Thread by @docbaty

If we were to treat the climate crisis like a design project, and engage with all of the various stakeholders, I think (broadly), there would be agreement on a few key points:
1. The climate is warming, it's caused by our actions, and it's not a good thing.

2. The main action that's driving climate change is the extraction of fossil fuels from the ground (coal, oil & gas), and burning them to produce energy;
3. The business of fossil fuel extraction, processing and distribution keeps a fair number of people employed;

4. We have a narrow, and narrowing, window in which to turn this cycle around so that the amount of carbon emissions produced peaks, reduces, and ultimately moves to a net-negative so the level of these gases in our atmosphere is reduced.

If we then talked about what principles might apply to a future in which we had successfully addressed the climate crisis, we might agree on:
1. we no longer burn fossil fuels to produce energy, or make other things;
2. we've consigned fossil fuel extraction to the history books

3. we've set a new balance in our environment such that trees and vegetation (on land and in the water) are removing carbon emissions from the atmosphere.

More, we might have learned the lesson of excess extraction of resources and shifted our ways of being and living so that we are not generating new scenarios in which consumption and regeneration are out of balance; where refuse does not accumulate; and the world regenerates.

Along the way, we will need to tackle the inertia that comes from established ways of being & living; the political and market power that comes from the wealth of the fossil fuel industries; and the dependence on fossil fuels of some communities for their existence.

We can do all of it, though, and do it without creating new problems along the way.