We probably all have friends or family who don’t respond well to change, and when faced with the need to change experience extreme discomfort. And we probably also know people who thrive on change. Which one are you? For me, I’m comfortable with change, but don’t necessarily thrive on it. I understand and accept it’s inevitability, but others fear and combat change of any kind. They seek stability, permanence, and prefer the status-quo. But doing so is a denial of reality.

With any contentious issue, there are bound to be two opposing positions. Nowhere is that truer than with the question of climate change. Sides are arming themselves against one another with facts, statistics, science, funding, and fundamental beliefs. I don’t think the real debate should be whether or not climate is changing – it has to – change is absolute. Climate is not static. If we could agree on one thing it should be that climate changes. The larger question, and one worthy of serious debate, is whether or not human activity is driving or influencing that change.

For a moment, let’s take a look at accounting. Most of the tools of the trade, and the economic models they support, have their roots in the eighteenth and nineteenth century. Van Jones, in his book The Green Collar Economy, suggests about that period, “there was an awful lot of nature – and relatively few people. Today there are an awful lot of people, but shockingly little nature left. Most Western economic models assume cheap and abundant energy forever. They assume cheap and abundant everything forever.“ That accounting and those assumptions are fundamentally flawed. The planet is a closed system. Regardless of advancing technology humans are not endowed with the ability to create matter, only manipulate it. How can the planet posses an unlimited supply of everything? Such rationale is in direct conflict with existence.

What concerns me about those unwilling to accept change is the detachment from reality it suggests. Climate change denial is a denial of all change. It’s also a denial that human technology, industrial processes, systematic inefficiency and waste, and over-consumption have inevitable consequences. When the global population was smaller and resources more abundant those consequences were realized far from where they were generated. Life prior to industrialization was squalid and miserable for the majority. There’s no question that the Industrial Revolution was also a sociological revolution. It dramatically raised the standard of living and ushered in generations of abundance and plenty for countries who chose to industrialize. But those very benefits made it easy to ignore negative impacts because they were rarely collocated with where the benefit was experienced. Fortunately, we’ve been able to mitigate the negative, or ignore it, or pretend it doesn’t exist. Countries who have not industrialized haven’t fared as well. The welfare of people, and condition of the environment, at the other end of industrial impact have exponentially declined in inverse proportion.

Not only has industrialization altered our relationship with the planet, but it has fundamentally changed our attitude toward the environment while transforming society. Planet, people, power, and profit have all been reshaped in ways that have brought about incredible reward for some and paucity for others. For generations we’ve removed the environmental price to be paid from our accounting balance sheets, and perpetually shifted that liability to future generations or other parts of the world. We need to seriously regard changes in climate as potential warning signs that a long outstanding bill may soon be due.

I believe we have a choice to make that no other generation in human history has faced. We can fundamentally change the way we make things, change certain aspects of human behavior that inexorably produce negative environmental impact, or accept a changing climate that could reshape the planet. Is it absolute that a changed planet will be detrimental for mankind? No, but it’s likely to be different enough and transform fast enough that significant suffering and hardship are possible. Why choose such a path when we already know the stunning potential of human ingenuity? What the human mind can imagine it can achieve. That’s a far more compelling course than one dependent on maintaining status-quo.

I’m shocked when I hear or read anti-sustainability proponents suggest that altering the current industrial model is certain disaster. The history of America is replete with awe-inspiring stories of obstacles overcome, people rising to the moment, and changing history. Why not view this as a unique moment in time to engage our better virtues? Won’t we also be better people for the effort? When we endeavor to be our best, everyone wins. Refusing to do so because we fear change seems lazy, stupid, and weak. Those aren’t traits worthy of praise from our kids and grandchildren.

Ultimately, this is a question of character. Does this generation have what it takes to adapt to change, address change, and choose the change necessary to ensure that future generations won’t be forced to pay for our inaction? When we look back, will we celebrate our refusal to accept reality, or rejoice in our eagerness to meet it and build a better world? I’m thrilled by the prospect that we may be witness to spectacular human creativity and intellect applied to these questions. I’m hopeful that we’ll choose constructive over detrimental change, that we’ll take responsibility for our environmental impact, and commit to sustainable alternatives.

Happy Blog Action Day everyone.

related posts:

• March 13, 2010 -- water wars at MiaGreen (4)
• February 3, 2010 -- BrightTALK Green Building – Review 2 (3)
• February 2, 2010 -- BrightTALK Green Building – Review 1 (5)
• September 21, 2009 -- bitter rhetoric: values voter summit (1)
• September 11, 2009 -- we need a sustainability race (1)