That’s the question Mark Powley asked a church recently when considering the case for saying we have a climate emergency. If, with the facts that we have now and the changes we’re seeing now, don’t constitute an emergency, when would it? What would we need to see in order to say ‘this is an emergency’ and would it, by that point, be too late? Which is exactly the question asked here, is it too late?

According to this video, and I think it is correct, it is going to get worse before it gets better. If it gets better then, the video is relying on technology to be the solution. It is hoping for things to exist that currently do not. It’s not exactly a foolproof plan.

The question of the climate throws up the challenge of the present vs the future. This is always inherently difficult because of course the exact nature of the future is unknown. However, it asks us a question of responsibility. In what way are we responsible for the future and in what way could we be held guilty for our inaction?

According to Jeremy Williams that may be one of the messages of Christopher Nolan’s latest film Tenet.

Tenet deals with a World War III scenario where the future is at war with the past. The future is meddling in time, sending back agents to assemble a time weapon that will erase our current era and change history. And at one point, in a single almost throwaway line, we find out why:  “Their oceans rose and their rivers ran dry” says a key character, giving the future a motive.

For me, it flipped the film around in an uncomfortable way. Up until that point, the future was the aggressor. Our protagonist, the hero of the film, is out to thwart the time travellers. That line turns the dynamic on its head. It is the present that has betrayed the future. The actions and lifestyles of the present will go on to devastate the environment for future generations. Now, in an act of desperation, they attempt to rewrite the past to prevent the destruction.

Yet, it is a blink and you miss it insight.

Whether it’s on purpose or not I don’t know, but the way the question is ignored felt symbolic to me in itself. Isn’t this what we do all the time? We get a glimpse of the damage of climate change, and move on. We don’t take responsibility for our lifestyles and our emissions. We refuse to change the way we live. We don’t acknowledge climate change as violence, against the future or against people of colour in more vulnerable parts of the world. Instead, we see ourselves as the aggrieved party.

There is clearly force to that argument and emotional force too. This is the world my kids will inherit and the problems I leave behind are the ones they will have to deal with. But there are lots of ways to solve that and some can seem far more manageable and attainable than reversing climate change. Especially when so many of the key levers are not ones that we can do anything about. I can go vegan, give up flying, sell the car and everyone else could too and STILL the climate will change for the worse, so why bother?

Here’s Mark’s answer (the video should start at 36:09).