Any end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it, save yourself, to the trees!–type focus might seem a bit selfish. It’s entirely fair to ask whether we should be feverishly working with our communities, governments, and changing our lifestyles to slow or reverse climate change–instead of, say, resigning ourselves to the climapocalypse and reshaping ourselves for this increasingly scary, changed world.

We should be doing both. In fact, action in each area supports action in the other.

It’s probably obvious that mitigation, or slowing the overall rate and extent of change, will help lessen its negative effects on individuals. What’s less obvious is how an individual’s actions in preparing for a changed climate might help lessen the rate of change, and decrease the extent of its damage. The argument for individually-focused action lessening the rate of change is rooted in expected secondary benefits of education, and the argument for individually-focused action lowering the extent of damage is rooted in economics.

Education:

Through research I’ve stumbled on some truly horrifying projections made by well-qualified folks. They’re alarming, and they should motivate reasonable people to leap into action. It doesn’t matter whether your motivations are completely self-interested or entirely altruistic, I expect that you’ll arrive at some of the same conclusions about what needs to be done. Through getting to a better understanding of the risks you may find that ways to protect yourself include pushing for serious collective action. This may then impact the causes you support, what you buy and eat, the way you get around, and how you vote. Unfortunately it’s very easy to get jaded and beaten down. Statistically, it’s unlikely that your vote will ever affect the outcome of an election, and even more so, it’s unlikely that any one individual’s action will meaningfully affect GHG concentrations in our atmosphere, right?? Sure, but without significant voter turnout we’ll be controlled by a minority and subject to their whims. Similarly, without individual action on climate change we’re in very big trouble.

Assume this hypothetical: You realize that you have a role to play and you take action to lessen your carbon footprint. Your neighbors notice and they start thinking about what you’re doing, and soon comments like “why not be an adult and stop riding a bicycle” are no longer acceptable. Bike lanes become a common part of infrastructure planning, and before long policy makers, encouraged by community action groups, begin considering the benefits of replacing existing highway lanes with dedicated light electric vehicle (LEV) lanes (because they see the potential in this, which is claimed to go over a kilometer on the equivalent of a mobile phone charge!). This sea change in thinking eventually leads to GHG emissions getting banned in your state. Twenty years later, what would have otherwise been a Category 5 storm is a Category 4–still destructive–but the community-funded levees that were built in 2030 manage to hold against the slightly-less-powerful storm surge, which saves 25,000 acres of crops and wildlife habitat. Your community avoids disaster. Of course this didn’t happen solely because of you, but it happened partially because of you, and it might not have happened without you.

In summary: It’s difficult to hedge against unforeseen risk. Only by struggling to understand projected climate risks to our most basic, life-sustaining systems, will we be able to prepare intelligent countering strategies. This education will occasion increased support for GHG reduction measures, which benefits everyone.

Economics:

Let’s take our butterfly effect example above a bit further. That same Category 4 storm still does significant damage through high winds and localized flooding. Luckily, you and most of your community anticipated these risks and decided to reinforce existing structures or build better-than-code structures at higher elevations, opting for gale force-rated windows, hurricane tie-downs, etc. Your community was able to tap into its food storage, purify water, and use renewable energy systems while working to assist neighbors and efforts to restore roads and municipal services. Not everyone was helpful, but seldom was anyone a liability. Insurance companies, in cases where they still offered policies, recognized the value presented by your community’s planning and offered you and your neighbors favorable rates to maintain you as clients.

Your community isn’t lavish—far from it, in fact—the average home is a mere 1600 square feet, less than a quarter of the size of homes that were long ago abandoned. Most of you and your neighbors’ held investments in landholdings in other well-positioned communities, vertically integrated food producers, and renewable energy providers. Even if your houses and uninsured items were destroyed, you’d have the ability to rebuild.

Contrast this with the unfortunate neighboring community in the valley that failed to situate themselves for the clime ahead. They suffered extensive damage and lacked resources to rebuild their large, under- or uninsured homes. Panic set in when desperately-needed emergency services couldn’t respond, and people were forced to go to extremes to get food, water, and shelter. Many died. While very tragic, the destruction would have been far worse if everyone in the area lived as they had back in 2019.

In summary: Preparations and an earlier abandonment of high risk areas will lower disaster relief burden, lower insurance costs, and stand to assist our collective ability to cope with whatever comes.