Margret Atwood’s “It’s Not Climate Change It’s Everything Change” provides insight into three interesting scenarios that could become the consequences and results of climate change. I enjoyed the article and pondering what the future could look like as we adapt, or fail to adapt, to climate change. After our discussion on ‘What is Climate Change?” and looking into the effects of climate change on biodiversity that are already occurring, I wonder what the three scenarios laid out by Atwood would mean for aspects of our world beyond human concern and utility. Atwood’s stories focus on how humans would be impacted by the possible responses to climate change, but she doesn’t fully address how these three scenarios would impact other species. In scenario one, human technology and lifestyle manages to adapt to a more sustainable model before the oil runs out, and Atwood notes that nature would thrive in radiation zones, but I wonder what the cost of getting to this most optimistic, if unrealistic, place is for biodiversity. According to the Harvard School of Public Health, Projections already suggest that 25% of all species will be threatened by 2050, only 32 years into the future. By the time society would adapt to this model of living, what flora and fauna will be left to thrive? While scenarios such as converting to a sustainable system or experiencing the end of oil and downfall of society might provide spaces in which nature can thrive, the problem will be that if current climate change effects obliterate biodiversity on our planet before we can get there, what consequences will that entail?