Environmentalists need to stop apologising and change the debate

It is a constant source of irritation and exasperation that people can be indifferent to or unaware of the magnitude of the challenge presented by climate change, or the speed with which mankind should be acting to counteract increasing greenhouse gas emissions. A good way of painting a picture in your mind is to think about what life was like on earth when CO2 concentrations were at similar levels to what we have reached today. For example, based on current, business-as-usual projections CO2 concentrations would reach around 750ppm by the end of this century. It was 40 million years ago when the planet last housed such large amounts of carbon dioxide, and crocodiles happily basked near the north pole. The scale of that kind of change is just mind-blowing

The really scary bit is to think about the rapidity with which our climate is changing. Deniers always point to climate change as a normal and natural process, which is true, but they fail to note the speed with which such change usually occurs and the speed with which humans are causing it to occur now. We are essentially talking about cramming something that should take place over thousands and millions of years into the space of a few generations. The new souped up version of the 'hockey-stick' graph provides a concise demonstration of this point. Moreover, when rapid climate change has happened in the past, courtesy of, say, huge volcanic eruptions, it is always accompanied by huge loss of life and extinctions.

Considering all this, I find it rather galling when I am accused of being an 'alarmist,' particularly as 'alarmist,' in this context, seems to refer to someone who is alarmed about a pretty alarming situation. It's like someone walking in when your house is on fire and asking what all the fuss is about.

We have every right to be alarmed, even more so given the failure of our politicians to make meaningful steps towards limiting emissions, and we should not be afraid to say so. The size of the task at hand always meant that any solution was going to be a bumpy ride, and we should not shy away from this. You don't just reconfigure a world economy without expecting some serious impacts on social and political life. Just as the first industrial revolution led to enormous changes in people's everyday lives, we cannot simply assume that our existing political and economic systems will be capable of meeting the demands of what amounts to a new economic era.

When it comes to money, environmentalists are often bashful about the costs associated with the transition to a green economy. However, when stacked up against the potential costs of failing to act, the case for splurging now starts to look pretty good. Yes, transforming our energy grid will be expensive, yes we may have to rethink our approach to growth and consumption, and yes the economy may be subject to short-term difficulties if we get serious about the true price of carbon. Don't be afraid to say it. The alternative is much worse. Of course, we want to find the most cost-effective way of reducing our impact on the environment, but that cannot and should not include failure to act, even if that action may carry some economic consequences.

It's all very well complaining that none of what I'm saying is pragmatic - the thought of a politician standing up and offering up environmental protection before growth as an idea is patently absurd - but unfortunately physics are not beholden to the politics of pragmatism. Whilst we engage in short-term party political wrangling we sign away the livelihoods of future generations. We can't keep on taking baby steps when we require great leaps forward, and we can't keep settling for compromise when nature will offer us none. All those who care about protecting future generations need to stop apologising and face up to the fight we are in.