The urgency of acting to limit climate change has nothing to do with politics or economics. Instead, it arises directly from the physics and chemistry of the climate system. Carbon dioxide, once it is added to the atmosphere, will remain there a long time. Some of it will remain in the atmosphere for centuries until natural processes remove it. Thus, it will be there essentially forever, if we think in terms of the implications on human time scales. The only known way to prevent atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts from increasing further is simply to cease emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. That is why acting swiftly to make large reductions in global emissions, in order to limit climate change, is urgent. Yet very little significant progress has occurred toward actually making the large cuts in global emissions of heat-trapping gases that would be needed to stabilize climate. Without drastic and rapid cuts in emissions, our children and their descendants, and ultimately all living things, will be faced with the consequences of more severe climate disruption.

The threat of climate change was already becoming clear to some climate scientists by the 1970s. However, the scientific community had not yet brought the details of this threat to the attention of the world. A towering figure in climate science, Stephen H. Schneider, 65, died after suffering a pulmonary embolism on July 19, 2010, while flying to London from a conference in Stockholm. The loss of Schneider, a professor at Stanford University, deprives the world of both an outstanding researcher and a gifted science communicator. Although his eloquent voice has now been silenced, his powerful influence on us all is indelible, and the example of the life he led will continue to be an inspiration. The effort at climate change science communication is not something novel and recent, but it has occupied many of us climate scientists for at least half a century. I also want to emphasize that climate change science communication needs to continue, because the world has not yet acted forcefully and effectively enough to limit climate change to an amount that nations of the world have agreed on.

Hillel, some 2,000 years ago, gave a brief explanation of the five books of the Torah. These books are known to Christians as the first five books of the Old Testament. Hillel said, “Treat others as you would wish them to treat you. That is the entire Torah. The rest is commentary. Now go and study.” I am certainly not Hillel, science is obviously not religion, and the IPCC reports are not the Torah. But I think the essence of the most recent IPCC report can be summarized in 12 succinct points. Here they are: It is warming. It is us. It has not stopped. The heat is mainly in the sea. Sea level is rising. Ice is shrinking. CO2 makes oceans more acidic. CO2 in the air is up 50% since the 1800s. It is now the highest in millions of years. Cumulative emissions set the warming. Reducing emissions limits the warming. Climate change will last for centuries.

Chapter 4 provides an environmental interpretation of Kant’s aesthetic and teleological theory as developed in the Critique of the Power of Judgment. To put Kant’s insights in dialogue with new contributions in climate aesthetics, I begin with Kant’s theory of the sublime. I claim that Kant’s account of the dynamical sublime has important moral and political relevance for climate philosophy despite its human-centered focus. Next, I look into Kant’s account of natural beauty, which I suggest justifies duties against environmental degradation. I also touch on Kant’s duties to love nature’s harmony and purposes in light of ecological stewardship. The chapter concludes with a look into Kantian teleology from the Critique of Judgment. I propose that teleological judgment can be used to motivate protection of non-beautiful aspects of ecosystems, especially in light of climate-related biodiversity loss.

I urge every climate change science communicator (including anyone speaking to family and friends and colleagues) to heed these warnings. Do not follow the example of the scientist who communicates all the details and background first and then announces the results and conclusions at the end. In journalism, this sin is called “burying the lead.” Avoid metric units when speaking to Americans. Avoid unfamiliar terms that always have familiar substitutes. Rather than “anthropogenic,” you could and should say “human caused.” Do not use jargon. Try to compose messages that are simple and memorable, to repeat them often, and to partner with trusted messengers. Use metaphors and other vivid imagery. If climate change is important to you, do not speak or write about it in dry and unemotional language that conveys boredom and resignation. Instead, let your passion show. Profit from opportunities to learn from expert communicators and to get useful feedback. Nobody is born knowing how to ski or drive a car. Like these skills, communication skills can be taught, developed, practiced, and improved.

The most famous graph in all of Earth science is the Keeling curve. This graph is the result of the persistence, vision, and skill of Charles David Keeling (1928–2005). It shows the results of measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations or amounts since 1958. There was no instrument to measure CO2 concentrations accurately until Keeling invented one. Keeling showed the rest of humanity that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can be measured accurately, that it is increasing, and that the increase is due to human causes, mainly burning fossil fuels: coal, oil, and natural gas. His attention to detail and his passion for accuracy were legendary. His measurements of atmospheric CO2 are universally acknowledged to be rock-solid. The measurements are now being carried on by other scientists, including his son, Ralph Keeling. CO2 is only part of the human-caused strengthening of the greenhouse effect. Additional strengthening is due to methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, chlorofluorocarbons, and a few other greenhouse gases, plus some small particles, called aerosols.

In Chapter 3, I argue that it is instructive to reconsider Kant’s pre-critical texts on metaphysics and natural philosophy to challenge the standard reading. These texts articulate a naturalistic, emergent, and dynamic conception of nature which undermines Kant’s usual claims to human superiority. Since dualism and anthropocentrism are largely absent in these texts and since they also encourage planetary thinking, I suggest that environmental philosophers may find an unlikely conceptual resource. As a practical implication, I review Kant’s injunction for human adaptation in the face of natural crisis. I also explore the resurgence of Kant’s pre-critical holism in the late Opus Postumum, suggesting that Kant never fully abandoned it. I conclude with a brief discussion on the influence of Kant’s holism on Goethe, Schiller, and Humboldt, which illuminates why those after Kant would find it plausible to synthesize the pre-critical view of nature with Kant’s mature aesthetic theory.

There are gases in the atmosphere – including water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, ozone (O3), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) – that act somewhat like the glass of a greenhouse. They are partially transparent to sunlight. But these same “greenhouse gases” are not transparent to the infrared radiation, or heat, that the Earth emits. They absorb some of it, and part of what they absorb is radiated back toward the surface of the Earth. The overall effect of these gases is to trap some of the heat within the atmosphere. One of the most important scientific pioneers, who did superb research and played a major role in creating the science of climate and climate change, was born more than 200 years ago. John Tyndall (1820–1893) was the first to put the concept of the greenhouse effect on a firm empirical foundation. Tyndall immediately realized the significance of his discovery for climate. He wrote that “a slight change” in the atmospheric amount of carbon dioxide or other infrared absorbing gases could have important effects on climate.

The last four remining candidates in the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination vehemently reject the fundamental findings of modern climate science. They tirelessly repeat climate myths, the refutations of which are easily found on websites such as www.skepticalscience.com. In order to obtain political and financial support, especially from sources allied with the fossil fuel industry, they may conclude that they must attack mainstream climate science. Yet science is the best process that humanity has developed to learn about natural laws. These laws show us that today's generation has its hands on the thermostat controlling future climate. Mother Nature, or the physical climate system, is not concerned with anybody’s values or convictions or political litmus tests. Mother Nature is concerned with natural laws. She always wins.

This Introduction specifies the book’s aims. Its main thesis is that a comprehensive examination of Kant’s texts displays the relevance of his ethical, legal, aesthetic, metaphysical, and historical ideas for environmental problems like climate change, despite the standard view of Kant as anthropocentrist, individualist, dualist, and nonconsequentialist. Doing so, the book builds a bridge between environmental philosophy and Kant studies by offering distinctly Kantian solutions to environmental problems. I begin with an overview of the tensions in these philosophical fields, emphasizing that the climate crisis exhibits the value of Kant’s philosophy for contemporary environmental problems. After providing empirical background on climate change, I indicate why philosophy matters for the crisis. A recent greening-the-canon movement in environmental philosophy nonetheless places Kant on the wayside. The Introduction also offers an overview of the chapters.

Chapter 5 aims to review the alleged limitations of Kantian nonconsequentialism and individualism for environmental ethics and climate ethics. I begin by assessing attempts by Hans Jonas to rework Kant’s categorical imperative as a principle for sustainability. After investigating recent efforts to reinterpret the supreme principle of morality as a ground of a sustainability ethic, I outline imperfect Kantian duties for sustainability with climate change in mind. I conclude by reflecting on duties in the face of political corruption. My goals are twofold. First, I argue that the default dismissal of Kantianism in climate ethics due to Kant’s individualism and nonconsequentialism is unfounded. Second, I suggest that contemporary defenders of Kantian sustainability have untapped conceptual resources in the Doctrine of Virtue and Doctrine of Right from The Metaphysics of Morals. The resources in these texts can provide solutions to unaddressed topics in the literature such as regulatory capture.

The measurements on which we base our estimates of the Earth’s global average surface temperature are contaminated by several serious sources of error. One of them is sampling error: We have not made measurements uniformly in space and time with identical instruments at identical locations on Earth over the whole 100-plus years of record. About 70% of the Earth is covered with ocean, and the Southern Hemisphere is nearly all ocean. For many years, few measurements were made at sea because people do not live there. And even within the remaining 30% that is land, there are vast areas (imagine the great ice-covered areas of Antarctica and Greenland) where very few people live and very few measurements were made until relatively recently. Satellite measurements and data from the Argo program, discussed earlier in this book, provide greatly improved ocean data. In general, the atmosphere over the land has warmed more than the atmosphere over the ocean, and largely because of this fact and the uneven distribution of land and ocean, the warming has not been the same in the two hemispheres.