There is a qualitative difference between the climate crisis and the other problems we are tackling with.
Those who want to change the world assume, generally, that the world is changeable.
This assumption is valid and sound for many problems, but might be wrong in some cases. For instance, however useful it could be, no one leads a struggle for a universe where Maxwell equations don’t hold.
Thus, our initial statement should be reformulated as follows: Those who want to change the world assume, generally, that the world is changeable with respect to the problem they address.
This updated assumption is also sound and valid for many social problems. In fact, we may be led to suppose that the world can be changed with respect to all social problems.
It can be difficult, but not impossible: We can imagine a world without violence against women, and we can get closer to our goal. There can be peace in Middle East, even if it would require decades of sustained efforts.
But, what if a particular social issue involves elements of physics and chemistry? What if natural mechanisms impose restrictions to the essence of the issue? For instance, what if, after a certain stage, this particular issue becomes irreversible, for reasons purely explained by physics and chemistry?
That is, what if those who want to change the world have limited time to do so?
This is where the climate crisis differs from most of the social issues. Earth ecosystems contain “tipping points”, points of no return, when it comes to climate change.
On the other hand, having limited time to solve a problem does not mean anything by itself. We always have limited time. After all, one day the solar system will disappear altogether.
However, climate science tell us that our time frame is not only limited, but also very, very, very little.
This perspective is new. We never worked with “system change on a deadline”. Read the article here:
PS: Yes, I prepared a trailer for an article.