You’re likely familiar with the essential narrative of the Irish “potato famine.” The story unfolds as follows: Ireland was an impoverished land governed by a detached and exploitative British ruling class during the nineteenth century. Numerous tenant farmers eked out a scant existence, perennially teetering on the brink of famine. They had grown reliant on a singular type of potato for their sustenance. In the 1840s, a blight from the Americas decimated the potato harvest, obliterating Ireland’s primary food source. The British administration’s reaction to the calamity was marked by egregious neglect. A million individuals perished; twice that number fled Ireland for other regions.

So, what nature of the crisis was the famine? The perspective varied depending on whom you consulted and the timing:

• For some, it represented a demographic challenge — British aristocrats posited that the Irish populace’s excessive fertility rates necessitated a Malthusian adjustment.
• In the United States, it was perceived as an immigration issue.
• Economically, it stemmed from the initial impoverishment of the Irish populace and the failure of economic mechanisms to alleviate their starvation.
• It was a policy crisis for the governing bodies, as officials persisted in exporting grain from Ireland while its people languished in hunger.
• Politically, Irish nationalists saw the catastrophe as a consequence of British colonialism.
• It is an environmental dilemma prompted by the introduction of a non-native species.

The great Irish famine can be described as an “everything problem” — a convergence of diverse factors resulting in a comprehensive tragedy.

Climate change is the quintessential “everything problem” — akin to the Irish famine, its nature varies based on the perspective. Our grasp of climate change’s essence shapes our understanding of potential remedies.

Typically, climate change is seen as an environmental issue. While this perspective is valid, it can be restrictive.

This viewpoint is limiting partly because we conceptualize the natural environment. In everyday discourse, environmental issues concern “nature,” which is perceived as separate from human civilization — existing independently in national parks or atop mountains. Although we occasionally venture into nature, we seldom consider our living environments part of it.

Consequently, a significant segment of the populace views environmental concerns as preserving endangered species and forest health rather than human welfare. They need to recognize the interconnectedness of their lives with these ostensibly remote ecosystems.

This attitude suggests that addressing environmental challenges is an act of benevolence towards other species and distant locales. Solving climate change might benefit the polar bears, yet it has minimal impact on us. This is reflected in public sentiment: a recent Yale survey on climate change indicated that 70% of Americans believe climate change will damage “plants and animals,” but only 46% think it will affect “them personally.”

Environmental challenges are often linked with ecological activists, frequently stereotyped as overzealous conservationists. Most Americans do not identify as environmentalists; hence, if climate change is depicted solely as an environmental issue, it might not garner their interest. In this light, it becomes a concern primarily for activists and supporters of organizations like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace.

Climate change is also an economic dilemma. Commonly, the approach to combating climate change is viewed through a lens of financial sacrifice. This perspective posits that addressing environmental issues invariably hampers economic prosperity — implying a false dichotomy between vigorous economic growth and ecological sustainability. Political figures often invoke job preservation or financial stability as justifications for eschewing climate initiatives.

This view must be more reductive and better at assessing the interplay between climate initiatives and economic dynamics. While it’s accurate that immediate climate actions may entail costs and impact specific economic sectors negatively — such as a carbon tax increasing expenses and reducing profits for the fossil fuel industry — investing in climate solutions now is expected to be economically beneficial in the long term.

It’s more accurate to acknowledge that climate change will impose significant costs regardless. The choice lies between investing less to shift our economy away from fossil fuels or facing more extraordinary expenses later to adapt to drastic climate changes and make the same economic transition.

Although mitigating climate change might result in job losses and financial impacts for some, it also unveils extraordinary economic prospects. Enterprises and individuals who innovate and develop viable technologies can reap substantial rewards from transitioning to a greener economy. Moreover, the advent of new, cleaner technologies offers the potential for a win-win scenario — enhanced prosperity, improved living standards, and environmental preservation.

The climate crisis represents a multifaceted political issue. It encompasses global politics, manifesting in international discussions and competing climate commitments. It’s a matter of national policy, with governments deliberating over whether to support green innovations or impose penalties on fossil fuel production. Locally, it involves decisions about endorsing renewable energy projects and transportation policies.

Like many issues, climate change has become a battleground for political division in the United States. In an election year, Democrats are likely to rally their base with commitments to climate action, whereas Republicans may vow to oppose such measures.

The resistance from Republicans to climate initiatives — even those that are market-driven, favor small government, and are pro-business — is not necessarily because they deny climate change or wish to worsen it. For many, it’s a strategic decision influenced by their political alliances and the current incentive structures around climate policy. The Republican Party’s base, including older individuals, those without college education, large corporations, and conservative ideologues, generally resists climate change solutions, influencing the party’s stance.

Climate change also poses a significant human rights issue. The harsh truth is that the impacts of climate change will be felt unevenly across the globe. For some, the inability to adjust to a hotter planet stems from a lack of resources — they may lack air conditioning or the necessary infrastructure to manage flooding. In other instances, it’s a matter of geographical fortune: certain regions are heating up more rapidly than others, leading to more severe consequences like crop failures, droughts, or heatwaves.

These imbalances will lead to grave humanitarian concerns. The difficulties wrought by climate change will exacerbate economic disparities, disproportionately affecting specific communities over others, especially those from marginalized ethnic or social backgrounds. Some individuals will be compelled to abandon their homes for better prospects. When these migrants arrive in new locales or at the borders of foreign nations, they might not attribute their displacement to climate change directly, citing the absence of economic possibilities, political persecution, or widespread violence instead. Yet, the underlying influence of climate change will be intertwined with these challenges.

These scenarios represent just a fraction of how climate change will manifest as a pressing issue in the years ahead. While some may associate the climate crisis with wildfires and the plight of endangered species, others will focus on economic impacts; still, others will perceive it as a chance for political advancement. Many addressing these challenges may not immediately connect their efforts to climate change — they might believe they are responding to an unparalleled crisis at the border or rising food costs. However, at the heart of many of these issues lies climate change.

Like the Irish famine, climate change is an “everything problem” — its ramifications are so extensive that they touch upon virtually every facet of existence. Whether consciously acknowledged or not, we will grapple with the various dimensions of climate change for the foreseeable future.