Every so often, a headline declares that climate change will end humanity — that we are on the brink of global collapse, that our children may not have a future, that the planet is barreling toward unlivable conditions.

These claims spread quickly because fear spreads quickly. But fear is not the same thing as understanding, and panic is not the same thing as action.

Recently, Stephen Lezak, a researcher who studies the politics of climate change, wrote an article discussing a memo by Bill Gates in which Gates argues that climate change “will not lead to humanity’s demise.”

That statement startled some readers because it seems to contradict the narrative that excessive global warming (greater than 3 degrees Celsius) spells potentially devastating consequences — among them, large areas of uninhabitability, collapse of global systems and states and the demise of half the world’s population.

Yet Gates’ argument aligns closely with those expressed by others, including philosopher Toby Ord in his 2020 book “The Precipice,” which evaluates the conditions under which climate change could theoretically rise to the level of an existential threat.

Ord’s conclusion, like Gates’ conclusion, is that climate change is profoundly dangerous, but its level of threat to the global extinction of humanity has an extremely low probability. This assumes, of course, that excessive warming does not trigger a set of natural feedbacks that cascade into a catastrophic tipping point, or that human intervention does not go awry in ways whose probabilities are unknown.

For some environmentalists, that conclusion feels almost blasphemous — as if it undermines decades of advocacy. But the point is not to undercut the seriousness of climate change. It is to locate the seriousness accurately.

As an atmospheric scientist, a Lancaster County resident and a climate activist, I see great value in the argument by Gates that Lezak highlights. We are not doing ourselves any favors by clinging to a storyline that implies the end of civilization is inevitable. Nor are we helping our cause by suggesting that climate change is a matter of simple global averages — as if all communities, countries and people will be affected identically once some planetary thermometer ticks up another half degree.

The reality is more complicated, and more important, than that.

Unequal impacts

What scientists understand — and what many commentators overlook — is that climate change is fundamentally about vulnerability, not uniform destruction. It is not true that every corner of the world will become uninhabitable. But it is equally untrue — and morally unacceptable — to pretend that warming will be mild or insignificant.

The world we are moving into will be harsher for millions of people, especially those who have already endured generations of poverty, displacement, political oppression, colonial extraction and environmental injustice. Climate change does not erase these inequities. It magnifies them.

This is where Lezak’s political analysis is essential. When we talk about climate harm, we often treat it as if it descends from the sky evenly, like sunlight. But climate impacts fall on people who are not standing on equal ground. Those who have the least — materially, socially, or politically — will bear the greatest burden.

Those with more wealth, stronger infrastructure and more responsive governments will endure serious challenges but remain relatively secure. The strongest determinant of climate suffering is not latitude. It is inequality.

Understanding this is not a reason for complacency; it is a reason for clarity. If the harms of climate change are unevenly distributed, then the solutions must be as well. A farmer in Lancaster County, a family in the Midwest, a coastal fishing village in Bangladesh and an urban neighborhood in Philadelphia are not facing the same risks or the same ability to recover. Pretending they are cheapens the reality of those who are most vulnerable.

Avoiding fatalism

The narrative of total global collapse distracts us from this truth. It turns a deeply human problem into an abstraction. It convinces people — especially young people — that the future is hopeless and action is pointless. I have seen this firsthand among students who worry that planning for adulthood is futile because the world will be unlivable.

When we push a message of climate fatalism, we nudge them closer to disengagement and despair. That is not environmental stewardship; it is emotional harm.

On the other side, climate change deniers seize upon exaggerated doomsday rhetoric as proof that climate advocates are alarmists. This undermines trust in the very real science that should be guiding our decisions. The physics of greenhouse gases do not need embellishment to be taken seriously. The data are stark enough as they are.

If we want meaningful climate action, we need a different story — one grounded in scientific reality, moral responsibility and the capacity of communities such as the one in Lancaster County to act.

The truth is that climate change will reshape our world, but it will not eliminate it. We will continue to farm, build, raise families, invent and adapt.

The real question is: Who will be helped through this transition, and who will be left behind? That question sits at the center of the climate challenge, and it should sit at the center of our climate politics.

This means we must continue transitioning rapidly away from fossil fuels toward renewable and sustainable technologies. The evidence is overwhelming: reducing carbon emissions is essential to limiting the severity of future warming.

But we must also acknowledge that the transition itself must be fair. If we adopt policies that unintentionally increase costs for rural households, small businesses, low-income families or farmers, we will deepen the very inequities we claim to be addressing.

The Lancaster focus

Lancaster County demonstrates this clearly. Our agricultural lands, stormwater systems and aging infrastructure face real risks from heavier rainfall and hotter summers. Flooding affects neighborhoods and farms differently. Urban heat does not strike every household the same way.

Climate adaptation here requires local knowledge, local investment and local leadership. Waiting for global solutions to fix everything is unrealistic — and, frankly, unnecessary. We already have tools to strengthen resilience, update infrastructure, support farmers and protect vulnerable residents.

But mitigation and adaptation are only part of the story. We also need innovation. The future energy landscape will look nothing like the present one. Research in fusion energy, advanced battery storage, carbon-neutral fuels and smart-grid technology may feel distant from daily life in Lancaster County, but these innovations will decide what kind of world our children inherit. Investing in them is not optional. It is foundational.

The challenge is large, but the narrative does not need to be apocalyptic. In truth, the most responsible path is one of hopeful realism. We must face squarely what climate change will bring, and we must reject the distractions of both fatalism and denial.

The future is neither doomed nor guaranteed. It is something we build.

In that sense, the old environmental mantra — think globally, act locally — is not a cliché. It is a blueprint. Thinking globally means understanding the interconnectedness of the climate system and the global forces that shape it.

Acting locally means recognizing that the most immediate, tangible and impactful climate solutions will happen in counties, municipalities, school districts and neighborhoods such as the ones here in Lancaster.

Climate change is a planetary challenge, but its consequences play out one community at a time. Whether we face those consequences with fear or with preparation is a choice. Whether we allow inequality to deepen or commit to protecting the most vulnerable is a choice. Whether we cling to narratives of doom or embrace a strategy of resilience is a choice.

Reject despair

It is time to choose clarity over catastrophism. Our younger generations deserve more than despair; they deserve a future with possibility. Our most vulnerable neighbors deserve more than warnings; they deserve support. And our community deserves more than a narrative of global calamity; it deserves a path forward rooted in both science and solidarity.

Climate change will not bring about the end of humanity, but it will challenge our humanity. The measure of our response will be not how loudly we declare disaster, but how compassionately and intelligently we prepare for the world that is coming — and how steadfastly we work to ensure that no one is left behind.

That work begins here. It begins now. And it begins with all of us.

Richard D. Clark is vice president of the North Museum of Nature and Science Board of Directors. He is a professor emeritus of meteorology at Millersville University.