The Ethical Dilemma: If We Can End the Climate Crisis, Why Haven’t We?
Imagine you’re standing at the edge of a burning building. Inside, people are trapped—but there’s a fire extinguisher within reach. Would you use it?
Now, imagine that same scenario, but on a global scale. The planet is overheating, ecosystems are collapsing, and future generations are in danger. Yet, we have the tools to restore the climate—and we’re not using them.
In two recent blog posts, Peter Fiekowsky asks the uncomfortable but urgent question: Why haven’t we ended the climate crisis? He challenges the common belief that solving climate change is impossible or that our best hope is merely limiting the damage. The truth? We already have the science and technology to restore a safe climate. The real barrier is us.
The Science Says We Can Do It—So Why Aren’t We?
In Why Haven’t We Ended the Climate Crisis?, Fiekowsky breaks down the stark contrast between what we assume is possible and what actually is possible. Most climate efforts focus on reducing emissions, which is like slowing down the burning building rather than putting out the fire.
But the reality is that we don’t have to accept an overheated planet. The tools exist to actively remove CO₂ from the atmosphere and restore it to pre-industrial levels:
- Ocean Iron Fertilization (OIF): A proven process that can stimulate plankton growth, pulling CO₂ from the air on a massive scale.
- Direct Air Capture (DAC): Technology that literally vacuums CO₂ out of the atmosphere.
- Enhanced Rock Weathering and Ecosystem Restoration: Natural processes that accelerate carbon removal.
Yet, despite this, climate policies continue to focus on slowing the damage instead of reversing it.
Is It Just a Question of Belief?
In Can We Really End the Climate Crisis?, Fiekowsky argues that the biggest obstacle isn’t technology—it’s mindset.
For decades, the dominant climate narrative has been one of sacrifice, adaptation, and mitigation. Governments, NGOs, and even scientists have reinforced the idea that we can only limit warming, not undo it. The idea that we could actually restore the climate seems too radical—even though science supports it.
This raises an ethical question: If we have the ability to restore a safe climate but don’t, is that a failure of leadership? A moral failing?
A Call to Action: From Fear to Restoration
At Climate Restoration Alliance (CRA), we reject the idea that future generations must suffer the consequences of climate change. We believe in solutions, not despair.
The challenge now is not whether we can end the climate crisis—it’s whether we choose to. It’s time to move past the outdated mindset of mere survival and embrace climate restoration as the new standard.
We have the fire extinguisher. Will we use it?
Read Peter Fiekowsky’s full posts here:
🔗 Why Haven’t We Ended the Climate Crisis? → https://climaterestoration.substack.com/p/why-havent-we-ended-the-climate-crisis
🔗 Can We Really End the Climate Crisis? → https://climaterestoration.substack.com/p/can-we-really-end-the-climate-crisis
