Without Solutions to Climate Change, there is Still Hope: Review of Climate Change Ethics for an Endangered World by Thom Brooks

Sofia Watt Sjöström

In Climate Change Ethics for an Endangered World, Thom Brooks argues for a new vision of sustainability. His approach acknowledges that Climate Change is unsolvable, but he retains hope. This blog post examines the strengths and limits of Brooks’ argument.

From wildfires to floods to increasingly grey Christmases, climate change is making itself seen and felt. It’s here. It is no longer a potential future problem that can be prevented. According to Thom Brooks, it is, in fact, not preventable at all.

 In his recently published book entitled Climate Change Ethics for an Endangered World, Thom Brooks argues there are no “solutions” to climate change. But Brooks maintains that this does not mean we should abandon all hope. He describes several proposed solutions, including approaches that appear diametrically opposed: mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation suggests the only way forward is to decrease our harmful effect on the planet by reducing pollution and consumption, whereas adaptation holds that human innovation and technology can and will fix this crisis.[1] Although Brooks argues each of these strategies is insufficient on its own, he does not reject them. Brooks believes we need a comprehensive approach to climate change: one that integrates mitigation and adaptation rather than treating them as isolated or opposed.[2] The urgency of the climate crisis demands flexibility. I therefore think Brooks does well by integrating both points of view.

Brooks is also correct in asserting there will be no “end-state solution,”[3] or “forever status quo,”[4] post-climate change. The climate has never been static and has always changed – just not usually as rapidly and frighteningly as right now.[5] Despite the lack of permanent solutions, we should not abandon hope. As living beings, we are used to resilience in the face of the precipice. All of us know on some level that we might die at any time, and still, we persevere.[6] We can and should recognize that climate change is unsolvable. Honesty about this “challenge”[7] might even stimulate improvements.

For Brooks, the first step forward is reframing our perspectives on sustainability. He wants us to move away from the “orthodox view”[8], which holds that movements towards sustainability can reach and maintain a static, “permanent state of total safety”.[9] Since such an endpoint would be impossible to attain, Brooks conceives an alternative point of view, dubbed “impermanent sustainability”.[10] This approach accepts that permanence is illusory and embraces change. Living accordingly entails a “constant reinvention”[11] of how we think and live. Because climate change is not a problem we can “solve”, we cannot treat it like a crisis that will go away. Brooks wants readers to reimagine sustainability entirely.  

Although this book is rooted in a philosophical perspective, it calls for a move away from abstract theory. Indeed, Brooks says, “my position is realist and pragmatic.”[12] Since climate change is concrete and imminent, this seems crucial. Yet is a philosophical treatise on climate change compatible with this message? Moreover, although Brooks’ thesis is powerful, I am not convinced it is revolutionary. Brooks certainly is not the first to conceptualize climate change as an unfixable problem requiring attitudinal shifts.[13] Others also recognize the need for a multi-dimensional approach.[14] It may thus be inaccurate to call the orthodox view on sustainability a “forever status quo”.[15]

Brooks responds to many of these objections in the book. He acknowledges that his critique is not brand new. However, he argues his comprehensive approach is novel and significant, for it does not pick and choose strategies but incorporates them all.[16] He even follows his philosophical analysis with concrete spending plans, while admitting it might be difficult to transform them into practice.[17] Thus, despite shortcomings, Brooks consistently tries to make his philosophy as “realist and pragmatic”[18] as possible.

I appreciate one facet of this realism in particular: the reminder that we need decent and functional strategies, not perfect ones. In Brooks’ words, “imperfection does not mean rejection in our nonideal circumstances.”[19] He highlights that a lack of perfection need not prevent us from acting.[20] For example, some argue international treaties will never suffice. Brooks contends, “[they] may not go far enough – but will go somewhere.”[21] In the meantime, that should not stop non-state actors from doing their part.[22] After all, this is a crisis. We shouldn’t waste our energy on perfection. We need to do as much as we can – right now.

Brooks has a powerful message for idealists who need to be brought back down to earth. His book also provides a short and effective overview of different theoretical approaches to mitigating and adapting to climate change. In my view, these ideas could be relevant to a broad audience, including youth, if scholarly writing did not impede its accessibility. Brooks’ message should not be limited to academia because it is an important, general call to action: the climate needs imperfect solutions now; we can’t wait for the perfect solution to show up.

[1] See Thom Brooks, Climate Change Ethics for an Endangered World (New York: Routledge, 2021) at 7 (Taylor & Francis eBooks).

[2] See ibid at 76.

[3] See ibid at 64.

[4] See ibid at 66.

[5] See ibid at 65.

[6] See ibid at 74.

[7] See ibid at 70.

[8] See ibid at 66.

[9] See ibid. 

[10] See ibid. 

[11] See Brooks, supra note 1 at 67.

[12] See ibid at 68.

[13] See Ruth Irwin, “Introduction,” in Ruth Irwin, ed, Climate Change and Philosophy: Transformational Possibilities (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2011) at 9—17 (ProQuest Ebook Central); Inka Weissbecker, “Introduction: Climate Change and Human Well-Being,” in Inka Weissbecker, ed, Climate Change and Human Well-Being: Global Challenges and Opportunities (New York: Springer, 2011) at 1—2 (SpringerLink); Jeremy Moss, “Introduction,” in Jeremy Moss, ed, Climate Change and Social Justice (Melbourne: Melbourne University Publishing, 2009) at 17—18 (ProQuest Ebook Central).

[14] See Moss, supra note 13 at 17.

[15] See Brooks, supra note 1 at 66.

[16] See ibid at 76.

[17] See ibid at 86.

[18] See ibid at 68.

[19] See ibid at 75.

[20] See ibid at 86. 

[21] See ibid at 84.

[22] See ibid. 

“I am a 1L associate editor. Coming from a Liberal Arts DEC, I decided to use this blog post as an opportunity to read and write about a philosophical perspective on climate change. I want to thank Jasen Erbeznikfor thoughtful, diligent and encouraging feedback throughout the editing process!”