The human species now has the capacity to do almost as much damage as an asteroid, and is increasingly using that capacity.  While we will never be completely certain until it is too late to stop it, it is now pretty much beyond doubt that human induced climate change is underway and accelerating.  If we continue as we are, we will reach a point at some stage where we could lose the atmosphere.  James Lovelock argued that would be irreversible, and curtains.  Another Mars.

We will in any case run short of the fossil fuels that are causing the problem, though not in time unfortunately.  Global production will soon start to drop, failing to meet accelerating demand.  That will lead to social breakdown, and who knows what unforeseen consequences, and possibly a similar outcome.  On present trends then, the human species has to be regarded as another form of 'extinctor'.

However, the human species is very diverse.  There are those recklessly pursuing the path of self-destruction, whom we might term 'extinctors'.  At the same time, we have others actively trying to stop them, by putting in place alternatives to prevent a catastrophe, whom we might term 'saviours'.  It is too easy just to blame humanity as a whole, and stand back to wait for the bang.  As a small contribution, this piece sets out to classify the various types of human from extinctors to saviours.

Actions are more significant than words, so at the ends of our spectrum we have those doing the worst physical damage and those implementing the most effective mitigation.  We have all shades in between.

The oil, gas and coal companies are amongst the worst, along with those who incompetently, selfishly, or malevolently oppose the development of renewable energies, thereby aiding and abetting these extinctors.  However, those who go to war to secure those fossil fuels are even worse.  They expend huge amounts of energy derived from fossil fuels to conduct the wars, only to liberate the fuels so that their use can cause further emissions.  A 'double whammy'.  It would therefore appear that the authors of the Iraq war, for example, and all their backers and financiers, are at the very leading edge of the extinctors.

On the other hand we have those who are producing energy from sources that don't release climate damaging emissions.  The nuclear power types see themselves as saviours, but in truth their radioactive contamination of the biosphere is a threat to the genetic integrity of all species.  They are thus another longer-term type of extinctor.  While renewable energies do little harm, and displace much dirtier fossil fuel plant, they aren't actively reversing the problem caused by greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.  That is down to those carrying out natural sequestration of GHGs.  So it seems that those around the world planting trees with a view leaving them in situ or at least storing the wood, not burning it, may be the greatest saviours, so far.

Climate change may in fact be so serious that we will have to put in place technologies to actively remove GHGs from the atmosphere, and store the result in some fixed form; for all the world, reversing the combustion of fossil fuels.   If driven by renewable energy, these technologies could make a serious net contribution to the problem. Those who promote such developments might be the ultimate saviours.  This category would not include Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) power plants, as they make no net removal of emissions.

The shades in between these extremes could be broken into a few helpful categories.  Not as bad as the extinctors, those doing serious damage such as heavy polluting industry, like steel and chemicals, nuclear, airlines and their more active passengers, and those clearing forests and so on might be termed 'wreckers'.

Milder still is most of the Western world, emitting considerable amounts from their businesses, houses, cars and holiday flights; they put a new twist on the term 'consumers'.  Somewhere between the consumers and the wreckers we have those around the globe rearing farm animals, whose gaseous emissions are a serious climate change issue.

There is a vast section of the World's population who consume little fossil fuel, directly or indirectly, normally because they are too poor.  They do damage of course, by for example cutting trees for fuel.  Some in this category are actively living more sustainable lives, protecting forests and so on.  We might term this large group as the 'neutrals'.

When we try to look on the positive side of the scales, unfortunately we find very few people, another indication that we are at risk of runaway climate change and global disaster.  Three groups of people present themselves.

Firstly, those who do some small good overall, by doing little travel, consuming local produce, living in climates that require little heating or cooling, and using for example solar energy for their needs.   Many people around the Mediterranean live this way.  Those further afield implementing sustainable solutions, doing organic farming, planting some trees and so on, could be included in a group called the ‘sustainers’.  We might also include here those in the IT sector whose contribution means less unnecessary travel, because communication is now much easier, with the likes of Skype or Facetime.

Next up we have a group of people who advocate for sustainable development, and thus make a positive impact with others, multiplying their efforts though thousands of others.  The most well known of these ‘advocates’ would be former US Vice President Al Gore, and less well known would be people like the late Herman Scheer MdB, or for example the Greens in all their forms.

Finally, we could add the relatively small group that is actually putting the sustainable solutions in place, such as the renewable energy sector, the electric and hydrogen car manufacturers, the energy saving industry, and so on; let’s call them the ‘Renewers’.

So our spectrum is:

- Saviours

- Renewers

- Advocates

- Sustainers

- Neutrals

- Consumers

- Wreckers

1. -Extinctors
   

Which are you?

Grattan