Suppose climate isn’t changing because of human activity, but we pass legislation as though it is?

Our air and water would be cleaner, for one thing. Flooding would be better managed, and newer sources of energy would create jobs in new fields.

Why, then, are we having difficulty cleaning up waterways and passing stricter emission standards?

Possibly because coal miners and others will lose jobs, at least the jobs they have now. Some employees of industrial polluters may lose jobs, too. Standards will be stricter and may cost money to enforce. We may have to give up activities we are used to doing. Development on sensitive land may be forbidden.

Yet, data points to unprecedented and rapid warming of the earth. We have a conflict between what is good for the “community” (a cleaner environment and better management of our resources) over against difficult changes for some.

How, then, can we work toward a zero sum game for all players?

We can begin by acknowledging the hardship caused to some of our population by climate change policies. Change, any change, usually requires that someone give up something.

Our jobs are changing and not only from climate policies. We cannot stop change. We can only manage change, if we so choose. We can begin by asking questions.

Why are we wedded to practices of the industrial revolution when that revolution is long past?

Why is our economic system arranged as if most families can survive with only one wage earner?

Why do we live as though the norm is lifetime employment with one company? A company we must depend on to provide essentials like health insurance?

Climate change is only one change we face. Our digital revolution is another. Continual training, available for all who need it for new jobs, is essential. Universal health insurance, not dependent on an employer, is another.

Given the means to change, we also must be willing to change for the benefit of the community.