Just Released! Order “Waking Up to Climate Change” by George Ropes, and receive 25% Discount. Learn More

HOME          CATEGORIES          OUR TAKE

OUR TAKE: The Climate Hawk Challenge

A very important — and disturbing — piece was posted a few days ago on Vox.com by David Roberts entitled “Reckoning with climate change will demand ugly tradeoffs from environmentalists — and everyone else.”   The article says that climate change is an existential threat, which means that we all need to become not just environmentalists but “climate hawks,” prioritizing de-carbonization over every other value. It says tradeoffs will be inescapable, disruptions inevitable — and uncomfortable, perhaps impossible.

The thing of it is, in our hearts we know the author is right. What makes any particular action-decision difficult is the gap between what climate science KNOWS today and what it PROJECTS will probably happen in the future based on what we now know. We can posit a limit, a tipping point, a time, or a set of conditions beyond which ecosystems will continue but they will not be as we know and have grown accustomed to. It will be an ice-free planet where we won’t know with any precision where or when that absolute limit is. We can assume that as we approach that marker the costs of drawing back from it will increase, probably exponentially, but really we just don’t know how much time or carbon we have left.

And we have little sense of how the costs of climate inaction compare to the costs of climate action. Should we close that nuclear plant? Should we switch all our incandescent light bulbs for LEDs? Should we all become vegans, or at least cut way back on meat? Should we all ditch our gas-guzzling SUVs and pickups for hybrids and EVs? Should we be first on our block to give up our personal car for an autonomous vehicle at our beck and call? How far inland from the increasingly flooded coast should we relocate, and when? How much of an influx into our communities of climate refugees both domestic and foreign should we tolerate before agitating our government to restrict them? Should we forego having that third, or second, or even that first child so as to not incur his or her lifetime carbon footprint?

Some very tough decisions await us. It’s not at all clear that humankind is capable of deciding — and acting — to do what is necessary to save itself in the time we have left.

 

Comment on this article

ClimateYou moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (New York time) and can only accept comments written in English.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE


More Posts Like This

OUR TAKE

Youth Activists Triumph in Groundbreaking Climate Trial

A landmark legal decision has overwhelmingly justified every human being’s right to a healthy environment. The huge victory by young climate activists in Montana is a win for young people all over the world whose future will undeniably be shaped by the effects of climate change. The case,

OUR TAKE

Losing our Coveted Trees to Floods

In the great aftermath of major flooding last week here in the Hudson Valley 30 miles north of New York City, towns and villages are recovering from torrential rains that dumped six to seven inches in an already saturated region. Roads dissolved under water. Streams, lakes and rivers

OUR TAKE

ClimateYou Welcomes City Tech Class of Spring 2023

Our first meeting of the semester with City Tech Students in Professor Bah’s “Natural Disasters Class” last week was a positive start to a semester. Discussed were many stimulating climate change ideas students can choose to write as new City Tech Bloggers to be posted right here on