What we truly need to save the planet is creative solutions, not another political fight, we need to stop fighting. If your ship is sinking, you should be fixing the holes not arguing about who made them in the first place. Because arguing won’t fix the holes and water will ultimately drown your ship.
Of course, you should prevent others from making new holes…
You have two ways to do that: force them not to do it, or sit with them and have a discussion about what are their motivations, and in our case, they’re valid motivations, then create a solution that meets those motivations.
People digging for a new oil well their main purpose is to make a profit not to ruin the planet, farmers grow crops using fertilizers their main goal is to eat and make money so they can afford to live, not to ruin the planet. They’re not evil and it’s actually damaging the planet to treat them that way.
There’s nothing wrong with making a profit. What we need to do is make it more economically beneficial to clean the atmosphere not pollute it.
There are two teams fighting when it comes to climate change: The planet team, and the people team.
The Planet Team
People who put the planet as their main concern worry about the threats that could change life as we know it forever.
Ice melting down, rising sea levels, coastal cities drowning, higher atmosphere temperature, more allergies, more insect-transmitted diseases, and many many more troubles are expected to happen if things keep going on the same trajectory.
Environmentalists prioritize the planet, and the solutions they suggest prioritize getting to net-zero carbon emissions whatever the cost may be. Their claim is that we can endure the short-term struggles for a better, cleaner future.
The People Team
Conservatives on the other hand question the solutions suggested by the environmentalists, specifically, they are questioning the “struggling” part. Who is going to struggle and why?
Are the people going to struggle the ones who created the problem in the first place? If not, then why should they pay the cost?
The policies and solutions suggested by the environmentalists will impact the poor and will make their life a lot worse than it is now, so the question is: why?
Are we certain that the catastrophic expectations of environmentalists are realistic and going to happen?
The Fight
The fight between the environmentalists and the conservatives is really intense, and in my opinion, it’s wasting everybody’s energy.
It’s like we are fighting and pointing fingers while the ship is sinking, and no one is trying to fix the holes.
Clean energy research should be our main concern, we won’t get rid of fossil fuels unless we find a clean source of energy. You can’t expect people to eat more expensive food, sacrifice meat, transport in more expensive transportation methods, and pay a tax for their carbon footprint just because you think this is going to save the planet.
If you want everybody to share the ride then you must make it comfortable for everyone to join.
The poor are already struggling to keep up with life, making new policies that you think ‘might’ save the planet isn’t the optimal solution, and the nightmare is: what if you implement these policies and they don’t work?
The Suggested Solution for Climate Change
Climate change is a complicated topic, we should direct our limited resources (including the time we spend debating and arguing) into researching methods to solve the real challenges that are preventing us from having a healthy planet.
Clean energy, sustainable agriculture, and atmosphere cleaning, all of these should be areas for research, we should double the number of people working on these problems.
Because forcing new policies on people and taking away their main sources of income without suggesting an alternative isn’t going to be a smooth transition into a better future.
A cleaner, sustainable future includes us, the human species, the planet cannot flourish without us and we cannot flourish without it.
So a plan that doesn’t include the human element is an incomplete plan that still needs modifications.
The Overpopulation Claim
The overpopulation claim is that the human population exceeds the actual carrying capacity of Earth.
But wait a second…
How do we calculate the actual carrying capacity of Earth?
I believe that this is a toxic concept, we don’t know the limits of Earth, and we are still in exploration mode, so we can’t claim that Earth won’t hold us. It’s holding us now when we are already 7 billion on the planet and there are no signs of overpopulation.
This concept is toxic because who decides who should have children and who shouldn’t? This concept could lead to wars, massacres, and destruction, to keep the population under the imaginary “limits”.
I don’t agree with this claim at all, we simply don’t know, and have no scientific way of measuring the maximum capacity of Earth and the limits of the human population.
Clean Energy
All the parties agree that we should find clean resources to power up our development and growth.
Nuclear power is one great example, nuclear power has the potential to replace the fossil fuel industry because it is the only clean resource that provides energy 24/7.
Other clean resources such as solar power and wind are seasonal and face intermit challenges, which means over power at some times and under power at others.
Sustainable Agriculture
Sustainable agriculture is another area where heated debate occurs.
You simply shouldn’t force me into a certain diet, if you don’t want to eat meat the decision is all yours, but if you don’t want me to eat meat then there’s the trouble.
We can’t just simply alter the normal aspects of life just because we “think” it’s going to save the planet.
Hey, when we breathe we produce CO2, should we stop breathing then?
I guess not.
We have to be realistic about what we want to achieve.
There’s an Arabic saying that says “if you want to be obeyed then command what is achievable”.
You can’t take away, food and energy from people and expect them to agree with you, you have to provide alternative solutions.