In Retrospect, climate change is a hoax, now what?

Conversations around environment and sustainability passionately swing between extremes of people who think our planet is beyond repair and those who think climate change is a non-existent woke problem. Take a minute to think about where your views on this spectrum fall on. Do you identify as a “tree hugger”, or someone who thinks big oil has made this planet unlivable, or do you think human eradication is a natural part of the Earth’s journey which need not be controlled. Or do you believe climate change is a non-problem being used to divert attention away from real world issues?

Now whichever side of the spectrum you identify yourself to be on, let us assume for the sake of argument that climate change is in fact a hoax. Global temperatures are not rising, biodiversity is not at risk, climate catastrophes are not expediting due to human intervention. Everything is okay! In our okay world, there still exist ideals and principles that mankind seeks to achieve. One such principle is respect. We still recognize and value respect as a basic tenet to ensure perpetual existence of society.

There are two schools of thought when it comes to the concept of respect. First that respect is inherent and expected. If in fact respect is inherent, we owe it inherently to the planet we live on without exception. The second school believes that respect is earned. The idea that ‘respect is earned’ is also a more popular sentiment, as we usually seek out logical explanations to our actions. Our idea of “earning” respect is intertwined with capitalistic principles and the belief that one obtains returns only if one produces work or goods or services that validate the exchange of such “returns”. The Earth is an organism that works around the clock to sustain itself and all the life in it. In sustaining itself, it gives us finite goods and services with infinite potential. Whether you are vegan or omnivorous, the food you consume comes from the work the earth puts in converting seeds to grain, water to rain, and light to energy. It has within itself mineral and metal resources that we use for invention and to make our lives better.  Various life forms, including plants and animals maintain the delicate balance of our eco-system which is symbiotic. Life in any form, deserves respect for having evolved and survived. Earth and its biodiversity have toiled away since the beginning of time and in the very least are owed well-earned respect. If we believe that respect is to be earned and that it is earned through establishing a sense of achievement and a show of productivity, the Earth and all of its ever-persevering biodiversity ought to be respected.  

A characteristic of respect which is often overlooked is the reciprocity of respect. Respect is mutual. We respect the planet we live on and the life around us and in return, we are respected as a species. This is a well-established theory of environmentalism. The Gaia theory, named after the Greek goddess of the Earth and the mother of all life, in simple terms expresses that the Earth and all its biological life and their inorganic surroundings live in a delicate balance which is a complex self-sustaining system. This theory credits optimal survival conditions like global temperatures, ocean salinity, biodiversity to this delicate structure.  If we don’t respect the Earth’s system, it will regulate itself and we will lose out.

A slightly pessimistic approach of the Gaia theory is the Madea theory. Once again, named after the Greek goddess Madea who is ultimately responsible for death of her own children. The Madea theory deems life to be self-destructive and selfish.

These two opposing theories when compared and contrasted, provide a rare opportunity for us to pick which direction we want to go towards. Do we want our species to be self-destructive or do we want to be integrating into a self-regulating system where we have agency but not unchecked authority? Both these theories are attractive and usually readers prefer one to the other (it is pretty obvious which one I owe allegiance to). Whether Gaia appeals to you or Madea, an interesting perspective to bring into this conversation is that when we talk about climate change, we are not trying to save the planet as much as we are trying to ensure our continued existence in this system. The one sure shot way to ensure existence within this system is to respect it.

To respect means to have regard for; to care, protect and preserve. In terms of the environment, care and preservation can look like not littering your surroundings, choosing more sustainable consumer options, committing to a recycling program, pledging to move towards clean energy, asking representatives how your tax money is being used for the benefit of life around you, talking to your social circle about what respect for the planet looks like, educating the next generation on how to live as one- it can be anything done with a good intention and kind actions for the environment around you.

Whatever theory of respect you believe in, it does lead to the rational assumption that we have to respect the world we live in and the environment around us. If this is the underlying assumption, it doesn’t matter whether climate change is real or urgent. The Earth deserves fair treatment in real time. Our planet and its finite resources have been mistreated, especially in the last century and it is upon us to correct this disrespect. The good news is, there is no wrong way to show care and respect. The key is to not overconsume and to try and give back where one can.

In Retrospect, it does not matter if climate change is real or a hoax. If you believe in respect as an individual and want to see it practiced in society, you should be advocating for protection and preservation of the environment around you. The threat of real and eminent danger should not be the only thing driving us towards building a sustainable home for everyone. Finally, the absence of such a threat should not make us complacent to the values we practice as a society.