Many now argue that we should think about the previously unthinkable risks of climate change, including societal collapses and human extinction. Calamitous images of the future are not pathological or counterproductive: it is both necessary and valuable to imagine the worst‐case scenarios of climate change. Critics of climate catastrophe often group together all visions of disastrous futures under labels like doomism or pessimism. This is unhelpful and greater nuance is required. We need to distinguish between climate doomists (who see catastrophe as imminent and unavoidable) and climate risk realists (who see catastrophe as one potential future that should be avoided). We also need to split apart the different ways of envisioning climate catastrophe to understand their distinct strengths and weaknesses. We outline and compare three alternative modes of viewing the worst‐case scenarios of climate change: foresight, agitation, and fiction. The first centers on modeling catastrophic climate scenarios, the second on the use of images of climate catastrophe for political action, and the third on fictional visions of future climate disasters. These different approaches are complementary and should be better integrated to create more comprehensive models of the future. All of them would benefit from viewing the future as uncertain, reflecting on the social position of the author, and guarding against the authoritarian “stomp reflex” that can be induced by discussions of crisis and emergency.

This article is categorized under:

Assessing Impacts of Climate Change > Evaluating Future Impacts of Climate Change