The Plan to Save the Earth - A Blueprint

There is a lot of scary news about climate change these days. As someone investigating the possibility of solutions through my non-profit and my Ph.D. work, I’ve thought long and hard about an easy-to-understand blueprint for how we can stabilize the climate system.

Five high-level points I think are worth emphasizing: getting off of fossil fuels, restoring balance with nature, protecting human rights, radical international cooperation, and intergenerational thinking.

We have to get off of fossil fuels as quickly as possible.

The fastest way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is at their source, which means that societies must prioritize phasing out fossil fuels as quickly as possible and build “net-negative societies” in which carbon dioxide is being drawn down from the atmosphere. This is an absolutely necessary undertaking in order for humanity to have any chance of keeping the planet under 2°C or 3°C of warming this century (current projections place warming at 2.6°C-2.8°C by 2100). Under the international climate law regime and the concept of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities,” rich countries have a greater responsibility to implement this kind of transition and to assist low-income and/or vulnerable countries in managing climate change impacts. The quicker we can build net-negative societies, the greater the possibility of preventing dangerous global warming and returning to a cooler Earth. It is important to emphasize that net-zero is not enough—rather, the goal must be net-negative.

It is imperative to restore balance with nature.

The collapse of biodiversity and the breakdown of a stable climate system both reflect that human societies are no longer in balance with the natural world. Societies must engage in social change to prioritize balance with nature. This may require dramatic changes to how we live our lives—and in particular, changes to the energy-intensive technological, agricultural, and transportation systems that wealthy countries have built and which are now causing a lot of damage to the natural world. We need to shift our thinking and probably slow down quite a bit.

Protecting human rights can help prepare societies for climate change impacts.

Extreme heat, dangerous weather events, sea level rise, and public health challenges caused by climate change will impact the human rights to life, health, shelter, and dignified work, among many others. These impacts will also be felt in inequitable and unfair ways, exacerbating pre-existing human rights abuses and unjust forms of discrimination. Ensuring the protection of human rights, particularly economic, social, and cultural rights, would go a long way in building climate resilience. We also have to consider the fairness of today’s wealth and resource inequalities and the hoarding of wealth by a small group of people, which has and will continue to negatively impact human rights (including the disproportionate influence of wealthy interests on political systems).

Radical international cooperation requires governments to work together wherever possible.

International violence and great power competition are unfortunately part of our world, and I don’t pretend to think that conflict and wars can magically disappear overnight. But in places or on topics where it is possible to cooperate, governments must deepen such cooperation in radical and immediate ways. One area I talk about a lot in my work is the Arctic, which I believe must be the epicenter of a new kind of radical cooperation between governments designed to keep the Arctic as cool as possible for as long as possible. The relative success of treaties like the Montreal Protocol must be replicated however possible and wherever possible to promote climate cooperation. Wherever we can, governments must place their differences aside to focus on planetary challenges that may present existential risks.

Intergenerational thinking requires us to consider how our decisions today will impact people living decades or centuries in the future.

I think and wonder sometimes about the extraordinary injustice that people will feel 100 years from now, looking back at this period of history and witnessing the lack of dramatic action to prevent climate and biodiversity collapse. Because the consequences of our actions today will linger for decades or centuries, we have to consider and maybe even prioritize various kinds of action that can prevent serious harm to people and other forms of consciousness later in time, even if those effects are not felt immediately today.