Skip to content

We Can’t or We Won’t Solve The Climate Crisis?


The text bellow was taken (with permission) from Carl Duivenvoorden’s website and was originally published in the New Brunswick Telegraph Journal on January 10th, 2012.  Mr. Duivenvoorden is a writer, public speaker and “Green” consultant.  He had the opportunity to be involved with both of Al Gore’s climate change projects: An Inconvenient Truth and more recently 24 Hours of Reality.  I first met Mr. Duivenvoorden when he was a speaker at a conference about teaching sustainability in the classroom.  I’ve been reading his newsletters ever since.

Can’t? Or Won’t?

Maybe it’s just me, but it seems that two common little words with very different meanings get confused for each other a lot lately. That is, we use one word when what we are really saying suggests we should be using the other.

The two words are “can’t” and “won’t”. Perhaps reminding ourselves of what they mean and striving to use each in proper context would help us better reconnect with our role in causing – and potentially correcting – climate change.

Different meanings

“Can’t” and “won’t” have very different meanings. “Can’t” implies a physical impossibility. It’s an acknowledgement that there are certain laws of the universe that are unbreakable. For example, I can’t make it rain. And, much as I might want to, I can’t vaporize a Hummer.

On the other hand, “won’t” implies a conscious decision or choice. It’s all about unwillingness, not impossibility. For example, I won’t eat black olives. I won’t drink bottled water. And, no matter how good the deal, I won’t ever buy a Hummer.

But we often take liberties in our use of “can’t” and “won’t”. No doubt you’ve heard someone say, “I can’t do that”. Usually, what’s really meant is, “I won’t do that.” Similarly, “I can’t eat that” usually really means, “I won’t eat that.” “I can’t give that up” usually means, “I won’t give that up.”

The link

Perhaps the blurriness between the two words stems from our longstanding prosperity. In this part of the world, we’re lucky: most of us live a pretty good lifestyle. In fact, we are so far removed from true hardship that most of us have no realistic concept of just what true hardship is. When it comes to essential needs, we’re far beyond food, clothing and shelter. Our ‘new essentials’ are typically luxuries like oversized personal transportation (so we can go wherever we want, whenever we want); southern vacations; and a crush of the very latest consumer goods. And, once experienced, such luxuries – even if they are all made possible by the oil, coal and natural gas that are causing climate change – are very difficult to give up.

So try suggesting that solving climate change might mean having to rethink some of those ‘new essentials’, and there’s a good chance you’ll get strange, sideways glances and comments.

“Oh, I can’t do without my Florida getaway!”

“I can’t give up my SUV!” (often followed by a myth about enhanced safety)

“I can’t live without fresh fruit in January!”

And what about working toward solutions?

“Oh, I can’t afford a solar hot water system.” (though I’m guessing if offered a new Porsche at the same price, most of us would magically find the money.)

“I can’t find the time to insulate the attic.”

“I can’t carpool to work.”

Unfortunately, re-reading the above responses with “won’t” in the place of “can’t” likely offers a better glimpse of what’s really being said.

A time for choices

After a recent presentation, a member of my audience raised his hand. “So,” he asked thoughtfully, “is climate change a people problem or a technology problem?”

My answer took about thirty milliseconds to formulate – because today we have all the technology and knowledge we need. But knowledge and technology are simply tools. They are only useful if we humans choose to use them to solve our climate crisis.

So perhaps we need to rethink our use of the words “can’t” and “won’t”. Can’t solve our climate crisis? Nonsense – unharnessed human creativity, ingenuity and determination are the most powerful forces in the world. History has proven that time and time again.

Won’t solve our climate crisis? That’s a different story. We definitely won’t solve it as long as we don’t choose to.

4 Comments leave one →
  1. 2012/01/21 1:24 pm

    “So,” he asked thoughtfully, “is climate change a people problem or a technology problem?” My answer took about thirty milliseconds to formulate…

    I wonder what his answer was? (He doesn’t say).

    Me: I think it’s both a people problem and a technology problem. A people problem because until people see more benefit to dealing with it than not, they won’t: and a technology problem in that it’s technology that’s causing the problem.

    Whether technology can also solve the problem — that’s moot. Blind faith that it will: well, that’s another people problem…

    PS typo up there on the word ‘bellow’.

    • 2012/01/21 8:43 pm

      I see two ways to make people “see more benefit to dealing with” climate change. First, we could get rid of fossil fuel subsidies to make people see the true cost of that form of energy. Second, we need to start calculating externalities (such as the healthcare costs due to air pollution and the financial impacts of climate change) into the cost of fossil fuels.
      In my humble opinion, climate change is a people problem because we have the technology to power a sustainable society. Some of that technology will need to gradually improve, become more efficient and less reliant on oil products. But I see no reason why those improvement won’t come as solar, wind, geothermal, and other forms of renewable energy become more common place.

      • 2012/01/22 9:19 am

        Agreed, on both counts.

        However, no matter how many people can be persuaded that this is a good way forward, the power vests in those who benefit from the current fatally flawed system.

        So, before we can see any real change, the current flavour of democracy must be fixed such that Those In Power cannot fool/ bribe a majority into their way of thinking. But as the recent UK referendum on AV proved (to me, at least) the current system of democracy is fixed in its present state, as, again, it serves to benefit the status quo.

      • 2012/01/22 10:04 am

        I know this wouldn’t solve the “democracy” problem all by itself, but I believe that complete public funding of elections would be a great way to make elected officials accountable to the electorate. Everyone that runs is given a set and equal amount of money and any donation that is made goes into “the pot” and is split between everyone running. In this day and age, the more money you have, the more your message is heard. And that isn’t democracy. Everyone’s voice should be heard equally – it’s the only way the electorate can make a proper decision. In my opinion.

Please keep the conversation going by leaving a comment. Write what you think, but keep it respectful. Thanks!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: