· 9 min read
“The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”
— Martin Luther King Jr.
For many years, I believed that eventually, we wouldn’t be able to ignore the calls of Mother Nature. As the planet warms, seas rise, and fires rage, I thought that surely, we would reach a tipping point, a moment when the scale of destruction would jolt us into action. My only fear was that our awakening would come too late. Now, I’m not so sure and it is reflections on the relationship the world’s biggest polluter has with guns that is driving the rethink. .
The first chink in the armor came with the reaction to California’s wildfires. When flames consumed an area twice the size of Manhattan, I thought: This has to be the turning point. Now, finally, meaningful climate action will become inevitable. What actually happened? Drill, baby, drill, misinformation and conditioned aid tied to political agendas.
A worrying eye-opener in itself but also one that reminded me of another moment when I believed the unthinkable would surely lead to change: Sandy Hook. After that horrific massacre, I thought: This must be the moment when gun control in the U.S. becomes reality. Yet, nothing changed.
Why? What do gun control and climate change have in common? And why does it matter?
Guns and fossil fuels: dangerous parallels
At the most basic level, both guns and fossil fuels pose clear risks to human life. In the United States at least, both are abundant, almost inescapable. They disproportionately impact on communities of color. And both threaten the young more than the old.
Dig a little deeper, and the similarities become more striking. Both gun violence and climate inaction share the reality that those who contribute the least to the problem bear the greatest burden.
In the U.S., gun violence disproportionately affects communities of color. Systemic inequalities, ranging from economic disenfranchisement to under-resourced public services create conditions that heighten vulnerability. Similarly, the impacts of climate change are most severe for marginalized communities, both domestically in the US and globally. These groups are more likely to live in areas exposed to environmental hazards, be they flood-prone neighborhoods or urban heat islands, and often lack the resources to recover from climate related disasters.
Globally, countries in the Global South, responsible for a fraction of historic emissions, face the harshest consequences of a warming planet. In both crises, those with the fewest means to adapt or recover are left to shoulder the heaviest costs. This is no coincidence. Neither gun violence nor climate change exists in isolation; both are amplified by deep-seated social and economic inequalities that must be addressed for any meaningful, lasting solution.
This injustice hits young people hardest. Children have done little to cause these crises, yet firearms are the leading cause of death for children and teens in the U.S.. Similarly, today’s youth will bear the brunt of a warming planet for longer than any generation before them. And let’s not kid ourselves, neither guns nor fossil fuels are going away anytime soon.
Roughly a third of U.S. households with children contain at least one gun. One in five keeps a loaded, unlocked firearm. Gun sales have only accelerated in recent years. The fossil fuel story runs along a similar trajectory. Despite public concern over climate change, the fossil fuel sector continues to expand. Since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015, emissions have continued to rise, and the world’s 60 largest private banks have financed fossil fuels to the tune of $6.9 trillion (Rainforest Action Network, Banking on Climate Chaos, 2023).
United in inaction
This disconnect between what people want and what governments do here is striking. Taking guns first. Most Americans support stricter gun laws, universal background checks, bans on assault weapons, and restrictions on high-capacity magazines. Yet, Congress remains deadlocked. Even after repeated, heartbreaking tragedies, legislative change remains out of reach.
At least with guns, legislation to restrict sales is theoretically possible. Given enough time, and even more political will, the estimated 400 million guns already circulating could be controlled.
Greenhouse gases, however, present a different challenge. Once they’re out there, you can’t just get them back. Despite the hype around carbon capture technologies, we are nowhere near being able to remove historic emissions at the necessary scale. We cannot undo the damage already locked into our atmosphere, but we can prevent the worst outcomes of a heating Earth.
The science is clear, only a drastic shift this decade from fossil fuels to clean energy can prevent climate catastrophe (IPCC, AR6 Synthesis Report, 2023). Yet, despite broad public support, governments continue to subsidize fossil fuels to the tune of $7 trillion annually (IMF Fossil Fuel Subsidy Tracker, 2023). Even amid record-breaking temperatures and climate-fueled disasters, policy remains stubbornly supportive of fossil fuels.
This brings us to another commonality: the power of lobbying. In both cases, well-funded industries have successfully influenced legislation by funding political campaigns, shaping public narratives, and obstructing reform efforts. The National Rifle Association (NRA) has repeatedly blocked common-sense gun laws, by pressuring lawmakers and mobilizing a vocal minority of gun rights activists. Similarly, the fossil fuel industry has poured billions into misinformation campaigns, political donations, and lobbying efforts to stall climate action, ensuring continued subsidies and weak regulations despite widespread demand for clean energy. In both cases, the imbalance of influence means that public opinion alone is not enough to drive change.
Outrageous responses, and the real outrage
The arguments against action made by the lobbyists quickly seem ridiculous when applying the language of one crisis to the other. Should we talk about how to “mitigate” gun violence and “adapt” to a world where school shootings are routine? Would adaptation mean sending children to school in full body armor? Should we continue issuing “thoughts and prayers” for those living in the path of climate-fueled disasters, while communities not yet affected quietly count their blessings?
As absurd as that sounds, there’s an even more outrageous response to both crises: doing nothing. Resignation s not just irresponsible; it’s morally indefensible.Over time, the costs of inaction compound. Each year we fail to address gun violence and climate change, the human and financial toll grows. Even if it were too late to fully reverse the damage, that doesn’t mean we should simply give up.
Our children and all future generations, deserve a planet where they can thrive, not just survive. They deserve a world where the air is clean, the seas are stable, and they don’t have to fear for their lives at school.
Lessons from Action: When Change Did Happen
But perhaps all is not lost, there are examples of successful transformative action following tragedy.
Australia After Port Arthur
In 1996, Australia faced its deadliest mass shooting at Port Arthur, where 35 lives were lost. Within just 12 days, conservative Prime Minister John Howard introduced the National Firearms Agreement (NFA), banning semi-automatic and automatic rifles, instituting a mandatory buyback of 650,000 firearms, and implementing uniform gun laws nationwide.
Australia has not experienced anything close to Port Arthur since. Firearm-related homicides dropped by 59%, and suicides by 65%.
It wasn’t easy. Entrenched opposition was loud and fierce. Yet, within months, even many gun advocates admitted they wouldn’t want to go back. When a government treats an issue as a national crisis, rapid and meaningful policy change is possible.
Costa Rica’s Path to Near-Net-Zero Emissions
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
— Buckminster Fuller
Costa Rica’s journey toward near-net-zero emissions started in 1949, when, after a destabilizing civil war, the country made structural reforms aimed at reducing inequalities and reallocating resources. Notably the country abolished its military, redirecting its defense funds toward education, healthcare, and environmental protection.
The next major steps came in the 1970s and 1980s when faced with severe deforestation, Costa Rica introduced ambitious reforestation programs and created a national park system, recognizing that its rich biodiversity and natural beauty were key economic assets. At the same time, Costa Rica capitalized on its geographical advantages, investing heavily in renewable energy infrastructure, primarily hydropower, geothermal, wind, and solar. The country now generates over 98% of its electricity from renewable sources.
Costa Rica’s economy stands out in Central America for its relative wealth, stability, and diversification. With a GDP per capita higher than all of its neighbors, save for Panama (who benefit from the canal)., Costa Rica has shifted from traditional agriculture into a dynamic economy driven by eco-tourism, technology, and high-value exports like medical devices.
Unlike many regional economies heavily reliant on remittances or extractive industries, Costa Rica has attracted significant foreign investment, particularly in the tech sector, boosting skilled employment. Its political stability, universal healthcare, and high literacy rates further differentiate it from neighbors grappling with political unrest and inequality. Although challenges like fiscal deficits and a high cost of living persist, Costa Rica’s economic model, rooted in renewable energy and sustainability, demonstrates how green growth can drive prosperity in a developing region.
A Final Thought
“We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.”
— Native American Proverb
You may find the parallels between gun control and climate action to be deeply uncomfortable, I certainly do, as they expose a difficult truth: We live in a world where preventable tragedies continue, not for lack of solutions, but for lack of will.
So what to do? Let’s flip this parallel on its head for a minute, what can we in the climate space learn from the gun lobby. The gun rights movement has successfully cultivated a base of single-issue voters who consistently turn out to vote, making politicians hesitant to cross them. The climate movement lacks a similarly mobilized and consistent voter base focused exclusively or principally on climate issues. Climate advocates must cultivate a dedicated constituency that views climate action as non-negotiable. Focus on positive, actionable solutions rather than solely warning of future catastrophes. Show that climate solutions benefit people today, not just in the distant future.
A recurring theme after Sandy Hook and other mass shootings has been a sense of resignation, the belief that nothing will change. The climate movement faces a similar risk with narratives telling us that it’s “too late” to prevent catastrophe. It isn’t. Every fraction of a degree matters and we can prevent the worst effects of climate change if we act now.
The gun lobby’s success partly rests on arguments that gun ownership supports a large industry and individual livelihoods. Similarly, fossil fuel advocates argue that their industry provides jobs and fuels the economy. Let’s push back by emphasizing the fact that renewable energy creates more jobs per dollar invested than fossil fuels and that green innovation can secure global economic competitiveness.
For the sake of all our children, I choose to believe we will ultimately make the right choices. But belief alone is not enough and winning slowly is still losing.
Change demands action. And action demands us to make our voices heard, now more than ever.
“The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second-best time is now.”
— Chinese Proverb
illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
