Scientists lay out case against myth that would cause catastrophic harm — here's what they're saying

We hear a lot about the negative impacts of burning dirty energy sources like gas and oil on our planet — but worldwide, societies continue to rely on these sources, hoping that technological advancements will save us from climate disaster. 

In a recent op-ed written by three climate scientists, published in The Conversation (with a hat tip to Eco-Business), the authors argue that relying on the promise of future technological solutions is a dangerous strategy that is destined to fail.

In their op-ed, James Dyke, Associate Professor in Earth Systems Science at the University of Exeter; Bob Watson, Strategic Director of the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia; and Wolfgang Knorr, Senior Researcher Scientist at Lund University in Sweden lay out the case against "the Overshoot Myth."

The Overshoot myth essentially posits that we can overshoot any climate goals or limits related to planetary overheating, and then correct the problem later via as-of-yet uninvented solutions that would remove planet-overheating air pollution from the atmosphere at a massive scale. Many of the technologies that we rely on today, proponents of this theory argue, were inconceivable in the past. Therefore, the technologies of the future will be able to solve any problem that present-day humanities create.

This, the authors argue, is simply wishful thinking. "The situation [of global overheating] demands honesty, and a change of course. If this does not materialise then things are likely to deteriorate, potentially rapidly and in ways that may be impossible to control," they wrote.

However, the scientists are not making the case that all is lost and we should just give up. They are saying quite the opposite. In their view, it is the forces that would have us continue burning dirty energy — mainly, the dirty energy companies and the governments that prop them up — that are giving in to nihilism. 

Instead, the authors of the op-ed proposed a four-pronged approach to actually dealing with this crisis instead of kicking the can down the road. 1) Stop mining for fossil fuels immediately. 2) Stop framing climate goals through the net-zero approach, and instead target actual reductions in heat-trapping air pollution emissions. 3) Base policy on credible science and engineering that exists now, instead of wishful thinking about what the future might hold. 4) "Be honest about our current situation, and where we are heading. Difficult truths need to be told. This includes highlighting the vast inequalities of wealth, carbon emissions, and vulnerability to climate change."

While it is not too late to save our planet from climate collapse, at some point in the not-too-distant future it likely will be. That's why it is crucial that we actually take concrete steps to reduce the planet-overheating air pollution and elect politicians who are willing to prevent for-profit businesses from destroying our planet.

Join our free newsletter for weekly updates on the latest innovations improving our lives and shaping our future, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.

Cool Picks

How the Expedia of solar panels helps homeowners save money and avoid a common trap: 'Giving you confidence in the systems'

How much could you save with the Inflation Reduction Act? This interactive tool will tell you

You can soon get the hottest new cooking appliance for free — courtesy of the government

This startup could save you thousands with the first 'intelligent' hot water heater of its kind: 'You can get up to 500% efficiency'