In the escalating drama of climate breakdown - most especially as we navigate the ambiguous crossing of the 1.5℃ threshold - a binary is emerging that wastes an unbelievable amount of time, energy and passion, needlessly limiting our vision to confront and adapt to our reality at all levels of society. Are we (optimist) solutionists or (realist) doomers?
As optimists we’re committed to the idea that it’s not too late to fix things (think Green New Deals and direct air capture). As realists, we’re committed to telling ‘the truth’ of just how bad things are already (think cascading tipping points and trajectories towards Hothouse Earth). Both well-meaning positions are easier to define through their fierce critique of the other. To optimists, the realists are doomers; peddling de-motivating despair and self-fulfilling prophecies. If it’s already too late to solve our problems, why try? To realists, optimists are solutionists; trapping the public in a dangerous fantasy-land where change can be incremental and leave our way of life largely intact. Trusting that smart people are out there fixing it all, we remain passive bystanders as our crises escalate beyond intervention.
There’s logic in both positions. Optimists point to convincing psychological evidence around the demotivating effect of bad news. Realists invoke common sense: how can we expect people to support sufficiently radical climate action, with the sacrifices and trade-offs it entails, if they don’t know the true scale of the problem? Two antagonistic fields of action push against one another, and the outcome is paralysis.
Seeking to move beyond this ‘all-or-nothing’ binary, this short essay lays groundwork for three complementary fields of action in preparing for a range of futures. Crucially, none of these fields deny or work against one another, but provide a congruent framework for action towards desirable possible futures across several different timescales.
The Messy Middle: adaptive challenges and opportunities for change
The false choice between miraculous solutionism and total eco-induced societal collapse occludes a wide spectrum of possible middle paths. None is better than addressing the climate crisis 30 years ago at a fraction of the cost, or retooling our economy now for the ecological equivalent of a war footing, to half CO2 release in under a decade in line with UN agreements. All are deeply tragic in contrast to the techno-solutionist dream. We won’t avoid loss and disruption at a scale difficult to comprehend from our current position. Many millions, perhaps billions will experience loss of livelihood, loss of home or worse. Meanwhile, current precipitous decline in biodiversity and wild biomass will increasingly tip over into localised ecological collapse, even mass extinction. Nonetheless, the brighter of these pathways still hold promise of a future worth having for a great many - even a much brighter future, long-term. And crucially, to realise those possibilities, every fraction of a degree of warming that can be avoided is going to matter more than ever.
It’s our duty not to look away from the suffering baked into humanity’s future - especially for those on the front line of climate impacts. But we are likewise duty-bound to consider whether even catastrophic scenarios contain seeds of regeneration, both in the medium term and at the scale of human civilisation. Our ecological crisis is not an accident; at its very root lies a way of thinking and perceiving the world that will continue to manifest destructive patterns for humanity until we are forced to confront it. A Modern illusion of separateness underpins global institutions and industries. Economic "externalities" allow for the unseen costs of pollution and exploitation to vanish from our balance sheets and moral considerations. Yet, in reality, there are no externalities within our interconnected global ecosystem. As such, experts often refer to the climate crisis as a “crisis of disconnection”. We face not just a technical but an adaptive challenge, requiring us to rethink our approaches to solving problems and develop an entirely new mindset. A desirable future depends on changing not just our actions but our perceptions and values, our widespread way of seeing the world. And collective mindsets can and do change: particularly in the face of crises.
Humans are poorly evolved to recognise abstract, diffuse and long-term threats like global warming as a call to deep change. As climate impacts become more tangible and immediate however, we will be forced to transform in ways previously unimagined. The acute crises and disruption to our brittle global systems that could be termed ‘partial or temporary collapse’ - which many experts think are now likely in just a decade or two without major course correction - may well serve to catalyse a widespread mindset-shift. We would not wish this upon ourselves: failing critical infrastructure and fraying social cohesion greatly increase our vulnerability to cascading collapse and authoritarian capture, and we must do everything in our power to improve societal resilience. However, such scenarios may also present opportunities to develop a collective worldview more attuned to reality and accepting of our intimate interdependence, fostering a culture of repair, regeneration and renewal. Such a collective mindset-shift, whenever it becomes possible, stands to transform not only attitudes towards ecology but a raft of co-occurring crises - alienation, inequality, materialism, nihilism - reining in harm in the shorter term and laying a foundation for a radically better future.
Three Fields of Action
In contemplating this broad field of yet-to-be determined futures, we might begin with three interrelated ‘fields of action’ that call for our energy and commitment.
Three Fields of Action Model © 2024 by Jamie Bristow is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
1. Immediate mitigation and adaptation
We must avoid the worst impacts of climate change through ambitious collective action: every tonne of CO2, every fraction of a degree of warming counts, and the hotter things get, the more true this becomes. We must also adapt to environmental changes in the short term, with countries at the sharp end of climate impacts receiving support. The vast majority of climate change discourse to date has been concerned with this first field.
2. Resilience to future shocks
Action can be taken now to prepare for acute crises or even partial collapse of systems in the medium-term, preserving what’s precious and ensuring that critical infrastructure, communities and social order are sufficiently resilient to withstand significant shocks.
3. Foundations for future renewal
Philosophies and practices that can be foundational to a regenerative society may find more fertile ground among post-crisis mindset-shifts. We have an opportunity now to nurture existing wisdom and develop new ideas and approaches, building ‘islands of coherence’ that could seed later civilisational renewal.
Mutually supportive fields
Action in each of these three fields supports the others, and focus on one need not draw energy away from another - rather, many virtuous cycles persist between all three. For example, increased attention to preparation for future shocks is likely to build public awareness and appetite for climate mitigation measures, and vice versa. Strengthening bonds of community can reduce unsustainable behaviour, support collective resilience and foster a mindset shift towards greater appreciation of interconnectedness. Advocacy for paradigmatic transformation can energise the case for deep mitigation and adaptation. Every effort to reduce emissions, build adaptive infrastructure, and foster community resilience is a step toward maintaining social order and preserving life. The greater the effort invested now in all three fields, the shallower the decline we are likely to experience and the better likelihood of renewal.
A call to action in a more nuanced frame
The complex crises we face demand that we move beyond the paralysing binary of solutionism and doomerism. We must embrace a more nuanced understanding that incorporates a range of adaptive strategies and actions. This model is intended not as a new, fixed framework for the way things are, but a device with which to loosen up our thinking around the challenges ahead. Reality will be infinitely messier, less clearly defined than this picture suggests - but within this mess, while we cannot avoid some degree of loss and suffering, we can direct our energies towards minimising impacts and preparing for a more resilient and beautiful future.
Jamie Bristow is a writer and policy expert linking inner and outer transformation. He is a Research Fellow and Member of Life Itself and leads on public narrative and policy development for the Inner Development Goals.
Rosie Bell is a writer working primarily in public climate narrative and the inner dimension of sustainability, with collaborators such as the Climate Majority Project and Life Itself.