Ethics is often brought up in connection with climate change. In view of the upcoming danger, the right and wrong ways to address it are debated at increasing length. More often than not, dilemmas are presented in terms of present and future generations, but they are sometimes couched in terms of rich and poor nations coexisting at the present time. No matter how ethical questions are formulated, though, I find them irrelevant to the problem at hand. As far as I am concerned, the only question is how the upcoming danger will actually be addressed irrespective of what is considered right or wrong in terms of ethics no matter how defined. The question is not ethical but inherently practical. The right way forward is at best irrelevant if it does not lead to the desired results, and vice versa. In addition, I am convinced that there is no way around the upcoming danger. Right or wrong, all practical measures to deal with climate change will ultimately fail for the majority of humans. In the end, only a tiny fraction of them will survive the calamity, and its survival will have nothing to do with ethical choices made along the way. In short, ethics is bound only to confuse and potentially derail any practical course of action in view of the upcoming danger. Simply put, survival of the fittest and ethics have little, if anything, in common. Come what may, natural selection will provide the next step in human evolution.