National Geographic

I reported in unlit Kenyan slums and Indian vil-lages where people cook on illicit charcoal or hand-gathered twigs, the clearer it became that there’s nosingle “we” when it comes to energy, nor for vulner-ability to climate hazards. The rich “we” can afordto convert to clean energy and cut vulnerability toheat, floods, and more. But the rest of humanity isstill struggling to get the basic economic benefits thatwe’ve gotten from burning fossil fuels.Research by an array of scientists and scholarssupports a daunting conclusion: Climate change isunlike any environmental problem we’ve ever faced.We can’t “fix” it the way we’ve started to fix smog orthe ozone hole, with circumscribed regulations andtreaties and limited technological changes. Climatechange is too big in space, time, and complexity; theemissions that cause it are too central a consequenceof the efort of some 7.5 billion people now, and some10 billion within several decades, to prosper on Earth.``````THE REAL SHAPE of what’s happening to Earth emergesonly when the greenhouse emissions surge is consid-ered alongside other metrics for human activity. A2015 scientific report titled “The Great Acceleration”included a planetary dashboard of graphs chartingsignals of human activity, from tropical forest lossto paper manufacturing to water use. Most have thesame shape as the curve for CO 2 emissions. Pollutionand climate impacts, then, are symptoms of a broadersituation: the human-Earth mash-up moment that’sincreasingly called the Anthropocene.Adam Frank, an astrophysicist at the University ofRochester, has begun assessing possible outcomesfor our planet under diferent scenarios. He drawson the rapidly expanding body of knowledge aboutother planets outside our solar system that couldharbor life and plots possible trajectories for Earth-like planets inhabited by sentient species.While the mathematical models are fairly simple,three broad scenarios emerge, which Frank describesin a new book called Light of the Stars. The first sce-nario is the “soft landing,” in which a civilization andits planet come smoothly to a new, steady state. Thesecond is “die of,” in which a planet’s environmentalconditions degrade and populations drop precip-itously but seem to survive. “It’s hard to know if atechnological civilization could survive losing some-thing like 70 percent of its population,” Frank says.And there’s a third scenario: collapse. “TheEMBARK | THE BIG IDEApopulation rises, the planetary state ‘heats up,’ andat some point the population crashes down to zero,”Frank says. “We even found solutions where thecollapse could happen after the population changedfrom a high-impact energy source—fossil fuels—toa lower-impact one, solar.”Frank’s interplanetary perspective makes clearthat the climate crisis is really more of a grand chal-lenge, like the wars on cancer or poverty, that peoplework on over a lifetime, even generations, with a mixof urgency and patience. The change in perspectiveis troubling but also liberating: It means anyone withmotivation and perseverance can make a differ-ence—as a teacher or engineer, an artist or investor,or simply as an engaged planetary citizen.In looking into space to assess Earth’s prospects,Frank has circled back to James Hansen’s startingpoint—his early research on our superhot neighbor,Venus. Earlier this year, I asked Frank what he seesin Earth’s future: Are we destined to be more like astruck match, flaring bright but briefly? Or could weglow on, like, say, a solar-powered LED?Frank thinks it may be hard for any biosphere thatevolves a planet-scale industrial civilization to avoidgreat disruption. “The question is, how often doesthe civilization make it through the transition toemerge as a still important part of the now changedbiosphere,” Frank said. “Much may depend on theevolutionary heritage the species gets,” he says—whether populations can think and act as neededto adapt to, and responsibly manage, a new reality.It’s a question for Earth, he says: “Do we have whatit takes? I hope so, but I guess we’ll see pretty soon.”``````CLIMATE CHANGE ISUNLIKE ANY ENVIRONMENTALPROBLEM WE’VE FACED.WE CAN’T ‘FIX’ IT THE WAYWE’VE STARTED TO FIXSMOG OR THE OZONE HOLE.The Force of Climate ChangePHOTO: LUCASFILM LTD./PHOTOFEST``````Andrew Revkin recently joined the National GeographicSociety staff as strategic adviser, environmental and sciencejournalism, after three decades of environmental reporting,mostly for the New York Times. With environmental educatorLisa Mechaley, he co-wrote the 2018 book Weather: An Illus-trated History, From Cloud Atlases to Climate Change.``````To explain how the enormity of climate change affects our grasp of it, RiceUniversity’s Tim Morton cites a scene from the Star Wars movie The EmpireStrikes Back where the Millennium Falcon flies into a “cave” that’s actually a giantworm’s maw. Living with climate change is like that, he says: “Because the wormis ‘everywhere’ in your field of vision, you can’t really tell the difference betweenit and the asteroid you think you landed on. For a while, you can kid yourselfthat you’re not inside a gigantic worm—until it starts digesting you.” —AR