logo
Human Intelligence Created the Climate Crisis—But It's Also the Solution

Human Intelligence Created the Climate Crisis—But It's Also the Solution

I spend a lot of time on the Internet; it's become my second home in the 20 years I've communicated science online. And recently I came across an image that stuck with me: a cartoon of a sad, crying Earth covered in cut-down trees that says, 'No intelligent species would destroy their own environment.'
I think this cartoon and the ideas it represents are both wrong and destructive. I don't want my son, who is eight years old, to believe that humans are dumb and evil—both because that's a pretty big bummer and because it's obviously untrue. But I often find myself quite lonely in having that perspective, and I'm wondering if, perhaps, there are other folks out there who feel the same as I do.
Humans didn't cause climate change by being stupid; they caused it by being extremely smart. We started burning coal to solve problems. We did it to grow more food, to heat and light our homes, to power refrigerators, to connect the world in a way that made the past few centuries of scientific advancement possible. We are here precisely because of our intelligence—and yes, the greed and selfishness of people in the fossil fuel industry who have certainly slowed our transition away from fossil fuels.
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
But we are problem-solving machines, and we will solve this problem too.
Our intelligence is geared toward survival. We want to provide a good life for ourselves and our children. The results have been staggering. In the U.S. in 1895 one quarter of people died before age five. Today, it's under 6 percent, and we will keep striving until it hits zero. Imagine the essays Ben Franklin or Mark Twain would write about this level of advancement. How would they keep tears from their eyes if they saw what we've achieved?
So much of that achievement has been based on energy, and the fossil fuels we've burned to generate it, whether coal, natural gas or oil. We've learned that this harms both the environment and people, and to our credit we aren't always bad at addressing this. It was not long ago that London could be so clogged with coal smoke that you had to clean it off the windows every day. When rivers catch on fire, the U.S. changes its policies. When rain becomes acidic, the world changes its policies. When harms are done locally, we tend to be pretty good at cleaning things up.
But with climate change caused by carbon dioxide emissions, we're facing a much harder problem. That's for two reasons. First, on a psychological level, the effects of greenhouse gases on the climate are often invisible to us. Weather is always messy, and climate works on such big and long scales that it's hard to detect, communicate and respond to what's happening. And second, unlike the sulfur and nitrogen pollution that caused acid rain, or the chlorofluorocarbons that threatened to wear a hole in the ozone layer, carbon dioxide is not an unintended byproduct; it is the goal of burning fossil fuels. If you burn fossil fuels as cleanly as possible, all you get is carbon dioxide and water vapor. Responding to climate change means we must reduce the amount of CO 2 that burning fossil fuels creates. It requires us to completely reimagine how we power our planet.
Here's where I feel hope: we have already done this, and we know it is possible. In the U.K. CO 2 emissions are now at their lowest levels since 1879 following a shift from coal to renewable energy! This is possible; we can see it being done. And it's the responsibility of the biggest polluters, the countries like the U.S. who have benefitted most from burning fossil fuels, to make those changes happen.
And here is where I think we should absolutely feel some shame at our species. Humans are greedy. Humans are shortsighted. Humans will tell stories to make themselves believe that the things that they already want to do (like delaying climate action) are the right things to do. This is our nature, and I do think we could have done a better job at overcoming it. I am frustrated by the amount of time we've spent arguing instead of acting. I am frustrated by the extent to which we will not accept any inconvenience or sacrifice in exchange for making the world more livable for people in other places in the world, and even for our own children.
It's worth acknowledging that this amount of foresight is unique to humans. It requires a great deal of intelligence, and, frankly, it's remarkable to me that we're able to do it at all. We are not like trees, which caused a mass extinction of their own when they evolved on land; we know that our actions today are threatening up to a million species worldwide. This is both an indictment of our failure to act sooner, and a reason to believe we can succeed if we dedicate ourselves to this fight.
I don't want my son growing up thinking that his species is in some way evil. I want him thinking humans are problem solvers, and that solving problems always creates new ones. Whatever strategies we take to fix global warming will create more new problems, too. Renewable technologies like solar panels and wind turbines, for example, use way more land than coal-fired power plants, contributing to their own environmental impact. They're the best solution in many places right now, but maybe in the future we will replace them with better ways of generating energy, like advanced geothermal, more nuclear fission or maybe even nuclear fusion. The people of the future will be mad at us for the flawed work that we did, just like we're kind of mad at all the people who tried to make the world a better place by burning a bunch of coal. And that's all right.
Humans are not evil. We solve problems, and when we do, we create new problems. And I think that, ultimately, this is a pretty normal story for intelligent species. One day, if we ever make contact with another species like our own, I bet they'll have a lot of stories about how they did the same thing—and how they found their way through.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The Latin American Country That Told Elon Musk ‘No'
The Latin American Country That Told Elon Musk ‘No'

New York Times

time3 days ago

  • New York Times

The Latin American Country That Told Elon Musk ‘No'

Web pages load at a crawling pace. Video streams glitch and freeze. Outside Bolivia's biggest cities, the nearest internet signal is sometimes hours away over treacherous mountain roads. So when Elon Musk's Starlink offered Bolivia fast, affordable internet beamed from space, many expected the Andean nation of 12 million to celebrate. Instead, Bolivia said no thanks. Starlink, the satellite internet service from Mr. Musk's private space company, SpaceX, has made remarkable strides in South America, spreading to almost every country and bringing high-speed internet to the region's most far-flung corners, even reaching isolated Indigenous people living deep in the Amazon rainforest. But Starlink's advance has been stymied by Bolivia, which refused to give it an operating license last year, with experts and officials citing worries over its unchecked dominance everywhere it has set up shop, instead choosing to rely on the country's own aging Chinese-made satellite. The decision to reject Starlink has puzzled and angered people in Bolivia, where internet speeds are the slowest in South America and hundreds of thousands remain offline. Without an internet connection, people often struggle to get an education and lack access to jobs and fast help during natural disasters. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

White House security staff warned Musk's Starlink is a security risk
White House security staff warned Musk's Starlink is a security risk

Washington Post

time4 days ago

  • Washington Post

White House security staff warned Musk's Starlink is a security risk

Elon Musk's team at the U.S. DOGE Service and allies in the Trump administration ignored White House communications experts worried about potential security breaches when they installed Musk's Starlink internet service in the complex this year, three people familiar with the matter told The Washington Post. The people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive issues, said those who were managing White House communications systems were not informed in advance when DOGE representatives went to the roof of the adjacent Eisenhower Executive Office Building in February to install a terminal connecting users in the complex to Starlink satellites, which are owned by Musk's private SpaceX rocket company.

Senate Republicans propose alternative to scale back AI provision in Trump bill
Senate Republicans propose alternative to scale back AI provision in Trump bill

USA Today

time5 days ago

  • USA Today

Senate Republicans propose alternative to scale back AI provision in Trump bill

Senate Republicans propose alternative to scale back AI provision in Trump bill Show Caption Hide Caption Hakeem Jeffries backs Elon Musk's call to 'kill' Trump's tax bill House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries backed Elon Musk's call to "kill the bill", saying Trump's tax plan will harm Americans. WASHINGTON - Senate Republicans modified language around a controversial artificial intelligence provision in President Donald Trump's sweeping tax and domestic policy bill after it prompted backlash from both Democrats and Republicans. AI has long been a subject of controversy due to national security and child safety risks posed by the technology, including the rise of deepfakes, misinformation and scams. The Trump administration's stance on AI has largely aligned with that of companies, arguing that regulation would stymie innovation. But the provision in the bill has been a point of contention among lawmakers as many contend that AI technology is still new and needs to be under state regulation. The provision in the House bill passed by the lower chamber on May 22 would have prohibited states from enforcing any law or regulation 'limiting, restricting, or otherwise regulating" AI models, AI systems or automated decision systems affecting trade, transportation or traffic for a ten year period. Republicans on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, however, released their draft text of Trump's bill on June 5 proposing to tie the ban to federal funding. States who comply with the decade-long AI regulation freeze can receive grant money from the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment program. The program is a $42.45 million initiative to expand high-speed Internet access nationwide, according to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. The Senate proposal says that grantees can use the funds to 'construct and deploy infrastructure' regarding AI systems. The Senate proposal is a large step away from the original provision, which lawmakers across the aisle raised concerns about. Conservative firebrand Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said she wouldn't have voted for the House bill if she'd known about it. 'We have no idea what AI will be capable of in the next 10 years and giving it free rein and tying states hands is potentially dangerous,' she wrote in a tweet on June 3. California Democrat Rep. Ted Lieu, vice chair of the House Democratic Caucus, said at a presser on June 4: 'I agree with Marjorie Taylor Greene once every hundred years. This is that time.' Texas Rep. Greg Casar, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, argued that 'writing big tech companies a blank check to exploit AI however they want - that's contrary to what the vast majority of American people want.' Though House Freedom Caucus member Texas Rep. Chip Roy voted in favor of the bill, he echoed similar sentiments, telling reporters that governors should be able to 'protect their own constituencies, particularly on a technology that is very new and fluid.' It still remains to be seen whether the proposal will be included in the final version of the Senate bill before it is voted on by lawmakers. Trump and GOP leaders have set a self-imposed deadline of July 4 to try to get the tax bill through both chambers of Congress and to the president's desk for signature into law.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store