Author’s Note: A couple of years ago I finished a book on climate change, which I have not yet published. The original essays were published on medium.com. Readers who followed me there have seen, and even helped shape, that work, but much of it never appeared on this Substack. At the same time, I have many new subscribers who signed up since that time. They, too, have not seen my primary thinking on climate change.
Given all this, I thought it might be helpful to release that book in serial form here on Substack. Because it has sat dormant for a couple of years, I would also like to update it. I invite comments from readers to help reshape it. This series will be free to all subscribers. Today I start with the introduction and aim to publish one chapter per week. I look forward to hearing from you!
Introduction to the Book
The current debate on climate and climate solutions has confused a lot of very fine minds. Good people with good values and deep concerns want to do the right thing. They want to help solve climate change. They want to do their part. They want to contribute to a solution as best they can. The desire is deep and serious. The problem is that they aren’t even close to having the impact they could.
Much of this has to do with the way the debate has been framed. The first framing pitted the vast majority of the scientific community against a few outliers funded by the fossil fuel industry, which elevated denialism into a plausible notion—one that captured many people. The petroleum industry funded this starting in the 1970s, even though their own scientists at the time were warning about climate change. That framing was dominant through the 1990s and beyond—in large part finally challenged significantly by Al Gore and An Inconvenient Truth.
The framing switched again in 2003 when BP, the global oil and gas company, launched their PR campaign focusing everyone on carbon footprint and proclaiming, “It’s a start.” It is obvious now that this was another distraction meant to push the public focus off of the industry and onto personal, individual action and accountability. The fact that even activists like Greta Thunberg focus on carbon footprint is a testimony to the incredible effectiveness of this campaign. Today, when you ask most people about what they can do about climate change, the answer will be given in terms of carbon footprint.
These two frameworks—the asserted legitimacy of denialism and focus on consumer accountability through carbon footprint—have controlled how we think about climate change. They are also the primary reasons we are not seeing the results we need fast enough. As noted throughout this book, pre-industrial carbon in the atmosphere was 280 ppm. Scientists say we can withstand 350 ppm and not overheat. As of 2026, we are at 429 ppm. We need to reduce carbon in the atmosphere. Other GHG’s must come down too, but carbon is the lead indicator. We know the number. It is carbon 350. And we are still going the wrong direction. Global emissions in 2026 were up another 0.9%, and we know that the current emissions level is far more than the Earth’s systems can absorb.
Given the extreme weather events being fed by climate change—especially floods, droughts, fires, and extreme heat—this movement in the wrong direction constitutes an emergency. More and more people see it and feel it. Climate anxiety is now being experienced by large majorities of people, with one study in the Lancet showing that among youth and young adults, 84% are afflicted with levels of climate anxiety. Climate denialism is shrinking. Governments and businesses are planning for climate contingencies. Insurance companies are avoiding climate-driven risk. Reality is setting in. Yet there remains little guidance on the key question facing individuals and society: What do we do?
This vacuum has led to a plethora of distracting, meaningless, and downright impossible ideas. Some come out of the carbon footprint framework while others seek to exploit the disruption climate change is causing. One of the main purposes of this book is to debunk these ideas. It is to take on the counter-orthodoxies of degrowth, the Green New Deal, carbon footprint, consumption reduction, and others so that the reader can see through them and get to what really matters in climate: getting us down to carbon 350. Too much energy and focus by well meaning, committed people is going into meaningless, low impact efforts. I will show the reader where the high leverage points are and where each individual can make the biggest impact on solving the climate problem. I will warn you now: It’s not about refusing to fly or insisting that everyone give up their cars and ride the bus. We simply cannot get there that way.
In the first section of the book, I hope to dismantle the frameworks and counter orthodoxies that have diverted many fine minds. In the second section, I address the question: Well then how should we think about this? Here, I entertain the notion that our own ideologies may be blinding us, and to see what we can when the blindfold is removed. It is optimistic to see the most powerful structures in society coming around to support climate solutions—including the market, business, government, and more. They have their own reasons, but they are supportive nonetheless.
Section three looks at the current state of green technologies and their prospects for coming to fruition. Whatever else may happen, we will need ways to create, use, and harness energy that does not generate carbon. We need to understand what is possible today and what will likely be possible tomorrow, and we also need to confront the impacts of deploying those technologies. Section three covers solar, wind, battery technologies, and more so that we have a level playing field of feasibility in the technologies available and those that are still developing.
Finally, in section four, I outline an approach to making the biggest difference you can with the limited time, dollars, and effort we each have available. I also map out what society needs to do. It goes beyond the simplistic clarion call: “Leave it in the ground!” which will never work, and I am not satisfied to tinker around the edges of your carbon footprint. Either you take climate change seriously and therefore revise your life, or you don’t. Refusing to eat meat, for example, is not a climate strategy. We need to get serious.
In the end, I hope the reader will learn to see through the frames provided by those with conflicted agendas and corrupt interests, especially the oil companies. I hope we can all see through the deceits that have guided our thinking so we can move ahead to impactful action. I hope that once we can see where those high impact actions are, more of us will commit our energies to taking those actions and creating the solutions we actually need.
After nearly two years of research and writing this book, I am convinced of one crucial thing: There is an answer to climate change, and we can do it. The answer is getting to carbon 350 ppm or less. We can do it, and we will do it. The only real question is how much damage will be done before we get there? How much suffering will we endure? How many people will die? How many species will go extinct? Climate change has already created the end of the line for too many people and too many species. Our own well-being as individuals and as a species is now at stake. Clear thought and massive, focused action are the only way. Let’s get going.
Anthony Signorelli
Please share this post with anyone interested and encourage them to subscribe for free to get the rest of this book.
I like so far what you have written. I agree that we need coordinated, society-wide action on the climate crisis, rather than individual progress on one's climate footprint. I am eager to read your solutions, and what the next steps should be.