifice anything, to tread this narrow path, what does that mean for our world?

This is life. This is the reality we shape—defined not by our words, but by our actions. It is not about excuses, but about convictions.

Anything less is beneath us.

Relevant articles for further reading:

• The History of Utilitarianism

  Though Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) offered the first systematic account, the foundational idea...

  plato.stanford.edu

• Moving the Climate Crisis from Our Heads to Our Hearts - With Many Roots

  A summary of key insights from Britt Wray's Generation Dread, intertwined with personal reflections...

  www.withmanyroots.com

• Total Fertility Rate

  This metric compares the average number of children a woman would bear if all...

  www.cia.gov

If I haven’t managed to alienate nearly everyone by the end of this article, I haven’t fulfilled my purpose. XD

My aim on Medium isn't to amass followers by echoing popular sentiments. If you’re still with me, thank you.

TJ