The need for action to save the planet has become urgent. Yet, in a sense, there is good news in that urgency. It implies that most people may live to see the bright side of the industrial revolution. We can help to restore wonders of the natural world, of creation, while maintaining and expanding the benefits of advanced technology.

When the first industrial revolution began in Britain it was powered by coal, the most abundant of the fossil fuels. Later discovery of oil provided an energy source that helped to power the developed world to ever greater productivity and living standards.

We did not face up to the dark side of the industrial revolution until it was thrust in our face. London choked on smog. A river in the United States burnt. Forests were damaged by acid rain. Fish died in many lakes, all problems traced to pollutants from fossil fuels.

We have solved, or are solving, those pollution problems, at least in developed countries. But we did not address them until they hit us with full force. That approach, to wait and see and fix the problems post facto, will not work in the case of global climate change. Ignoring the problem would lock in future catastrophic and irreversible climatic change that would unfold during the remainder of this century and beyond.

The climate system has great inertia, responding only slowly to forcings such as the gases that humans are adding to the atmosphere. The inertia is due to the large mass of the ocean and the ice sheets that cover Antarctica and Greenland. This inertia may seem to be a boon, as it reduces near-term change, but it also allows a dangerous level of gases to build up, causing far greater problems in the long term.

The gravest threat to humanity, almost surely, lies in the great ice sheets. They can disintegrate rapidly, raising sea level by several metres per century, as we know from the Earth’s history.

If we burn all the fossil fuels, global warming would exceed that of the Pliocene era, three million years ago, when sea level was 25 metres higher than today. Consequences of such a sea level rise would be too severe to manage: a quarter of a billion Chinese live within 25 metres of sea level, there are major cities on the East Coast of the United States, and about one billion people worldwide. Damage from rising seas would occur irregularly, at the time of storm surges. Considering the recovery time of the small city of New Orleans, with a population of only a few hundred thousand, it is easy to imagine the effects of globally rising seas.

The profound implication, which must be learnt by politicians and the public, is that we cannot burn all the fossil fuels. To do so would create a totally different planet, one without ice in the Arctic, with extreme heat and drought in the Mediterranean region, the American West and parts of Africa, and most important, with sea level beginning to rise uncontrollably.

A low limit on allowable carbon dioxide has a bright side. Such a limit requires changes to our energy systems that would do more than solve the sea level problem. They would leave ice in the Arctic and avoid dramatic climate changes in other parts of the world. Air pollutants produced by fossil fuels, especially soot and low-level ozone, also would be reduced, restoring a more pristine, healthy planet.

A low emissions limit is achievable, but only if the trend towards a different energy future begins promptly. A new direction requires governments to encourage change by gradually but certainly increasing the price of carbon emissions, improving efficiency standards and removing barriers to efficiency.

A gradually increasing price on carbon emissions will not prevent readily available oil and gas from being used, but the lifetime of these valuable energy resources would be stretched, allowing alternative energies to be developed. Coal could still be a long-term energy source for power plants, if the carbon dioxide is captured and sequestered underground.

The efforts that are needed to solve the climate problem paint a bright picture of the future for almost everyone. Restoration of clean air is universally beneficial. New energy sources and energy efficiency produce high-tech jobs. Growing plants for biofuels provides a big boost for farming.

But there is one big obstacle to achieving this brighter future for the planet: the special interests that have such a strong influence on policies, especially in the United States. ExxonMobil, for example, says about carbon dioxide: “You call it pollution, we call it life.” They insist on remaining a fossil fuel company, rather than becoming an energy company. By larding the campaign coffers of numerous politicians, the fossil fuel industry has succeeded in subverting the democratic principle.

The best hope for the planet is a grass roots movement. People concerned about climate change and the legacy that we will leave should consider having a date with the planet. Until the public indicates sufficient interest, and puts pressure on political systems, special interests will continue to rule.

-The author heads Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Times Recommends

• Pressure to scrap 2p fuel tax as oil hits $135
• Credit crunch halves lending at Nationwide
• UBS presses the button on a $16bn rights issue