The viewpoints of a random cross-section of humans on any subject matter would usually be as varied as the colors of the rainbow. But it’s the diversity of the rainbow- and the human race- that makes it so fascinating. On the matter of climate change, there’s a spectrum of opinions as well. On one end of the spectrum, you have those who’ve refused to believe in the science-backed veracity of climate: and on the other end, climate “doomism.”
In recent times, there’s been the rise of a different kind of climate skepticism, especially among the “Generation Z:” climate doomism. Climate doomism is the belief that we are past the point of being able to do anything about climate change and that humanity is destined for extinction. Some refer to it as climate anxiety.
In light of our current understanding of climate change, the impacts of global warming we’re already seeing, and the consequences still projected to come, the concern (and perhaps anxiety) is understandable. But are the climate doomers right? Will the world be utterly destroyed by climate change by 2100? We’ll get the correct answer to this question by looking at the numbers (they never lie).
Since the onset of the Industrial Revolution, Earth’s global average temperature has increased by at least 1°C, with the northern and southern poles warming three times faster than the rest of the world. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has risen from 218 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times to the 412 ppm we currently have. Our oceans have also warmed and become more acidic in this time frame.
By tracking these changes and feeding the data into climate models, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) used a series of Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) to predict our future climate. These pathways, published in the 2021 IPCC report, are essentially five different scenarios of how Earth’s future climate could look like. The scenario we eventually find ourselves in depends on how much limit Earth’s fever. And as our emissions are the pathogenesis of Earth’s current febrile illness, the extent to which we reduce our emissions is what determines our future outcome.
Of the five scenarios, there are two optimistic ones, an “OK” one, a dark one, and a rather apocalyptic one. The two optimistic possibilities see us adhering strictly to the Paris Climate Agreements; reducing emissions to a net zero by 2050; devising carbon trapping technology worldwide, and keeping Earth below 2°C by 2100. While this amount of warming is reduced enough to save us from the more severe impacts of climate change, there would still be an increase in the severity and frequency of adverse weather, and the sea level could rise by up to two feet.
Those two scenarios are called “optimistic” for a reason. Going by historic patterns of socioeconomic development and our current trajectory, we’re more likely to end up in the third scenario. In this “future,” emissions continue to peak until sometime around 2050, when we’re eventually able to make it decline. In this scenario, the world would have warmed by about 2.7°C by 2100. There would be a significant increase in the severity and frequency of adverse weather, and the sea level could rise to nearly three feet.
In the dark future, we do nothing about climate change, and carbon emissions continue to rise. In this scenario, Earth has warmed by 3.6°C in 2100, there’s no longer ice in the Arctic during summer, and of course, it’s sizzling hot. In the “apocalyptic” scenario, humanity doubles its emissions. In that scenario, Earth warms to 4.4°C by 2100, making it hotter than it has been for millions of years. The adverse weather events would be off-kilter. In this “future,” being poor would be a crime, and the punishment would be a condemnation to hell: hell on Earth. Thankfully, it’s not likely we’ll go down this path.
So back to our original question: “Will the world truly be utterly destroyed by climate change by the year 2100?” The answer is obviously “No.” Whichever pathway we eventually take, there would likely still be humans and some biodiversity on Earth. But how much biodiversity? How much would the Earth have altered? How habitable would Earth still be? What happens after 2100? The answers to the future are dependent on the actions of today.
These Representative Conservative Pathways (RCPs) essentially put the future in our hands. The RCPs also inform us that time for meaningful intervention is winding down. What tomorrow we (and our children) find ourselves in years to come depends on the resolutions of today.
And while we don’t have much time left to take meaningful action, we still have a little time to save Earth’s biodiversity from extinction. The RCPs inform us of that much. While there is cause for concern over Earth’s current state and its possible trajectory, climate doomism doesn’t help much. In fact, it’s counterproductive.
Climate denial and climate doom are both extremes on the climate action spectrum. And they are both as dangerous. Let us act while there is still time. Let us take action now.
