Search for any green Service

Find green products from around the world in one place

Meta Powers Towards Net Zero with Carbon Removal Projects

Meta Powers Towards Net Zero with Carbon Removal Projects

Any organisation worth their sustainability salt knows that reaching net zero emissions in operations alone is not enough

Decarbonization must extend beyond offices and factories to include Scope 3, from the emissions caused by suppliers to those created by employees.

For Meta, the world’s fifth-biggest tech company, this challenge is being met with ambitious targets and bold, meaningful action.

Having already hit net zero emissions in global operations in 2020, the social media giant now has its sustainability sights set on achieving net zero value chain emissions by 2030.

This is quite the challenge, given 99% of Meta’s carbon footprint came from Scope 3 in 2022 – and this continues to rise.

“We know that reaching net zero emissions across our value chain will not be an easy task,” Rachel Peterson, Vice President of Data Centre Strategy at Meta said in the company’s 2023 Sustainability Report.

“Right now, our Scope 3 emissions are increasing and will continue to do so as we work to support the global demand for the services we provide.”

 

Meta Tackles Hard-to-Abate Sectors with Carbon Removal Projects

Meta acknowledges that reaching this goal requires a significant shift in how it builds infrastructure and operates its entire business – and the 20-year-old company is prioritising efficiency and circularity in its business decisions and embracing low-carbon technology to operate with a lower emissions footprint.

For example, through its supplier engagement programme, Meta is working to decarbonise its supply chain and enable at least two-thirds of its suppliers to set SBTi-aligned reduction targets by 206.

However, there are some emissions from hard-to-abate sectors the Facebook owner knows will be difficult to reduce by the end of the decade.

And so to tackle this, Meta has turned to carbon removal projects, the third pillar in its high-level emissions reduction strategy.

In a white paper outlining its Net Zero Strategy, the company says investing in value chain emissions reductions projects is necessary to address sources it can’t directly influence – like companies or processes used to extract and process the copper in data centre hardware or mechanical electrical equipment.

“These projects offer a significant opportunity to decarbonise our business at pace and scale require to achieve our 2030 reduction target,” the paper states.

For Meta, a diverse approach to carbon removal that includes both nature-based and technological approaches is crucial – not only to ensure near-term climate impact but to support carbon removal solutions for the future.

This strategy involves the purchase of credits from projects that align with Meta’s principles, from reforestation to investment in direct air capture technology.

 

Nature-Based Solutions in Mitigating Carbon Emissions

Since 2021, the social media giant has supported numerous nature-based carbon removal projects, from Australia to Kenya, including increasing forest carbon stock of community ejido forests in Oaxaca and increasing stored carbon via protection of forests that provide habitat for mitigating salmon in California.

And demonstrating its continued commitment to investing in nature-based solutions to mitigate carbon emissions, Meta recently signed a major carbon credits deal for 6.75 million carbon credits with Aspiration, a leading provider of sustainable financial services.

These credits hail from a myriad of ecosystem restoration and natural carbon removal approaches, including native tree and mangrove reforestation, agroforestry, and the implementation of sustainable agricultural practices.

Meta’s role in the voluntary carbon market extends beyond purchasing credits from projects to supporting new project development through financing and encouraging the evolution of standards that bring more certainty to the market.

Among the ways Meta is driving development in the sector is through collaborative action that will “aggregate the resources of multiple companies to create rapid change at scale”.

This includes a collaborative pledge to develop carbon projects that centre Indigenous leadership.

Through 1t.org, the National Indian Carbon Coalition and Meta have pledged to support and promote a model of carbon projects that centre on the leadership, traditional ecological knowledge, and vision of Indigenous Peoples for themselves and their land.

Among other collaborative projects:

  • Participation in the Business Alliance to Scale Climate Solutions (BASCS), which provides a platform for businesses and climate experts to meet, learn, discuss and act together to improve climate solutions.
  • Collaboration with the World Resources Institute to develop a method to map forest canopy height↗ at individual tree-scale using a new Meta AI training model. We have mapped forest canopy in California and São Paulo, Brazil, and are making the data public and freely available

 

 

Meta’s Role in Scaling Carbon Removal Technologies

In further driving development in the sector, Meta joined forces with other big tech companies in 2022 to accelerate the development of carbon removal technologies by guaranteeing future demand.

While some say focusing on carbon capture is a distraction to the real goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Meta argues that both emissions reductions and carbon dioxide removal are needed.

And climate science backs this up.

Scientists say removing the carbon emissions that we have already pumped into the atmosphere is necessary if we are to avoid the 1.5-degree rises in global temperature set out in the Paris Agreement.

Launched in 2022, Frontier is a US$925 million joint commitment between Meta, Stripe, Shopify, McKinsey Sustainability and Alphabet – more recently bolstered with four new companies – Autodesk, H&M Group, JPMorgan Chase and Workday – committing a combined US$100 million.

Frontier helps its member companies purchase CO2 removal via pre-purchase agreements or offtake agreements. The goal is to spur the development of a new industry by providing a novel source of funding that isn’t based on debt or equity investments, but on actual product purchases before the technology is fully available at scale.

So far, Frontier has spent $5.6 million buying nearly 9,000 tonnes of contracted carbon removal from 15 different carbon dioxide removal startups.

Among these, RepAir uses electrochemical cells and clean electricity to capture carbon dioxide from the air, while Living Carbon is a synthetic biology startup working on engineering natural systems to remove carbon dioxide.

With this strategy, Meta is helping to expand the voluntary carbon market, overcome barriers to scale, and at the same time achieve its own ambitious net zero goals.

 

 


 

 

Source

‘Ambitious, achievable and beneficial’: EU Commission pushes for more stretching 2030 climate target

‘Ambitious, achievable and beneficial’: EU Commission pushes for more stretching 2030 climate target

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has officially backed plans to increase the EU’s 2030 greenhouse gas emissions reduction target to 55 per cent from 1990 levels, as she announced a raft of climate priorities in her maiden State of the Union address to European lawmakers this morning.

Addressing the European Parliament in Brussels, von der Leyen emphasised that pushing the EU’s existing carbon reduction target of 40 per cent to a more stretching 55 per cent by 2030 was “ambitious, achievable and beneficial for Europe”, and would enable to bloc to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 in line with the Paris Agreement.

“I recognise that this increase from 40 to 55 is too much for some and not enough for others,” she said in her speech, designed to set out the Commission’s priorities for the year ahead. “But our impact assessment shows that our economy and industry can manage it.”

Lawmakers in European Parliament are set to vote on the long-debated climate proposal – which is believed to be supported by a dozen of the EU’s 27 member states – at a plenary session in early October.

Should the proposals secure approval from MEPs and Member States, von der Leyen said the EU would revise all its climate legislation by next summer to comply with the new 55 per cent emissions reduction target. “We will enhance emissions trading, boost renewable energy, improve energy efficiency, reform energy taxation,” she said. “But the mission of the EU Green Deal involves much more than cutting emissions. That is important, but it is about making systemic modernisation across our economy, society and industry. It’s about building a stronger world to live in.”

Von der Leyen confirmed that 37 per cent of the Commission’s proposed €750bn Covid-19 recovery package – the so-called Next Generation EU fund – would go towards EU Green Deal objectives, and that 30 per cent of the fund would be raised through green bonds.

Hydrogen production, electric charging points, fossil-free steel production and sustainable construction were all areas singled out by von der Leyen as contenders for €750bn package.

She also reiterated the commission’s plans to introduce a carbon border tax on imported goods, envisaged as a means of avoiding ‘carbon leakage’ by discouraging more carbon intensive goods from abroad flooding the EU market. She said the plans would help drive a “level playing field” as the EU attempted to drive a green recovery from the coronavirus.

“Carbon must have its price, because nature cannot pay this price anymore,” she said. “The carbon border adjustment mechanism should motivate foreign producers and EU importers to reduce their emissions while ensuring we level the playing field in a World Trade Organisation-compatible way.”

Meanwhile, von der Leyen said, the bloc would embark on “high ambition coalitions” dedicated to fighting deforestation and supporting nature preservation – including an ongoing push to create protected areas in Antarctica which she dubbed “one of the biggest acts of environmental protection in history”.

The push for higher ambition in the EU’s 2030 climate target is seen as key to encouraging other major economies – including the USA and China – to ramp up their efforts in support of the Paris Agreement ahead of next year’s crucial COP26 UN climate conference hosted by the UK in Glasgow.

As such, several green groups welcomed von der Leyen’s backing for the 55 per cent by 2030 target. Jill Duggan, executive director of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) Europe urged the EU to enshrine the ‘at least 55 per cent’ target into its Paris Agreement commitment before the close of the year in order to galvanise action in other high emitting economies.

“A stronger commitment from the EU could leverage greater ambition from other countries in urgent need of raising their climate commitments,” she said. “This is especially true in light of the approaching presidential election in the United States, the G20 where Italy is presiding and where greater ambition is most urgent, and for China, soon to be home to the world’s largest carbon market.”

Helen Clarkson, chief executive of green business NGO The Climate Group, echoed Duggan’s call for the EU to swiftly adopt the target. “A stronger European climate target is critical to the EU’s global leadership role and unlocking greater ambition from other countries ahead of next year’s crucial COP26 summit,” she said. “EU member states need to reach an agreement by the end of the year to give businesses and regions the policy and investment certainty they need. This will fire the starting gun on bold, ambitious green economic recovery for the European economy.”

To deliver on the target, Clarkson stressed that the EU must mandate the phase out all petrol and diesel cars by 2035, set a goal of tripling the rate of energy efficiency renovations for existing buildings, and ensure all countries introduce plans to enable direct corporate sourcing of renewable energy.

Elsewhere, however, some green groups raised concerns that the EU Commission’s proposal would also allow emissions-removals through ‘natural solutions’ such as forestry and soil restoration to count towards the 55 per cent target, potentially undermining efforts to decarbonise sectors such as transport and industry.

Moreover, William Todts, executive director at Brussels-based NGO Transport & Environment, warned that plans to include road transport in the EU ETS could undermine the “ambitious” 55 per cent target.

“The EU is finally getting real on the climate crisis,” he said. “The key to tackling transport, Europe’s number one polluter, is carbon dioxide standards that drive car and truck makers to go electric much faster whilst making charging as simple as filling up at gas stations. But the plan to put road transport in the EU carbon market is a mistake. It will undercut the national climate targets whilst jacking up fuel prices for low-income families.”

 


 

By Cecilia Keating

Source: Business Green

UK’s CO2 emissions have fallen 29% over the past decade

UK’s CO2 emissions have fallen 29% over the past decade
  • The 2.9% fall in 2019 marks a seventh consecutive year of carbon cuts for the UK, the longest series on record.
  • It also means UK carbon emissions in 2019 fell to levels last seen in 1888.

The UK’s CO2 emissions fell by 2.9% in 2019, according to Carbon Brief analysis. This brings the total reduction to 29% over the past decade since 2010, even as the economy grew by a fifth.

Another 29% reduction in coal use last year was the driving force behind the decline in UK emissions in 2019, with oil and gas use largely unchanged. Carbon emissions from coal have fallen by 80% over the past decade, while those from gas are down 20% and oil by just 6%.

The 2.9% fall in 2019 marks a seventh consecutive year of carbon cuts for the UK, the longest series on record. It also means UK carbon emissions in 2019 fell to levels last seen in 1888.

The analysis comes as the UK – and the world – enter what needs to be a “decade of action” in the 2020s, if global goals to limit rising temperatures are to be met. Ahead of the COP26 UN climate summit this November, countries are expected to submit enhanced pledges to tackle emissions.

But UK government projections show the country will miss its legally binding carbon targets later this decade. To meet the UK’s carbon budgets, CO2 emissions would need to fall by another 31% by 2030, whereas government projections expect just a 10% cut, based on current policies.

The Committee on Climate Change (CCC), which is the UK government’s official climate advisory body, has also said the UK’s targets over the next decade are “likely” to be insufficient, given the increased goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.

 

Annual decline

Carbon Brief’s provisional estimates suggest that the UK’s CO2 emissions fell by another 2.9% in 2019, once again driven primarily by falling coal use, as shown in the table, below.

 

Annual change in UK CO2 emissions
Image: Carbon brief

 

The bulk of the reduction in coal use last year came from the power sector, which accounted for 93% of the overall fall in demand for the fuel in 2019. The remainder was from industry.

Coal generation fell by close to 60% and accounted for just 2% of UK electricity last year – less than solar. Fossil fuels collectively accounted for a record-low 43% of the total, according to Carbon Brief analysis published at the start of January. Some 54% of electricity generation in the UK is now from low-carbon sources, including 37% from renewables and 20% from wind alone.

There were 83 days in 2019 when the UK went without coal power, including a record 18-day stretch in May. Almost all of the UK’s remaining coal power plants have announced plans to close over the next 12 months, leaving just three operating ahead of the 2024 government deadline.

Carbon Brief’s emissions analysis shows that CO2 from burning gas remained virtually unchanged during 2019. The fuel is now the single-largest contributor to UK emissions, ahead of oil.

Gas demand for electricity generation, as well as demand to heat homes and businesses, were relatively flat, with 2019 seeing similar temperatures to those in 2018. (Both years were around 0.5C above the long-term average for 1981-2010.)

Oil demand and emissions fell by nearly 1% in 2019, Carbon Brief’s analysis suggests. This is despite rising road traffic, up 0.8% in the year to September 2019, according to separate government figures published in December.

The UK’s vehicle fleet is changing under several competing influences, with electric vehicle sales surging and diesel cars losing out to petrol in the wake of the Volkswagen emissions scandal.

Meanwhile, a broader global trend towards heavier vehicles, such as SUVs, means that the average CO2 emissions per mile for new UK cars has been increasing for three years. Notably, the relative mix of traffic from private cars, vans and trucks is also shifting, as discussed below.

 

Past decade

Carbon Brief’s analysis shows that the UK’s CO2 emissions have fallen by 29% over the past decade since 2010, the year when the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government took office. At the same time, the UK’s economic output has risen by 18%, as the chart below shows.

 

Change in the UK’s CO2 emissions and real GDP since 2010, per cent.
Image: Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), World Bank and Carbon Brief analysis

 

Looking at international data up to 2018 – the most recent year available – the UK has seen the fastest decline in CO2 emissions of any major economy. Only the US has seen larger absolute cuts than the UK, in terms of tonnes of CO2 over this period, but its 5% decline is smaller in percentage terms.

The UK’s CO2 emissions in 2019 stood at an estimated 354 million tonnes of CO2 (MtCO2), some 41% below 1990 levels.

This places the UK in between Australia (421MtCO2 in 2018) and Poland (344MtCO2). The UK’s per-capita CO2 emissions in 2019, at 5.3tCO2, are above the global average (4.8 in 2018) and India (2.0), but below the EU average (7.0) and the figure for China (7.2) or the US (16.6).

Almost all of the recent progress on UK emissions has come in the power sector, which has seen dramatic changes over the past decade. Coal use to generate electricity has plummeted thanks to reductions in demand and the rise of renewables, while gas power has also fallen slightly.

By way of illustration, the chart below shows that coal accounts for around three-fifths of the decline in UK CO2 emissions over the past decade. The vast majority of this – some 89% – is due to falling coal use in the power sector. (Coal use in the steel industry has halved, accounting for a further 8% of the decline in coal emissions over the past decade.)

 

Contributors of change for the UKs drop in carbon emissions
Image: Carbon Brief analysis of data on energy and emissions from BEIS.

 

In order to meet climate goals towards 2030, the UK’s CO2 emissions will need to fall another 31% from 2019, compared with the 29% achieved over the past decade. Emissions would need to fall even faster if the targets are raised in line with net-zero by 2050. In contrast, government projections suggest CO2 emissions will only fall by a further 10% by 2030.

(Carbon Brief estimates that UK greenhouse gas emissions in 2019 were some 45% below 1990 levels, against a target of 61% for the five years covering 2028-2032.)

Moreover, coal’s share of the UK electricity mix is now so low that there is very limited scope to continue driving emissions cuts by reducing use of the fuel. This means other, more visible sectors of the economy will need to make progress for the UK to continue hitting its legally binding goals.

As the chart above shows, the past decade has seen much more limited progress in cutting emissions from oil (down 6%) or gas (20%), with these fuels broadly associated with transport (oil) and space heating in homes or offices (gas).

Domestic gas use has declined by 20% since 2010, thanks to improvements in the energy efficiency of homes and regulations driving a shift to more efficient condensing boilers. Yet the majority of homes remain far short of the government’s aspirational target for higher efficiency and UK properties are among the least-well insulated in Europe.

Gas use for electricity generation has also fallen by 25% over the past decade, even as coal generation has collapsed, thanks to reduced demand and the rise of renewables.

Emissions from oil use have remained relatively unchanged over the past decade. This is largely due to transport, which is now the single largest source of UK CO2 emissions on a sectoral basis. The country’s cars are now responsible for more CO2 than the entire power sector, for example.

Although oil emissions have changed little over the past decade, this conceals some significant shifts within the transport total, thanks to shifting driving patterns and modest improvements in fuel efficiency over time.

For example, the number of miles driven by cars has increased by around 5% over the past decade, while CO2 emissions from cars have fallen by 3%.

Meanwhile, the number of miles driven by “light duty vehicles”, such as delivery vans, has shot up by 23% in a decade, corresponding to a 20% rise in CO2 emissions.

Vans and trucks together make up around a third of all UK emissions from transport, with cars adding another 55% and the remainder coming from domestic aviation, shipping and railways.

 

Historical trend

After a record seven consecutive years of decline, the UK’s CO2 emissions are now some 41% below 1990 levels. Outside years with general strikes, seen clearly in the chart, below, this is the lowest level since 1888, when the first-ever Football League match was played and Tower Bridge was being built near what is now Carbon Brief’s office in London.

 

BEIS, Carbon Brief analysis and the World Resources Institute CAIT data explorer. The CAIT data has been adjusted because it excludes emissions from land use and forestry.
Image: BEIS, Carbon Brief analysis and the World Resources Institute CAIT data explorer. The CAIT data has been adjusted because it excludes emissions from land use and forestry.

 

Although no other country in the world has achieved similar reductions, it is worth emphasising that the UK was the first to industrialise. As such, its cumulative historical emissions still rank as the fourth-highest in the world.

 

Reasons for change

If the UK’s energy system had remained unchanged over the past decade, then the country’s rising population and economic growth would have driven emissions higher, rather than lower.

This is shown in the chart, below, which breaks down the reasons for the dramatic reduction in emissions that has actually occurred.

The largest contributor to falling emissions over the past decade has been improvements in energy intensity, which is the amount of energy needed to produce each unit of GDP. Broadly speaking, this reflects the fact that the UK has become much more energy efficient.

The second-largest contributor has been a shift to cleaner fuels, primarily renewable sources of electricity. Together, these effects have more than offset the impact of rising population and GDP.

 

Contributions to the change in UK CO2 emissions between 2010 (leftmost column) and 2019
Image: Carbon Brief analysis of data on energy and emissions from BEIS, population data from the World Bank and UK real GDP estimates from the World Bank.

 

The various factors in the chart above are estimated from a “Kaya identity”, according to which emissions are the product of population, multiplied by GDP per capita, multiplied by the energy intensity of GDP, multiplied by the CO2 intensity of energy.

CO2 = P x GDP/capita x energy/GDP x CO2/energy

To calculate the relative contributions to changing emissions, each factor is systematically varied while holding other elements constant. For example, the Kaya identity can be used to estimate what UK CO2 emissions would have been in 2019, if population had remained at 2010 levels.

As noted in the caption to the figure, above, the chart labels are a shorthand. Specifically, changes in the energy intensity of GDP, labelled as “energy efficiency”, are a reflection of genuine demand reductions – due to more efficient products and processes – but they also reflect the increasing share of energy coming from renewable sources.

This is because a large part of the “primary energy” contained in raw fossil fuels – a lump of coal, for example – is lost as waste heat when the fuel is burned to produce useful energy. The same is not true of electricity from windfarms or solar panels, which, therefore, has a lower energy intensity.

 

Carbon Brief calculations

Carbon Brief’s estimates of the UK’s CO2 emissions in 2019 are based on analysis of provisional energy use figures published by BEIS on 28 February 2020. The same approach has accurately estimated year-to-year changes in emissions in previous years (see table, below).

 

Estimated year-on-year change in UK CO2 emissions versus reported results
Image: Carbon Brief

 

One large source of uncertainty is the provisional energy use data, which BEIS revises at the end of March each year and often again later on. Emissions data is also subject to revision in light of improvements in data collection and the methodology used.

The table above applies Carbon Brief’s emissions calculations to the latest energy use and emissions figures, which may differ from those published previously.

Another source of uncertainty is the fact that Carbon Brief’s approach to estimating the annual change in CO2 output differs from the methodology used for the BEIS provisional estimates. This is largely because BEIS has access to more granular data, which is not available for public use.

However, Carbon Brief understands that its methodology has over the past year been used to improve the early “pre-provisional” estimates produced by the department for internal use, prior to the release of full provisional figures at the end of March each year.

In Carbon Brief’s approach, UK CO2 emissions are estimated by multiplying the reported consumption of each fossil fuel, in energy terms, by its emissions factor. This is the amount of CO2 released for each unit of energy consumed and it varies for different fuels.

For example, diesel, petrol and jet fuel have different emissions factors and Carbon Brief’s analysis accounts for this where possible. This adjustment is based on the quantity of each fuel type used per year, drawn from separate BEIS figures covering oilcoal and gas.

Emissions from land use and forestry are assumed to remain at the same level as in 2018. This year, Carbon Brief adopted the BEIS approach to estimating the change in emissions from greenhouse gases other than CO2.

Note that the figures in this article are for emissions within the UK measured according to international guidelines. This means they exclude emissions associated with imported goods, including imported biomass, as well as the UK’s share of international aviation and shipping.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has published detailed comparisons between various different approaches to calculating UK emissions, on a territorial, consumption, environmental accounts or international accounting basis.

The UK’s consumption-based CO2 emissions increased between 1990 and 2007. Since then, however, they have fallen by a similar number of tonnes as emissions within the UK. Carbon Brief estimates that consumption-based CO2 emissions fell by around 21% over the past decade.

Bioenergy is a significant source of renewable energy in the UK and its climate benefits are disputed. Contrary to public perception, however, only around one quarter of bioenergy is imported.

International aviation is considered part of the UK’s carbon budgets and faces the prospect of tighter limits on its CO2 emissions. The international shipping sector recently agreed to at least halve its emissions by 2050, relative to 2008 levels.

 


 

What if we did everything right? This is what the world could look like in 2050

What if we did everything right? This is what the world could look like in 2050

The World We Are Creating

It is 2050. Beyond the emissions reductions registered in 2015, no further efforts were made to control emissions. We are heading for a world that will be more than 3 degrees warmer by 2100.

The first thing that hits you is the air.

In many places around the world, the air is hot, heavy, and depending on the day, clogged with particulate pollution. Your eyes often water. Your cough never seems to disappear. You think about some countries in Asia, where out of consideration sick people used to wear white masks to protect others from airborne infection. Now you wear a daily mask to protect yourself from air pollution. You can no longer walk out your front door and breathe fresh air: there is none. Instead, before opening doors or windows in the morning, you check your phone to see what the air quality will be. Everything might look fine— sunny and clear— but you know better. When storms and heat waves overlap and cluster, the air pollution and intensified surface ozone levels make it dangerous to go outside without a specially designed face mask (which only some can afford).

Southeast Asia and Central Africa lose more lives to filthy air than do Europe or the United States. There few people work outdoors anymore, and even indoors the air tastes slightly acidic, making you feel nauseated throughout the day. China stopped burning coal ten years ago, but that hasn’t made much difference in air quality around the world because you are still breathing dangerous exhaust fumes from millions of cars and buses everywhere. China has experimented with seeding rain clouds— the process of artificially inducing rain— hoping to wash pollution out of the sky, but results are mixed. Seeding clouds to artificially create more rain is difficult and unreliable, and even the wealthiest countries cannot achieve consistent results. In Europe and Asia, the practice has triggered international incidents because even the most skilled experts can’t control where the rain will fall, never mind that acid rain is deleterious to crops, wreaking havoc on food supply. As a result, crops are increasingly grown under cover to protect them from the weather, a trend that will only get stronger.

 

 

Our world is getting hotter. Over the next two decades, projections tell us that temperatures in some areas of the globe will rise even higher, an irreversible development utterly beyond our control. The world’s ecosystems have stopped absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and are, on balance, emitting it. Oceans, forests, plants, trees, and soil had for many years absorbed half the carbon dioxide we spewed out. Now there are few forests left, most of them either logged or consumed by wildfire, and the permafrost is belching greenhouse gases into an already overburdened atmosphere.

The increasing heat of the Earth is suffocating us, and in five to ten years, vast swaths of the planet will be uninhabitable. By 2100, Australia, North Africa, and parts of the western United States might be entirely abandoned. Now everyone knows what the future holds for their children and grandchildren: tipping point after tipping point has been reached until eventually there will be no more civilization. Humans will be cast to the winds again, gathering in small tribes, hunkered down and living on whatever patch of land might sustain them.

The planet has already reached several such tipping points. First was the vanishing of coral reefs. Some of us still remember diving amid majestic coral reefs, brimming with multicolored fish of all shapes and sizes. Corals are now almost gone. The Great Barrier Reef in Australia is the largest aquatic cemetery in the world. Efforts have been made to grow artificial corals farther north and south from the equator where the water is a bit cooler, but these efforts have failed, and marine life has not returned. Soon there will be no reefs anywhere— it is only a matter of a few years before the last 10 percent dies off.

The second tipping point was the melting of the ice sheets in the Arctic. There is no summer Arctic sea ice anymore because warming is worse at the poles— between 6 and 8 degrees higher than other areas. The melting happened silently in that cold place far north of most of the inhabited world, but its effects were soon noticed. The Great Melting was an accelerant of further global warming. The white ice used to reflect the sun’s heat, but now it’s gone, so the dark sea water absorbs more heat, expanding the mass of water and pushing sea levels even higher. More moisture in the air and higher sea surface temperatures have caused a surge in extreme hurricanes and tropical storms. Recently, coastal cities in Bangladesh, Mexico, and the United States have suffered brutal infrastructure destruction and extreme flooding, killing many thousands and displacing millions. This happens with increasing frequency now. Every day, because of rising water levels, some part of the world must evacuate to higher ground. Every day the news shows images of mothers with babies strapped to their backs, wading through floodwaters, and homes ripped apart by vicious currents that resemble mountain rivers. News stories tell of people living in houses with water up to their ankles because they have nowhere else to go, their children coughing and wheezing because of the mold growing in their beds, insurance companies declaring bankruptcy leaving survivors without resources to rebuild their lives. Contaminated water supplies, sea salt intrusions, and agricultural runoff are the order of the day. Because multiple disasters are always happening simultaneously in every country, it can take weeks or even months for basic food and water relief to reach areas pummeled by extreme floods. Diseases such as malaria, dengue, cholera, respiratory illnesses, and malnutrition are rampant.

Now all eyes are on the western Antarctic ice sheet. If and when it disappears, it could release a deluge of freshwater into the oceans, raising sea levels by over five meters. Cities like Miami, Shanghai, and Dhaka will be uninhabitable—ghostly Atlantises dotting the coasts of each continent, their skyscrapers jutting out of the water, their people evacuated or dead.

Those around the world who chose to remain on the coast because it had always been their home have more to deal with than rising water and floods— they must now witness the demise of a way of life-based on fishing. As oceans have absorbed carbon dioxide, the water has become more acidic, and the pH levels are now so hostile to marine life that all countries have banned fishing, even in international waters. Many people insist that the few fish that are left should be enjoyed while they last— an argument, hard to fault in many parts of the world, that applies to so much that is vanishing.

As devastating as rising oceans have been, droughts and heatwaves inland have created a special hell. Vast regions have succumbed to severe aridification followed by desertification, and wildlife has become a distant memory. These places can barely support human life; their aquifers dried up long ago, and their groundwater is almost gone. Marrakech and Volgograd are on the verge of becoming deserts. Hong Kong, Barcelona, and Abu Dhabi have been desalinating seawater for years, desperately trying to keep up with the constant wave of immigration from areas that have gone completely dry.

The Sahara Desert, which was once contained in Africa, now extends to Europe, into areas of Spain, Greece, and southern France. Extreme heat is on the march. If you live in Paris, you endure summer temperatures that regularly rise to 44 degrees Celsius (111 degrees Fahrenheit). This is no longer the headline-grabbing event it would have been thirty years ago. Everyone stays inside, drinks water, and dreams of air conditioning. You lie on your couch, a cold wet towel over your face, and try to rest without dwelling on the poor farmers on the outskirts of town who, despite recurrent droughts and wildfires, are still trying to grow grapes, olives, or soy— luxuries for the rich, not for you.

You try not to think about the 2 billion people who live in the hottest parts of the world, where, for upward of forty-five days per year, temperatures skyrocket to 60 degrees Celsius (140 degrees Fahrenheit)— a point at which the human body cannot be outside for longer than six hours because it loses the ability to cool itself down. Places such as central India are becoming uninhabitable. For a while people tried to carry on, but when you can’t work outside, when you can fall asleep only at four a.m. for a couple of hours because that’s the coolest part of the day, there’s not much you can do but leave. Mass migrations to less hot rural areas are beset by a host of refugee problems, civil unrest, and bloodshed over diminished water availability.

Inland glaciers around the world are almost gone. The millions who depended on the Himalayan, Alpine, and Andean glaciers to regulate water availability throughout the year are in a state of constant emergency: there is no more snow turning to ice atop mountains in the winter, so there is no more gradual melting for the spring and summer. Now there are either torrential rains leading to flooding or prolonged droughts. The most vulnerable communities with the least resources have already seen what ensues when water is scarce: sectarian violence, mass migration, and death.

Even in some parts of the United States, there are fiery conflicts over water, battles between the rich who are willing to pay for as much water as they want and everyone else demanding equal access to the life-enabling resource. The taps in nearly all public facilities are locked, and those in restrooms are coin-operated. At the federal level, Congress is in an uproar over water redistribution: states with less water demand what they see as their fair share from states that have more. Government leaders have been stymied on the River and the Rio Grande shrink further. Looming on the horizon are conflicts with Mexico, no longer able to guarantee deliveries of water from the depleted Rio Conchos and Rio Grande. Similar disputes have arisen in Peru, China, and Russia.

Food production swings wildly from month to month, season to season, depending on where you live. More people are starving than ever before. Climate zones have shifted, so some new areas have become available for agriculture (Alaska, the Arctic), while others have dried up (Mexico, California). Still others are unstable because of the extreme heat, never mind flooding, wildfire, and tornadoes. This makes the food supply in general highly unpredictable. One thing hasn’t changed, though— if you have money, you have access. Global trade has slowed as countries such as China stop exporting and seek to hold on to their own resources. Disasters and wars rage, choking off trade routes. The tyranny of supply and demand is now unforgiving; because of its scarcity, food is now wildly expensive. Income inequality has always existed, but it has never been this stark or this dangerous.

Whole countries suffer from epidemics of stunting and malnutrition. Reproduction has slowed overall, but most acutely in those countries where food scarcity is dire. Infant mortality is sky high, and international aid has proven to be politically impossible to defend in light of mass poverty. Countries with enough food are resolute about holding on to it.

In some places, the inability to gain access to such basics as wheat, rice, or sorghum has led to economic collapse and civil unrest more quickly than even the most pessimistic sociologists had previously imagined. Scientists tried to develop varieties of staples that could stand up to drought, temperature fluctuations, and salt, but we started too late. Now there simply aren’t enough resilient varieties to feed the population. As a result, food riots, coups, and civil wars throw the world’s most vulnerable from the frying pan into the fire. As developed countries seek to seal their borders from mass migration, they too feel the consequences. Stock markets are crashing, currencies are wildly fluctuating, and the European Union has disbanded.

As committed as nations are to keeping wealth and resources within their borders, they’re determined to keep people out. Most countries’ armies are now just highly militarized border patrols. Lockdown is the goal, but it hasn’t been a total success. Desperate people will always find a way. Some countries have been better global Good Samaritans than others, but even they have now effectively shut their borders, their wallets, and their eyes.

When the equatorial belt became mostly uninhabitable just a few years ago, you watched the news with disbelieving eyes. Undulating crowds of migrants, half a billion people, were moving north from Central America toward Mexico and the United States. Others moved south toward the tips of Chile and Argentina. The same scenes played out across Europe and Asia. Most people who lived between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn were driving or walking away in a giant band of humanity. Enormous political pressure was placed on northern and southern countries to either welcome migrants or keep them out. Some countries let people in, but only under conditions approaching indentured servitude. It will be years before the stranded migrants are able to find asylum or settle into new refugee cities that have formed along the borders.

Even if you live in areas with more temperate climates such as Canada and Scandinavia, you are still extremely vulnerable. Severe tornadoes, flash floods, wildfires, mudslides, and blizzards are always in the back of your mind. Depending on where you live, you have a fully stocked storm cellar, an emergency go-bag in your car, or a six-foot fire moat around your house. People are glued to oncoming weather reports. No one shuts their phones off at night. When the emergency hits, you may only have minutes to respond. The alert systems set up by the government are basic and subject to glitches and irregularities depending on access to technology. The rich, who subscribe to private, reliable satellite-based alert systems, sleep better.

The weather is unavoidable, but lately the news about what’s going on at the borders has become too much for most people to endure. Because of the alarming spike in suicides, and under increasing pressure from public health officials, news organizations have decreased the number of stories devoted to genocide, slave trading, and refugee virus outbreaks. You can no longer trust the news. Social media, long the grim source of live feeds and disaster reporting, is brimming with conspiracy theories and doctored videos. Overall, the news has taken a strange, seemingly controlled turn toward distorting reality and spinning a falsely positive narrative.

Everyone living within a stable country is physically safe, yes, but the psychological toll is mounting. With each new tipping point passed, they feel hope slipping away. There is no chance of stopping the runaway warming of our planet, and no doubt we are slowly but surely heading toward human extinction. And not just because it’s too hot. Melting permafrost is also releasing ancient microbes that today’s humans have never been exposed to— and as a result have no resistance to. Diseases spread by mosquitoes and ticks are rampant as these species flourish in the changed climate, spreading to previously safe parts of the planet, overwhelming us. Worse still, the public health crisis of antibiotic resistance has only intensified as the population has grown denser in the last inhabitable areas and temperatures continue to rise.

The demise of the human species is being discussed more and more— its trajectory seems locked in. The only uncertainty is how long we’ll last, how many more generations will see the light of day. Suicides are the most obvious manifestation of the prevailing despair, but there are other indications: a sense of bottomless loss, unbearable guilt, and fierce resentment at previous generations who did nothing to ward off this final, unstoppable calamity.

 

The World We Must Create

It is 2050. We have been successful at halving emissions every decade since 2020. We are heading for a world that will be no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius warmer by 2100.

In most places in the world, the air is moist and fresh, even in cities. It feels a lot like walking through a forest, and very likely this is exactly what you are doing. The air is cleaner than it has been since before the Industrial Revolution.

You have trees to thank for that. They are everywhere.

It wasn’t the single solution we required, but the proliferation of trees bought us the time we needed to vanquish carbon emissions. Corporate donations and public money funded the biggest tree- planting campaign in history. When we started, it was purely practical, a tactic to combat climate change by relocating the carbon: the trees took carbon dioxide out of the air, released oxygen, and put the carbon back where it belongs, in the soil. This of course helped to diminish climate change, but the benefits were even greater. On every sensory level, the ambient feeling of living on what has again become a green planet has been transformative, especially in cities. Cities have never been better places to live. With many more trees and far fewer cars, it has been possible to reclaim whole streets for urban agriculture and for children’s play. Every vacant lot, every grimy unused alley, has been repurposed and turned into a shady grove. Every rooftop has been converted to either a vegetable or a floral garden. Windowless buildings that were once scrawled with graffiti are instead carpeted with verdant vines.

The greening movement in Spain had begun as an effort to combat rising temperatures. Because of Madrid’s latitude, it is one of the driest cities in Europe. And even though the city now has a grip on its emissions, it was previously at risk of desertification. Because of the “heat island” effect of cities— buildings trap warmth and dark, paved surfaces absorb heat from the sun— Madrid, home to more than 6 million people, was several degrees warmer than the countryside just a few miles away. In addition, air pollution was leading to a rising incidence of premature births, and a spike in deaths was linked to cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses. With a health care system already strained by the arrival of subtropical diseases like dengue fever and malaria, government officials and citizens rallied. Madrid made dramatic efforts to reduce the number of vehicles and create a “green envelope” around the city to help with cooling, oxygenating, and filtering pollution. Plazas were repaved with porous material to capture rainwater; all black roofs were painted white; and plants were omnipresent. The plants cut noise, released oxygen, insulated south- facing walls, shaded pavements, and released water vapor into the air. The massive effort was a huge success and was replicated all over the world. Madrid’s economy boomed as its expertise put it on the cutting edge of a new industry.

Most cities found that lower temperatures raised the standard of living. There are still slums, but the trees, largely responsible for countering the temperature rise in most places, have made things far more bearable for all.

Reimagining and restructuring cities was crucial to solving the climate challenge puzzle. But further steps had to be taken, which meant that global rewilding efforts had to reach well beyond the cities. The forest cover worldwide is now 50 percent, and agriculture has evolved to become more tree-based. The result is that many countries are unrecognizable, in a good way. No one seems to miss wideopen plains or monocultures. Now we have shady groves of nut and fruit orchards, timberland interspersed with grazing, parkland areas that spread for miles, new havens for our regenerated population of pollinators.

Luckily for the 75 percent of the population who live in cities, new electric railways crisscross interior landscapes. In the United States, high- speed rail networks on the East and West coasts have replaced the vast majority of domestic flights, with East coast connectors to Atlanta and Chicago. Because flight speeds have slowed down to gain fuel efficiency, passenger bullet trains make some journeys even faster and with no emissions whatsoever. The U.S. Train Initiative was a monumental public project that sparked the economy for a decade. Replacing miles and miles of interstate highways with a new transportation system created millions of jobs— for train technology experts, engineers, and construction workers who designed and built raised rail tracks to circumvent floodplains. This massive effort helped to reeducate and retrain many of those displaced by the dying fossil fuel economy. It also introduced a new generation of workers to the excitement and innovation of the new climate economy.

Running parallel to this mega public works effort was an increasingly confident race to harness the power of renewable sources of energy. A major part of the shift to net- zero emissions was a focus on electricity; achieving the goal required not only an overhaul of existing infrastructure but also a structural shift. In some ways, breaking up grids and decentralizing power proved easy. We no longer burn fossil fuels. There is some nuclear energy in those countries that can afford the expensive technology,6 but most of our energy now comes from renewable sources like wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro. All homes and buildings produce their own electricity— every available surface is covered with solar paint that contains millions of nanoparticles, which harvest energy from the sunlight, and every windy spot has a wind turbine. If you live on a particularly sunny or windy hill, your house might harvest more energy than it can use, in which case the energy will simply flow back to the smart grid. Because there is no combustion cost, energy is basically free. It is also more abundant and more efficiently used than ever.

Smart tech prevents unnecessary energy consumption, as artificial intelligence units switch off appliances and machines when not in use. The efficiency of the system means that, with a few exceptions, our quality of life has not suffered. In many respects, it has improved.

For the developed world, the wide-ranging transition to renewable energy was at times uncomfortable, as it often involved retrofitting old infrastructure and doing things in new ways. But for the developing world, it was the dawn of a new era. Most of the infrastructure that it needed for economic growth and poverty alleviation was built according to the new standards: low carbon emissions and high resilience. In remote areas, the billion people who had no electricity at the start of the twenty-first century now have energy generated by their own rooftop solar modules or by wind-powered minigrids in their communities. This new access opened the door to so much more. Entire populations have leaped forward with improved sanitation, education, and health care. People who had struggled to get clean water can now provide it to their families. Children can study at night.

Remote health clinics can operate effectively. Homes and buildings all over the world are becoming self- sustaining far beyond their electrical needs. For example, all buildings now collect rainwater and manage their own water use. Renewable sources of electricity made possible localized desalination, which means clean drinking water can now be produced on-demand anywhere in the world. We also use it to irrigate hydroponic gardens, flush toilets, and shower. Overall, we’ve successfully rebuilt, reorganized, and restructured our lives to live in a more localized way. Although energy prices have dropped dramatically, we are choosing local life over long commutes. Due to greater connectivity, many people work from home, allowing for more flexibility and more time to call their own.

We are making communities stronger. As a child, you might have seen your neighbors only in passing. But now, to make things cheaper, cleaner, and more sustainable, your orientation in every part of your life is more local. Things that used to be done individually are now done communally— growing vegetables, capturing rainwater, and composting. Resources and responsibilities are shared now. At first you resisted this togetherness— you were used to doing things individually and in the privacy of your own home. But pretty quickly the camaraderie and unexpected new network of support started to feel good, something to be prized. For most people, the new way has turned out to be a better recipe for happiness.

Food production and procurement are a big part of the communal effort. When it became clear we needed to revolutionize farms, with increased community reliance on small farms. Instead of going to a big grocery store for food flown in from hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away, you buy most of your food from small local farmers and producers. Buildings, neighborhoods, and even large extended families form a food purchase group, which is how most people buy their food now. As a unit they sign up for a weekly dropoff, then distribute the food among the group members. Distribution, coordination, and management are everyone’s responsibility, which means you might be partnered with a downstairs neighbor for distribution one week and your upstairs neighbor the next.

While this community approach to food production makes things more sustainable, food is still expensive, consuming up to 30 percent of household budgets, which is why growing your own is such a necessity. In community gardens, on rooftops, at schools, and even hanging from vertical gardens on balconies, food sometimes seems to be growing everywhere.

We’ve come to realize, by growing our own, that food is expensive because it should be expensive— it takes valuable resources to grow it, after all. Water. Soil. Sweat. Time. For that reason, the most resource- depleting foods of all— animal protein and dairy products— have practically disappeared from our diets. But the plant-based replacements are so good that most of us don’t notice the absence of meat and dairy. Most young children cannot believe we used to kill any animals for food. Fish is still available, but it is farmed and yields are better managed by improved technology.

We make smarter choices about bad foods, which have become an ever- diminishing part of our diets. Government taxes on processed meats, sugars, and fatty foods helped us reduce the carbon emissions from farming. The biggest boon of all was to our collective health. Thanks to reduced cancers, heart attacks, and strokes, people are living longer, and health services around the world cost less and less. In fact, a huge portion of the costs of combating climate change were recuperated by governments’ savings on public health.

Along with outrageous spending on health care, gasoline and diesel cars are also anachronisms. Most countries banned their manufacture in 2030, but it took another fifteen years to get the internal combustion engine off the road completely. Now they are seen only in transport museums or at special rallies where classic car owners pay an offset fee to allow them to drive a few short miles around the track. And of course, they are all hauled in on the backs of huge electric trucks.

When it came to making the switch, some countries were already ahead of the curve. Technology-driven countries such as Norway and bicycle-friendly nations like the Netherlands managed to impose a moratorium on cars much earlier. Unsurprisingly, the United States had the hardest time of all. First, it restricted their sale, and then it banned them from certain parts of cities— Extreme Low Emission Zones. Then came the breakthrough in the battery storage capacity of electric vehicles, the cost reductions that came from finding alternative materials for manufacture, and finally the complete overhaul of the charging and parking infrastructure. This allowed people easier access to cheap power for their electric vehicles. Even better, car batteries are now bi-directionally connected with the electric grid, so they can either charge from the grid or provide power to the grid when they aren’t being driven. This helps back up the smart grid that is running on renewable energy.

The ubiquity and ease of electric vehicles were alluring, but satisfaction of our appetite for speed finally did the trick. Supposedly, to stop a bad habit you have to replace it with one that is more salubrious or at least as enjoyable. At first China dominated the manufacture of electric vehicles, but soon U.S. companies started making vehicles that were more desirable than ever before. Even some classic cars got an upgrade, switching from combustion to electric engines that could go from zero to sixty mph in 3.5 seconds. What’s strange is that it took us so long to realize that the electric motor is simply a better way of powering vehicles. It gives you more torque, more speed when you need it, and the ability to recapture energy when you brake, and it requires dramatically less maintenance.

As people from rural areas moved to the cities, they had less need even for electric vehicles. In cities it’s now easy to get around— transportation is frictionless. When you take the electric train, you don’t have to fumble around for a metro card or wait in line to pay— the system tracks your location, so it knows where you got on and where you got off, and it deducts money from your account accordingly. We also share cars without thinking twice. In fact, regulating and ensuring the safety of driverless ride-sharing was the biggest transportation hurdle for cities to overcome. The goal has been to eliminate private ownership of vehicles by 2050 in major metropolitan areas. We’re not quite there yet, but we’re making progress.

We have also reduced land transport needs. Threedimensional (3D) printers are readily available, cutting down on what people need to purchase away from home. Drones organized along aerial corridors are now delivering packages, further reducing the need for vehicles. Thus we are currently narrowing roads, eliminating parking spaces, and investing in urban planning projects that make it easier to walk and bike in the city. Parking garages are used only for ride-sharing, electric vehicle charging, and storage— those ugly concrete stacking systems and edifices of yore are now enveloped in green. Cities now seem designed for the coexistence of people and nature.

International air travel has been transformed. Biofuels have replaced jet fuel. Communications technology has advanced so much that we can participate virtually in meetings anywhere in the world without traveling. Air travel still exists, but it is used more sparingly and is extremely costly. Because work is now increasingly decentralized and can often be done from anywhere, people save and plan for “slow- cations”— international trips that last weeks or months instead of days. If you live in the United States and want to visit Europe, you might plan to stay there for several months or more, working your way across the continent using local, zero-emissions transportation.

While we may have successfully reduced carbon emissions, we’re still dealing with the after-effects of record levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The long-living greenhouse gases have nowhere to go other than the alreadyloaded atmosphere, so they are still causing increasingly extreme weather— though it’s less extreme than would have been had we continued to burn fossil fuels. Glaciers and Arctic ice are still melting, and the sea is still rising. Severe droughts and desertification are occurring in the western United States, the Mediterranean, and parts of China. Ongoing extreme weather and resource degradation continue to multiply existing disparities in income, public health, food security, and water availability. But now governments have recognized climate change factors for the threat multipliers that they are. That awareness allows us to predict downstream problems and head them off before they become humanitarian crises. So while many people remain at risk every day, the situation is not as drastic or chaotic as it might have been. Economies in developing nations are strong, and unexpected global coalitions have formed with a renewed sense of trust. Now when a population is in need of aid, the political will and resources are available to meet that need.

The ongoing refugee situation has been escalating for decades, and it is still a major source of strife and discord. But around fifteen years ago, we stopped calling it a crisis. Countries agreed on guidelines for managing refugee influxes— how to smoothly assimilate populations, how to distribute aid and resources, and how to share the tasks within particular regions. These agreements work well most of the time, but things get thrown off balance occasionally when a country flirts with fascism for an election cycle or two.

Technology and business sectors stepped up, too, seizing the opportunity of government contracts to provide largescale solutions for distributing food and providing shelter for the newly displaced. One company invented a giant robot that could autonomously build a four-person dwelling within days. Automation and 3D printing have made it possible to quickly and affordably construct high-quality housing for refugees. The private sector has innovated with water transportation technology and sanitation solutions. Fewer tent cities and housing shortages have led to less cholera.

Everyone understands that we are all in this together. A disaster that occurs in one country is likely to occur in another in only a matter of years. It took us a while to realize that if we worked out how to save the Pacific Islands from rising sea levels this year, then we might find a way to save Rotterdam in another five years. It is in the interest of every country to bring all its resources to bear on problems across the world. For one thing, creating innovative solutions to climate challenges and beta testing them years ahead of using them is just plain smart. For another, we’re nurturing goodwill; when we need help, we know we will be able to count on others to step up.

The zeitgeist has shifted profoundly. How we feel about the world has changed, deeply. And unexpectedly, so has how we feel about one another.

When the alarm bells rang in 2020, thanks in large part to the youth movement, we realized that we suffered from too much consumption, competition, and greedy self-interest. Our commitment to these values and our drive for profit and status had led us to steamroll our environment. As a species we were out of control, and the result was the near-collapse of our world. We could no longer avoid seeing on a tangible, geophysical level that when you spurn regeneration, collaboration, and community, the consequence is impending devastation.

Extricating ourselves from self- destruction would have been impossible if we hadn’t changed our mindset and our priorities, if we hadn’t realized that doing what is good for humanity goes hand in hand with doing what is good for the Earth. The most fundamental change was that collectively— as citizens, corporations, and governments— we began adhering to a new bottom line: “Is it good for humanity whether profit is made or not?”

The climate change crisis of the beginning of the century jolted us out of our stupor. As we worked to rebuild and care for our environment, it was only natural that we also turned to each other with greater care and concern. We realized that the perpetuation of our species was about war more than saving ourselves from extreme weather. It was about being good stewards of the land and of one another. When we began the fight for the fate of humanity, we were thinking only about the species’ survival, but at some point, we understood that it was as much about the fate of our humanity. We emerged from the climate crisis as more mature members of the community of life, capable of not only restoring ecosystems but also of unfolding our dormant potentials of human strength and discernment. Humanity was only ever as doomed as it believed itself to be. Vanquishing that belief was our true legacy.

Join our Book Club to discuss the extract.

To join the Book Club, click here.

To follow the Book Club on Twitter, click here.

To follow the Book Club on Instagram, click here.