This Crisis Can't Be "Solved"

I don't know where this little audio clip is from, it sounds like a speakerphone, but it's clear Al has had enough of denialism and its cost.  It's going to sound hysterical to denialists but those who are equally frustrated with the pernicious effects of the heavy financed denialist campaign (carried out by the same people who ran the tobacco companies' campaign denying that smoking was bad for you, using the same methods--which is what Gore is talking about as this clip begins) can only identify with his anger.

Al Gore has done a lot to spotlight this crucial issue, and his Climate Reality Project kicks off in September.  He also did a lot to re-name this the Climate Crisis, which better communicates the urgency than the less than riveting "global warming," "greenhouse effect" or "climate change."  But he's also behind what I consider an unfortunate and inaccurate description of the task at hand.  He calls it "solving the Climate Crisis."  He started it, and even Bill McKibben has adopted it.  But it's wrong.

First of all, there's a category error.  You don't solve a crisis.  You address or confront a crisis.  You solve a problem.  This is more than just jarring to the ear.  It suggests that this crisis is just one problem.  It's much more than that.  Plus it suggests that it can be solved--that is, that it is a solution that will make it all go away.  There is no such solution.  There are problems responsible for the crisis that can be addressed, and some problems that can be solved.  But we are experiencing the Climate Crisis now, in its early stages.  We are going to be experiencing the acceleration of the Climate Crisis for years, and nothing will prevent it.  We must address the problems that arise because of it--the effects in the present and near future.  We must confront the worsening crisis in the farther future by solving the problems of how to maintain a civilization while radically reducing greenhouse gases emissions, and restoring the environment that sustains life on land and in the water, and perhaps even our atmosphere.

I call it dealing with effects and with causes.  Mark Hertsgaard calls it playing defense (in the short-term) and offense (for the long-term.)  The tonedeaf call it adaptation and mitigation.  But together they are the zones of activity to confront the Climate Crisis for the next century or likely more.  The problems involved in confronting this crisis are in such areas as flood control, public health, clean energy technology, economic reorganization--well, eventually just about everything.  Not exactly a range that makes "solution" or "solve" a very meaningful term. 

Those are multiple problems that can be addressed with varying degrees of success--with smaller problems "solved" along the way--by many people doing different things.  (If you're looking for good news, this is probably it--a lot of people will have something truly meaningful to do with their lives, and many kinds of talent will be needed.)  But we begin by recognizing, confronting and addressing the Climate Crisis.  While it's true that much can be done without even mentioning the Climate Crisis, it's unlikely we're going to be able to avoid confronting it for long.