The Future We Choose: Surviving the Climate Crisis

“Denying climate change is tantamount to saying you don’t believe in gravity. The science of climate change is not a belief, a religion, or a political ideology. It presents facts that are measurable and verifiable. Just as gravity exerts its force on all of us whether we believe in it or not, climate change is already affecting us all no matter where we were born or where we live. The irresponsibility of not ‘believing in climate change’ is becoming more apparent with every new catastrophic event. Climate deniers are shamelessly protecting the short-term financial interests of the fossil fuel industry to the detriment of the long-term interests of their own descendants.”

Here the authors take a firm stance on the issue of climate change, which they present as a simple fact, akin to gravity—a phenomenon people take as a given. This framing seeks to steer the conversation away from ideology: Climate change is not something to fight about or “believe” in like other political views. However, at the end of the paragraph, the tone gets more urgent. By ignoring the reality, climate deniers are doing damage, not least to their own descendants. This is in keeping with the theme of winning the fight against climate change: The moment requires that everyone commit to action.

“Two dates should now be seared in everyone’s mind: 2030 and 2050.

By 2050 at the latest, and ideally by 2040, we must have stopped emitting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than Earth can naturally absorb through its ecosystems (a balance known as net-zero emissions or carbon neutrality). In order to get to this scientifically established goal, our global greenhouse gas emissions must be clearly on the decline by the early 2020s and reduced by at least 50 percent by 2030.”

As the book itself was published in 2020, this passage lays out the urgency of combatting climate change. Halving emissions within a single decade is a huge task. Yet as the book continues, the authors express great optimism that humanity can meet this goal. Together, these two strategies foster credibility in the authors: They are both clear-eyed and determined to get things done.

“Half the world’s tropical forests have been cleared, and every year about 12 million more hectares are lost. In about forty years, at the current rate, 1 billion hectares could be gone—a land mass equivalent to Europe. In the last fifty years, the populations of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians have, on average, declined by 60 percent. Some suggest we are already living through the sixth mass extinction. According to the latest research, 12 percent of all surviving species are currently threatened, and climate breakdown will significantly amplify that threat.”

This is part of a long paragraph in which the authors lay out the challenge humankind is facing in frank terms. The amount of destruction human-induced climate change has caused is enormous, and listing some of the specifics helps make that point concrete to the reader. It’s intended to jolt readers out of their complacency and spur them to act. The authors use repetition or lists of facts like this one stylistically to hammer home their point.

“All studies you may read about the Anthropocene epoch point to the unprecedented levels of destruction that we have caused in just five decades. The underlying assumption in those analyses is that we have irretrievably cast our die and that increasing destruction will be the leitmotif of the entire geological era.

We take a radically different view.

We argue that devastation is admittedly a growing possibility but not yet our inevitable fate. While the beginning of this period of human history has been indelibly and painfully marked, the full story has not been written. We still hold the pen. In fact, we hold it more firmly now than ever before. And we can choose to write a story of regeneration of both nature and the human spirit. But we have to choose.”

Here the authors’ theme of optimism in the face of challenges comes through. They make it clear in the first pages of the book that this will not be a doom-and-gloom account of everything people have done wrong—the kind of account they describe in the first paragraph of this passage. Instead, while again acknowledging the reality of climate change, the authors will assert that the final story has not yet been written. They amplify the contrast with the short statement of their own belief (“We take a radically different view”), which they underscore by making it its own paragraph. This line serves as a rhetorical turning point, mirroring the writers’ shift to optimism.

“You try not to think about the 2 billion people who live in the hottest parts of the world, where, for upward of forty-five days per year, temperatures skyrocket to 60 degrees Celsius (140 degrees Fahrenheit)—a point at which the human body cannot be outside for longer than about six hours because it loses the ability to cool itself down. Places such as central India are becoming increasingly challenging to inhabit. For a while people tried to carry on, but when you can’t work outside, when you can fall asleep only at four a.m. for a couple of hours because that’s the coolest part of the day, there’s not much you can do but leave. Mass migrations to less hot rural areas are beset by a host of refugee problems, civil unrest, and bloodshed over diminished water availability.”

This passage previews some of the effects of climate change on humans if society does not alter course by 2050. In addition to the physical aspects of soaring temperatures, the authors speculate on the socioeconomic consequences—for instance, millions of people migrating to less affected areas, sparking unrest and conflict over scarce resources. To further drive their point home, the author places readers directly in the scene through their repeated use of the word “you.” Significantly, they locate the reader in more than one place—in a cooler climate, “think[ing] about” the most affected areas, and in the very hottest regions—asking their more privileged readers to recognize how arbitrary and precarious their security is.

“We are making communities stronger. As a child, you might have seen your neighbors only in passing. But now, to make things cheaper, cleaner, and more sustainable, your orientation in every part of your life is more local. Things that used to be done individually are now done communally—growing vegetables, capturing rainwater, and composting. Resources and responsibilities are shared now. At first you resisted this togetherness—you were used to doing things individually and in the privacy of your own home. But pretty quickly the camaraderie and unexpected new network of support started to feel good, something to be prized.”

This quotation serves as a counterpart to the previous one. In this chapter, the authors offer a glimpse into the year 2050 in a world where humanity has tackled the issue of climate change. One of the benefits the authors envision is a return to a more local lifestyle emphasizing community and cooperation. Shedding Western society’s orientation toward individualism, they argue, is not only necessary to curb climate change but to facilitate human happiness. They emphasize this point rhetorically through their use of the word “we” (as opposed to the more isolating “you” of the previous chapter).

“When we began the fight for the fate of humanity, we were thinking only about the species’ survival, but at some point, we understood that it was as much about the fate of our humanity. We emerged from the climate crisis as more mature members of the community of life, capable not only of restoring ecosystems but also of unfolding our dormant potentials of human strength and discernment. Humanity was only ever as doomed as it believed itself to be. Vanquishing that belief was our true legacy.”

Here the authors tie the more collective lifestyle described in the previous quotation to the fight against climate change. They see cooperation as part and parcel of working to restore the health of the planet. The well-being of humans is one and the same as the well-being of nature—a point they emphasize by referring to life itself as a “community.” When humanity recognizes this interconnectivity, unlocking its strength as a collective and gaining confidence, the work of tackling climate change will become easier.

“As we learned during our stewardship of the Paris Agreement, if you do not control the complex landscape of a challenge (and you rarely do), the most powerful thing you can do is change how you behave in that landscape, yourself a catalyst for overall change. All too often in the face of a task, we move quickly to ‘doing’ without first reflecting on ‘being’—what we personally bring to the task, as well as what others might. And the most important thing we can bring is our state of mind.”

This passage sets up the section on new mindsets. The authors argue that tackling such a difficult issue as climate change requires mental preparation. This is in part because the old ways of thinking are insufficient to meet the challenge, but it’s also because so much is beyond human control. How humanity responds to these uncertainties and setbacks will dictate how successful the fight against climate change ultimately is.

“Václav Havel aptly described optimism as ‘a state of mind, not a state of the world.’ Three characteristics are generally agreed upon as essential to making this mindset transformative: the intention to see beyond the immediate horizon, the comfort with uncertainty about the final outcome, and the commitment that is fostered by that mindset.”

Here the authors discuss optimism—one of the three new mindsets humanity will need, as well as one of the book’s themes. They argue that it’s a quality that should be fostered before getting to work since it will inform the work itself. What they call “stubborn optimism” is especially important, as the road ahead is not for the faint of heart. Not only will there be setbacks, but there will also be uncertainty about how to proceed; optimism, they argue, provides people with the confidence to keep going in spite of these obstacles. In citing Václav Havel—a prominent dissident in what was then Communist Czechoslovakia—the writers link the fight against climate change to other historical human rights movements.

“We need to remember, however, that in the challenging years to come, optimism on its own won’t be enough, as it wasn’t enough in Paris. What sustained us through the long nights and years of building that initial agreement was a particular brand of optimism that is necessary for the most difficult tasks: stubborn optimism.”

This quotation addresses the book’s theme of optimism in the face of challenges. The authors emphasize, however, that it’s not run-of-the-mill optimism that is needed. Rather, they use the term “stubborn optimism” to highlight how resilient it will need to be. They draw on their experience as negotiators for the United Nations to convey this point and lend legitimacy and persuasive power to it: These are not simply researchers or journalists but people who have been in the trenches.

“When we are motivated by a desire for collaboration, we liberate ourselves from the restrictive framing of attaining ‘what I want, or think I need,’ and open ourselves up to a broader framing of what is available and possible in many other forms—available to me, but not only to me, to others as well. The realization of abundance is not an illusory increase in physical resources, but rather an awareness of a broad array of ways to satisfy needs and wants so that everyone is content. In this way resources will be protected and replenished, and the relationships among us are enriched.”

Here the authors outline their idea for the new mindset they call “endless abundance.” It’s a shift from an individualistic, extractive mindset in which abundance leads to waste and exploitation of natural resources. Humanity will need to think differently in the future, the authors argue. Rather than referring to an unlimited supply of material things, abundance must center the ways people work to stay within available limits for the good of everyone. While this kind of abundance recognizes the finite nature of certain resources, it is endless because it’s based on human connection and relationships, which have a boundless ability to enrich lives.

“We are entering the next phase of human evolution. The human species (and many other animal and plant species) must now adapt to the scarcity of natural resources we have caused, and the rapidly diminishing space left in our global atmosphere for carbon emissions. To do this, we need to prioritize collaboration. Faced with the ultimate scarcity, we must internalize the new zero sum (either we all win or we all lose) and apply a mindset of abundance to that which we have left and that which we can co-create and share.”

The authors frame the proposed mindset of endless abundance as part of human evolution, lending it a sense of logic and inevitability. For centuries, people and societies have competed with one another according to a zero-sum mentality that called for winners and losers. As natural resources are limited, the authors argue that the time has come to end this way of life. A new zero-sum mentality—one in which people all win or all lose together—must replace the old if humanity is to survive.

“Amid the climate crisis, we each have an urgent responsibility to replenish ourselves and protect ourselves from breaking down. In the face of imminent burnout, some of our colleagues who have worked for years to address climate change under extremely stressful circumstances have at some point prudently taken time off to restore their energies by turning to the healing arms of nature or the loving embrace of a spiritual community. The wisest among them have incorporated meditation and mindfulness practices into their daily lives.”

Not every book on climate change has a section focusing on the well-being of individuals in the here and now. More commonly, these books refer to new technologies, the share of emissions by industry, and other hard data. This is another instance of the authors boosting their credibility by virtue of their experience on the ground; they know the draining, exhausting nature of climate work and therefore caution that people need to take care of themselves first, drawing on some kind of spirituality or community to sustain themselves through the fight. While this might seem paradoxical given the book’s emphasis on cooperation rather than individualism, it reflects the authors’ humanistic and holistic approach to activism.

“The converging crises of climate change, deforestation, biodiversity loss, desertification, and acidification of the oceans have taken us to the point where we can no longer naïvely depend on the Earth’s natural resilience or capacity to recuperate. While nature is innately restorative, regeneration does not always occur completely on its own. Right now, we have almost extinguished nature’s capacity for self-renewal. In many cases, ecosystem restoration requires intentional human intervention, such as rewilding, by which we not only remove the destructive pressure of grazing or unsustainable harvesting but also reintroduce native animals and help nature bounce back, slowly recuperating its rich biodiversity. Planting trees and shrubs in degraded or deforested landscapes is an intentional regenerative process that restores soil health, increases productivity, and stabilizes underground aquifers.”

Part of combatting climate change is refraining from activities such as burning coal, driving gas-powered vehicles, and anything else that emits greenhouse gases into the air. However, as the authors indicate here, the damage humans have already done to the planet has impaired its ability to return to health on its own. Thus, the fight against climate change must involve proactively working to help nature restore itself. Rewilding is one example of this.

“Reconnection to nature is a powerful antidote to anxiety and stress, as well as a counter to physical illnesses. The Japanese health system has developed the practice of shinrin-yoku—literally, forest ‘bath’ (not with water)—or spending mindful time in the woods. It is beneficial for soul and body as it boosts the immune system, lowers blood pressure, aids sleep, improves mood, and increases personal energy. It has become a cornerstone of preventive health care and healing in Japan.”

Restoring nature to full health has benefits not only for the planet and for other animal species but for humans. The authors stress how necessary nature—for example, clean air and water—is to humanity’s very survival. However, there’s another benefit, which is access to natural spaces like forests. Research has shown many physical and emotional benefits to spending time in the woods. “Forest bathing” is one such example of this and reminds readers that humans are not separate from but part of the natural world.

“A regenerative mindset is most effective if pursued intentionally and consistently. It is both a tough mental discipline and a gentleness of spirit that needs to be cultivated. It is about understanding that beyond getting what we want and need from our fellow human beings, we have the responsibility to replenish ourselves and to help others to restore themselves to levels of greater energy and insight. It is about understanding that beyond extracting and harvesting what we need from nature, it is our responsibility and in our enlightened self-interest to protect life on this planet, indeed even enhance the planet’s life-giving capacity. Personal and environmental goals are interlinked, mutually reinforcing, and they both need our attention.”

Having a regenerative mindset goes beyond the necessary work to repair and rejuvenate the health of the planet. As part of this way of life, the authors argue, humans will need to create a regenerative society based on the good of everyone. Individual actions will need to take into account others’ well-being as society seeks to build sustainable systems in which nature and humanity are interconnected.

“The ten actions that we call for are not only about moving beyond fossil fuels and investing in technological solutions. They also call for a fairer economic system that does not strain the social net even further. They call for strong political engagement by everyone, and for relinquishing nostalgia for a past that might be dangerous to re-create. The additional pieces may feel remote from the issue of climate change, but they are fundamental parts of our response. We must reject the cycle of blame and retribution and embrace the shared endeavor we so desperately need. We cannot strain the social safety net and continue to expand inequality, or else our democratic systems will refuse to allow further changes to the economy. We have to get our arms around the whole issue at the same time.”

This passage introduces the 10 actions that the authors call for in the last chapter. Not surprisingly, they entail wholesale changes, not fiddling around the edges. It’s notable that they push for a revamped economic system as part of the fight against climate change—an idea that is not always found in similar texts. Their argument is that the capitalist economy has itself contributed to climate change. They thus promote a new mindset of regeneration—for both people and the planet.

“Change makes us vulnerable to tribalism and to the illusion of certainty. In the transition to a regenerative world, one of the biggest risks is that the political center does not hold, and people succumb to the easy promises of populist leaders at either end of the political spectrum. History and early signs both suggest that this might be our new reality, with the real potential to turn democracy into tyranny. We cannot go back to the way of life that created the climate emergency in the first place, but treading new ground is politically challenging. The political shocks currently reverberating across the world are just the start.”

Here the authors warn of the political instability that climate change could trigger, noting that we have seen glimpses of this in populist movements in the United States and Europe. The authors therefore emphasize the need for strong democratic governments around the world to help manage the change to come. These governments must be responsive to the people while at the same time providing the stability necessary by resisting extreme viewpoints on both ends of the political spectrum.

“Having a vision is essential, but we have to be open to doing things in new ways. So hold on to your vision, but remain flexible and adaptive about the route to get there. The route may change based on circumstances, while the vision remains a fixed North Star, a guide and a destination.”

Often while looking for solutions to complex issues, people latch on to a specific method or path and focus on it being the sole solution. The authors counsel caution in fixating on the means to the end. They instead suggest having a vision of what we want to accomplish to use as a guide. The number of uncertainties involved, however, requires that people remain open to adjusting the means as needed.

“Our engines of economic growth depend on us continuing to spend money. In the 1920s, some Americans were concerned that a new generation was emerging that had satisfied its needs—and that would lead to a drag on growth. President Herbert Hoover’s Committee on Recent Economic Change in 1929 concluded that advertising was necessary to create ‘new wants that will make way for endlessly newer wants as fast as they are satisfied.’”

This is an example of old ways that the authors argue must change. Although the authors are writing a century after what’s described in the passage, consumerism remains ingrained in Americans’ way of life. The quotation from the committee shows that consumerism is largely a vacuous policy without utility: buying things just for the sake of buying. It is this kind of wasteful behavior that the authors argue must change.

“The story of the happy fisherman, first made popular by Paulo Coelho, has several versions. A content fisherman is relaxing on the beach in his little village after catching a few big fish. […] [T]he fish he caught are enough to feed his whole family, and […] when he finishes with his catch, he can go home to play with his children, take a nap with his wife, then join his friends for drinks and music making in the evening.

[A] businessman suggests to the fisherman that he could lend him some money to be more successful. Then the fisherman can spend more time at sea and buy a bigger boat to catch lots more fish that he could sell to make more money. He can then invest the money in more boats and set up a big fishing company. Over time the fishing company can go public on the stock exchange and make the fisherman millions.

‘And then what?’ asks the fisherman.

The businessman proudly explains that then the fisherman can retire. He can finally enjoy spending his days as he wishes: catching a few fish in the morning, spending time playing with his children, taking an afternoon nap with his wife, and joining his friends for drinks and music making in the evenings.”

The authors occasionally use stories or parables to illustrate their point. This passage reflects the fourth action they suggest: to see oneself as a citizen, not a consumer. The tale suggests that life is too short to focus on money and material goods. What really matters are relationships with other people, and it is a fallacy to assume that fostering these relationships requires a certain amount of financial “success”: The retirement lifestyle the businessman describes is exactly the same as the lifestyle the fisherman already leads. By transforming human economics and lifestyles, people can live more rewarding and interconnected lives in community with others.

“In the current transition, strictly linear GDP growth can no longer be the priority. More stuff does not mean a better life, and indeed it is contributing to our existential crisis. Moving away from quantity of products that can be purchased, we must reorient our underlying sense of value toward quality of life, including within all of Earth’s ecosystems. Prioritizing growth according to its contribution to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) would be a good place to start. These seventeen interconnected goals aspire to sustainably increase global prosperity, equality, and well-being.”

Here again the authors advocate moving away from a system that emphasizes economic growth at any cost. They believe change is necessary to move away from exploitative transactions and toward regenerative ones. At the same time, using economic growth as a measure of progress is itself flawed, they claim. The United Nations SDGs are a better indicator of a nation’s progress, as they take into account a wide range of issues related to quality of life.

“Civil disobedience is not only a moral choice, it is also the most powerful way of shaping world politics. Historically, systemic political shifts have required civil disobedience on a significant scale. Few have occurred without it. The numbers required may seem large, but they are not impossible. History has shown that when approximately 3.5 percent of the population participates in nonviolent protest, success becomes inevitable. No nonviolent protest has ever failed to achieve its aims once it reached that threshold of participation. In the UK, this would be 2.3 million people. In the United States, 11 million.”

The most important of the 10 actions the authors encourage is engaging in politics. This can take different forms, but one involves civil resistance through nonviolent demonstrations. This quotation indicates how powerful this kind of action has been throughout history. The authors urge everyone to get involved because, based on the track record of past movements, reaching just a 3.5% threshold of involvement makes success inevitable.