Oil has been discovered in the waters around the Falklands. This has revived the decades-old conflict between Argentina and the United Kingdom, both of which claim the islands – and this time the rest of Latin America is united behind Argentina. Will we see the developed world unite behind England?

Given the realities of peak oil, finding more is a good thing. However, as oil becomes more and more precious as the supply dwindles – and as foolish Western governments have failed to prepare – the potential for conflict becomes very high indeed. The United States has a massive military presence in the Middle East to protect its “national interests” there, and the United Kingdom is likely to take the same view of any oil discovered anywhere they can make any sort of claim to.

In the first Falklands War, the U.K. handily prevailed, although not without some losses. This time, Argentina has the pledged support of many Latin nations, including Brazil, a heavyweight contender. The supply line from the U.K. to the Falklands is very long indeed, and the British would need a continuous and very costly naval presence to keep any oil flowing from the Falklands to the U.K.

If Britain were to attempt to secure the Falklands by force and drain them dry of oil – a very long straw – this could easily unite Latin America against Britain and her allies. As a Canadian, it is entirely possible that our ‘conservative’ Prime Minister, who would have sent Canadian troops into Iraq had he been in power, or the main opposition leader, who would also have put Canadians in Iraq, would support Britain. This would be disastrous for Canada and for the developed world.

What will the United States do? It certainly puts Mr. Obama in a tough spot. How could he not support his longest and biggest allies in Iraq in the U.S. war for oil? Now we have the former and current reigning imperial powers (I hope not supported by Canada and others) extracting resources from a faraway land that the locals lay claim to – this time with the support of the entire region.

Imagine that the Arab nations had united behind Iraq; the United States would quite possibly now be a destitute country, starved for oil, while the Arabs shipped oil to the new rising power: China. The last two times the Arab nations restricted the supply of oil, the U.S. was plunged into recession.

It seems a safe bet that any American support for Britain would include a promise to share in the booty…which if the war wasn’t enough, might well be the last straw required to unite Latin America against the United States. (For those who don’t know, the U.S. has a long history of overthrowing democratically-elected Latin American governments and supporting murderous dictators.)

This is a predicament, not a problem. The difference between the two is that the latter has a solution, the former may not. It is such because of the nature of peak oil, itself a predicament from which there is not necessarily any escape. Oil is becoming progressively more valuable, not just in dollars, but in terms of sustaining civilisation. As the supply tightens – oil prices are four times what they were just a few years ago, despite a worldwide recession – it becomes increasingly clear to all just how critical oil is and will be. Without it, severe hardship will result, and few governments will long stand if their people are freezing in the dark, if food and transportation prices double.

The British squandered their North Sea oil on continuing to live the high life, rather than using it to power a transition to conservation and renewable energy. Now they are stuck, and may well attempt to take this new supply – with the help of much of the developed world.

Many of us realise the nature of the threat posed by climate change, peak oil, peak everything else, fisheries collapse, ocean acidification, desertification…the list is getting longer, especially recently.¹ Even if you don’t know about all of these dangers, you know enough about one or two to know that one or two is enough to do us in. Yet many people still live lifestyles they know to be wildly unsustainable, even actively harmful. Why?

This is not the place for a detailed discussion of each of the threats previously mentioned. I am going to assume that, if you are reading this, you accept that we face at least one very severe threat that will cause great harm. There will be damage to individual and social prosperity, the economy at large, health, our standard of living, and so on. If unchecked, it has the potential to set civilisation and population back considerably. There may be differences over timeline, level of awareness, beliefs about our ability to adapt, and so forth, but we all accept that we face a severe threat. There are millions of people who accept this about climate change and/or peak oil, and/or other environmental concerns and/or etc.

And yet you still drive?

I still drive. I am very aware of the extent of many of these dangers, and how driving is contributing to making them worse. I know carbon emitted by me² indirectly contributed to the drying up of Lake Chad, which resulted in millions being driven from their lands into other, already crowded lands…and a genocide ensued. I know that any carbon emitted by me is contributing to sea level rise that will drown parts of Delta, BC, just across from my home of Victoria.

And yet I still drive, and so do many millions of ‘ecoaware’ people. How can I live with myself?

Here are my reasons:

• I live in a car-based society. I would prefer to live in a walkable community, but those are exceptionally rare. I am working to create one, however.
• If we greened our economy, then living green would be no sacrifice. However, we don’t, so if I want to go green I have to do without things, like jobs I can only take if I have a car, and do other things I really don’t want to do, like carry the groceries home. (If the economy was green I’d be walking to work or taking an electric train or working from home.  The train would stop inside a station in the mall, instead of across the parking lot. And grocery stores would deliver – most do for free now – or I’d get a cart of some sort to haul the occasional heavy load home.)
• Any individual contribution is lost as the rich fly to Paris for Valentine’s Day. Without all of us going green, we’re done. I’m willing to go much deeper green than I am, but not if I’m the only one.

All for one, or none for all

That is our current situation. There are a lot of people unwilling to change, never mind sacrifice. I know that unless they do, we’re all done. But until then, I have to live in this society, and I can’t always get the locally-grown organic wine. Sometimes it’s the cheap stuff.

It’s partly a trade-off, in that it takes more time and money to live green than otherwise, and that means other things don’t get done. In my case, I need time to write this blog and do other things that I consider important in creating a social tipping point, after which we ‘get it’ and go green fast. If the choice is between darning socks and giving a presentation on climate change, I will choose the latter.

I am working to change the example I live and the mainstream view. I am doing this both to give myself the greatest security and because it’s the right thing. We should not be destroying the planet or ignoring reality because it’s convenient and temporarily profitable to do so. Those are inadequate justifications for destroying our natural capital.

And because most people are not changing, there will be consequences. I am working on building a passive solar home, for example, which is the right way to build and the best way to protect myself and my family from some of the consequences of our collective inaction on climate and peak oil.

Are those who sacrifice more, more moral? I suppose the Bible would say so, while the preachers for many of the largest U.S. ‘Christian’ churches, and the vast majority of CEOs, politicians and economists, would say no. My money’s on the Bible in the case, up to a point. So why don’t I sacrifice more? I believe that people are both selfish and selfless, that each is ‘right,’ and that the good life requires balancing the two.

In a world of want, you could reduce yourself to a very impoverished level as you sacrificed as much as possible to be the most moral. Or, you could enrich yourself somehow now and give money to charity later. I prefer taking care of myself so I can help others – and taking care of myself does not require tens of millions of dollars.

Ultimately, it comes down to one’s personal morality, including how willing you are to live with dissonance between morality and action. For me, I do not believe it is more moral for me to sacrifice below the point of a middle class standard of living.

*****************************************

¹I would also add the corruption of many democracies, in particular that of the U.S., is a great threat to Americans and possibly the rest of us, but the article is about conservation or lack thereof.

² To the nimrods: Yes, I know that I exhale CO2 and yes, I realise that my demise would end this, and no, I am not proposing any should die to reduce CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) emissions. I am saying people will die if we do not reduce non-carbon-neutral processes.

Suggested books if you want to learn more

The books below discuss in much more detail some of the ideas mentioned in this post.

The first book (from left-to-right) is Plenty: Eating Locally on the 100-Mile Diet – something the authors found a tremendous challenge. And they live in Vancouver, where far more can be grown than anywhere else in the country. They found certain foods were simply no longer available. Here’s a telling quote from the book:

Call me naive, but I never knew that flour would be struck from our 100-Mile Diet. Wheat products are just so ubiquitous, “the staff of life,” that I had hazily imagined the stuff must be grown everywhere. But of course: I had never seen a field of wheat anywhere close to Vancouver, and my mental images of late-afternoon light falling on golden fields of grain were all from my childhood on the Canadian prairies. What I was able to find was Anita’s Organic Grain & Flour Mill, about 60 miles up the Fraser River valley. I called, and learned that Anita’s nearest grain suppliers were at least 800 miles away by road. She sounded sorry for me. Would it be a year until I tasted a pie?

The next book is James Howard Kunstler’s The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of Oil, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century. Kunstler explains why peak oil is imminent and a problem.

The next two books are growing your own vegetables year-round in a solar greenhouse, something we might all want to look into. The second also has “recipes for soaps, teas and things like that which can be made from greenhouse-grown items” which sounds fun.

REUTRES – In retaliation for Canada sabotaging the climate talks at Copenhagen, the G77 group of nations has announced they will boycott the upcoming Olympic Games in Canada. Said the Indian Prime Minister, “While the Olympic Games have great value in many ways, there is no point spending millions of dollars on sport when we have millions of climate refugees to relocate in the upcoming years.”

The pullout is a major embarrassment to Canada, and certainly means that the Olympics will be a financial disaster. Prime Minister Harper could not be reached for comment, and…

You may have realised by now that this is not true, although you could be forgiven if you wondered. Boycotts have been organised in the past over less. And if you’re in one of the sinking countries, you might think a shot at obstructionist Canada is justified.

I previously wrote that by scuttling a realistic climate deal at Copenhagen, the G8 has essentially declared war on the G77. I urged 5 immediate actions the G77 must take – and I still think they should. To that I add a sixth: If you want the West to take you seriously, you’re going to have to wake us up. Boycotting the Olympics will save you millions better used for fighting climate change, and will send a message to Canadians.

While I opposed having the Olympics here originally, now that we’ve promised to host them we should hold up our end, so I don’t make this recommendation of action against my own country lightly. But principles come before patriotism, and we Canadians are obstructing a climate deal and that’s not right.

It is all of these. For the developing countries:

Copenhagen is like finally admitting to yourself that someone you thought was a good friend has been stealing from you. For years. Lying to your face the whole time. And with no intention of going honest any time soon.

Copenhagen is like finally admitting to yourself that this person is not your friend, probably never was, and doesn’t really even know what it means to be a friend.

Copenhagen is the realisation that leadership will not come from the rich countries. Canada and the United States will not do the right and honourable thing. We will not even do what is sensible to save ourselves.

Copenhagen means you must defend yourselves from us. We’ll still be dumping greenhouse gases while you are struggling with millions of climate refugees, with flooded cities and ruined farmland, with economic and social disaster. Not our problem.

These are the harsh truths of Copenhagen: You must lead and you must protect yourselves from us. We are not your friend.

You should go after Rex Tillerson and Stephen Harper for crimes against humanity. Tillerson because his company has funded climate denial for years, and Harper because he stabbed you in the back at Copenhagen and Bali; their actions will cost you dearly.

Some people opposed to an agreement on limiting greenhouse gas emissions claim that such an agreement is a thinly veiled attempt to impose a world government that takes away their “freedoms.” I don’t know how many people take these people or this argument seriously, but it does seem to be a theme among far-right-wingers. I also don’t know how many of these conspiracy addicts are sincere; this may simply be a position they retreat from when pressed, and that  serves mainly to conceal something socially unacceptable, like racism or the desire that the American empire continue unimpeded.

Polluters should not be allowed to pollute, because that harms us all and there is no way to compensate for non-financial harm. If someone steals from you and is forced to pay restitution, you have your money back. If someone pollutes the water upstream and your child dies of leukemia…. Worse, someone who dumps carcinogens into the water is unlikely to have a functioning conscience and will fight in every way possible to avoid paying even financial restitution, never mind being sent to prison. From burying you with a multi-million-dollar court battle to paying senators to change laws to make the immoral legal, they will not pay willingly.

The most recent attempt to make the most money for the least effort means ‘outsourcing’ to countries with lower pollution standards and rulers who can be more easily influenced to keep them that way – and ‘free trade’ to ensure that local businesses with higher standards cannot compete.

Globally agreed-upon and enforced pollution regulations, worker safety laws, and a greenhouse gas tax are necessary when dealing with global capitalism. Otherwise, conscienceless business owners will seek ways to influence local governments and gain an unfair advantage. ‘Free trade’ has been simply a way to allow the conscienceless to seek the lowest price, regardless of the cost to all of us.

Ironically, these global laws result in a more local economy, and rebuild manufacturing in the United States and Canada. Why? Because when polluters must pay for the greenhouse gases they add to the atmosphere, suddenly it makes sense to make things locally again. The ‘competitive advantage’ of being able to pollute at will or run sweatshops is eliminated, and of course, shipping costs will go up.

Unfortunately, we have allowed polluters to pollute rather than coming up with clean processes right from the start. That would have been the best way, but it’s a bit late. Next best is to tax pollution while phasing it out. That’s what government is supposed to do: protect the people, not the corporations.

Copenhagen has failed to produce a realistic plan to combat the climate crisis. Two degrees is too much; the current heating of 0.8C is already cooking the world, melting practically every glacier on the planet, causing deserts to spread and wildfires to be much more damaging, and ocean acidification is destroying the entire marine food web. Tens of millions will be driven from their land, their homes, and their livelihoods to become displaced climate refugees within the next forty years.

This is unacceptable. It is greed hiding behind diplomacy. It is mass murder.

If what is considered “politically feasible” is inadequate to meet the threat, then politics and politicians must change or be changed. The crooked and foolish lobbyists who sabotaged a realistic agreement must be held accountable: They must be tried for crimes against humanity immediately.

We are the Climate Justice League, and we are climate realists. We accept that we face a climate emergency and must respond appropriately. The agreement at Copenhagen leads us to climate disaster; billions will ultimately die. No more talk. The time has come to do what must be done, no matter the vested interests who will make a few millions less. We must go green or die.

The Climate Justice League Go Green or Die Manifesto

1. The economy is a part of the ecology, not separate, not the other way around. As we destroy the current ecology, we destroy civilisation and the economy. The converse is not true.
2. We must cut all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions immediately. We cannot emit any more carbon, methane, or any other greenhouse gases; every molecule emitted reduces our chances for survival.
3. Climate change is deadly: Those who concealed the truth or obstructed action must be tried for crimes against humanity and given the maximum sentence. They are dangerous sociopaths and we cannot allow them to bring us all down. This includes almost all oil and coal company Chief Executive Officers and the shills they paid to deny and obstruct.
4. Emission reductions must not be delayed by economic interests. Greedy and foolish people have put us in a life-or-death situation, and continuing to follow their lead is folly. Business people and their shills who attempt to delay are betraying all of us. They had their chance to lead, and they will not follow. They must now get out of the way; they must be jailed.
   1. We must mobilise as we did for World War II: industry must be converted overnight to be sustainable.
   2. All subsidies for greenhouse gas-emitting industries must be ended immediately, including tar mining and farming.
   3. All resource extraction industries, including farming, must immediately convert to be sustainable. Sustainable simply means that something can be done indefinitely without harm to people, planet, or prosperity.

The Key Contributors to Climate Change

Deforestation must be reversed. Illegal logging operations should be bombed from the air. Reforestation will remove carbon from the atmosphere.

High-speed electric trains must replace domestic and intra-continental air travel. Electric streetcars must replace buses and private cars wherever possible. Where private vehicles are necessary, as in rural areas, they must be powered by GHG-neutral fuels such as electricity, hydrogen, or biofuels.

Farming operations must return to sequestering carbon. Permaculture and other farming methods exist that will rebuild topsoil, making crops more resilient to drought, downpours, heat, and pests, all more common due to climate change. Monoculture must be replaced by diversity for resilience and food security. Sustainable farming removes carbon from the atmosphere.

All subsidies to greenhouse gas-releasing industries must be stopped immediately, including farming and tar mining.

Developing countries must stabilise population as quickly as humanely possible. Developed countries must stabilise population immediately by reducing immigration to zero-growth levels. Immigration to developed countries must be for refugees and family reunification only – no more economic immigrants – and only to the level at which population is maintained.

All new construction must be GHG-neutral. There are many alternatives. It is insane that our current houses last less than 100 years; the Romans had hammers and chisels and their buildings were far sturdier.

Any nation not taking every action to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to less-than-zero must become a pariah: no trade, no immigration, no aid. The rest of us must make up for any country that does not do its part.

Individual Actions

We must all do what we can, given the society we live in:

• 12 (Mostly) Legal Things Individuals Can Do Right Now to Combat Climate Change
• If legal means fail, the responsible and patriotic thing to do is civil disobedience
• If legal means and civil disobedience fail, desperate individuals will become dangerous

If you want to help save the planet, join us.

Will these schemes enrich a connected few and leave the planet worse off? Like many other things about climate change, yes, no, and it’s complicated.

These things have to be very transparent, or there is enormous potential for gaming the system or fraud. Given that enormous potential, you can bet that certain groups have been exerting pressure since the idea of carbon credits and offsets was first floated seriously. And they ain’t pushing for openness and fairness.

This is what set the European Union cap-and-trade system back years; the polluters wangled for so many carbon credits to be issued that their value plummeted. They then ceased to be much of an incentive to stop dumping carbon into the atmosphere.

In general, should polluters be allowed to pay for doing something that harms us all? Well, not really. Keep your waste to yourself. However, we have allowed large corporations to pollute in the past, to continue to do so, and our entire economy requires them to do so. How convenient for the polluters.

The next best thing is to tax them on their pollution, and combine that with a steadily reducing cap. Allowing them to trade under their cap creates double incentive for sellers to exaggerate their wares and buyers to underplay theirs. In fact, it creates pressure to collude to either delude the government (i.e. taxpayers) into paying something for nothing, or worse, to pay for pollution.

That said, something has to be done. Ideally, it would be carbon tax and cap, no trade, and with completely open oversight. Meaning, inspections are random and, if necessary, recorded live on YouTube. This makes it quite difficult for conscienceless polluters to hide or for collusion between inspector and polluter to occur.

Types of offsets or credits

Note that there is an underlying assumption that the offset or credit money actually goes to planting trees or green technology and so forth. It does not get siphoned off by crooks anywhere along the way.

Planting trees where something would grow anyway: Scam…maybe

• British Columbia, where I live, was once covered with rainforest, which we have cut almost all of at least once. In other words, logging was a major industry here, and is still substantial. So why should we get paid for planting trees? If we did nothing, forest would grow here.
• It’s complicated elsewhere. Many areas of the world are being clearcut, often illegally. Paying to prevent this or to reforest is worthwhile if the locals can then sustain that forest, and if the money actually goes to that. Deforestation is one of the largest contributors to global warming, and reforestation adds us a double bonus because it pulls carbon out of the atmosphere indefinitely.

Planting trees where none would grow: Depending upon the location, a very good idea

• It is in everyone’s interest that the deserts of the world don’t expand; planting trees along the edges is one of the best ways to stop desertification
• Greening the desert using methods that don’t rely on irrigation, like permaculture, is a also very valuable to locals and the rest of us.

Buying green technology for developing countries: Maybe ok

• If the polluter replaces a diesel generator with solar panels, and after subtracting the carbon footprint of the solar panels and their installation, this seems an excellent carbon credit/offset.
• Building new capacity where none existed…hmm. If green technology is not supplied, then will dirty technology be used? If the greentech is free, then of course that is what will be used. Carbon credits could be used to subsidise the greentech so that its price was comparable to dirtytech.

If the recipient is a very poor developing nation, they may not have money to industrialise in any way; they may be just scraping by. In that case, industrialisation is hardly the first priority, so their carbon credits should go to reforestation, organic farming techniques that can feed the nation securely (thus also eliminating fossil fuel inputs for fertilizer and pesticides, and pulling carbon out of the atmosphere), and carbon-sequestering housing. Build them up with the basics before putting up solar-powered shoe factories.

Unfortunately, Nike is much more interested in the cheap labour and lack of regulation for things like pollution in a third world country, than is Nike in paying locals to reclaim their land. The same goes for every large corporation. Monsanto is not in Africa and India to help farmers becomes independent; Monsanto is there to make money. Mining companies want ore; building up the community is not their concern. And so forth. So there will be a strong effort to game the system to allow paying carbon credits, essentially, to the payer. That is, Nike will buy credits or pay offsets to build themselves a factory in the Congo.

In summary, there are many ways and much incentive to game any system of carbon credits or offsets. Given the lack of transparency and level of honesty of our governments, gaming will certainly occur. At the same time, something must be done. We cannot continue dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; we should have stopped some time ago, in fact, and are now facing a climate emergency.

Will the crisis be exploited by a connected few to enrich themselves on carbon booty? Likely. Will it also produce agreements that reduce carbon? Copenhagen did not, but almost everyone knows we must. The pressure is building. There will have to be caps, and almost certainly there are going to be trading and carbon taxes. Will these schemes all be scams? How much effort are you willing to invest to keep your government honest?

The government of Canada and many Canadians currently have a difference of opinion on climate change. Most of us think we should be doing our part and are embarrassed, even ashamed by the government of Canada’s obstruction at Copenhagen and elsewhere. That said, we’re clearly not sufficiently motivated to make our government do our bidding; we are, sadly, complacent.

And, unfortunately, not all Canadians are honourable; there are those who put profit and prestige before all else, and they oppose any changes to the status quo. They will fight, and have been fighting, dirty. These people have been funding climate denial – they have no problem with lying, with attacking scientist, and even blaming India. They operate from a Predator Morality, which has the foundational principle: Might Makes Right. They have fought to maintain their privileged, taxpayer-subsidised positions for years with lies and smear campaigns – they will not fight fair now.

We need to see millions of you in the streets – tens of millions – sending a personal message to Canadians of conscience, the types of Canadians who fought in WWII and who created the United Nations Peacekeeping Force to prevent such slaughter, such waste, ever again. You must be the medium and the message. You must make real to us where you stand on climate change, and why. The land you will lose. The millions displaced, bankrupted, bereft.

Forget the monetary cost – show us the personal cost. Make it real; make us understand what you will go through.

Then tell us you expect us to rise above our politicians and vested interests and do the right thing, whatever it takes. To be again those brave Canadians of World War II who charged the machine gun nests, who died by the thousands to secure a free world, and the wise Canadians who created Peacekeeping. Call upon us to again do the right thing, to do what must be done.

This message must be large enough and clear enough to be unmistakable, to be visible through the smokescreen your enemies have thrown up to blind Canadians. Thus the need for tens of millions of you to turn out and say the same thing to Canada:

“Be true”

It must be massive; any fewer and your enemies will say it was a tiny fraction of the population. How you send the message is up to you; here are some suggestions:

• Send actual letters to every Canadian. Not emails. There are approximately 11 million households in Canada. Have an Indian write a personal, handwritten letter to each Canadian.
• Arrange with Google to map Indians across your country turning out and waving white sheets.
• YouTube it
• Get creative…

Tell us to “be true.”

We will get the rest. According to our national anthem, we must “stand on guard for the True North strong and free.”

And we will. We just need something to jolt us out of our complacency.

__________

Wake us up. Because if this doesn’t work, you’re going to have to take it to the next level.

I hyperbolate only slightly. If climate change will devastate these countries – if some of them will be completely obliterated by the results of our actions – is this not equal to war? Who can blame them for walking out of the Copenhagen talks?

If this seems extreme, consider this example: If a river flows through two countries and the upstream country decides to take all the water, there will certainly be war. The downstream country will have no choice. The same parallel applies with climate change: the developed nations have caused most of the global warming thus far, and, much worse, have denied and obstructed action to reduce the impacts.

There is plenty of information about the devastation climate change will wreak first and worst on the developing countries:

• Rising seas will drown some countries completely (Maldives, Tuvalu, etc) and force the evacuation of hundreds of millions (India, Bangladesh, China, Vietnam, etc)
• Spreading deserts have already driven many from their homes in the Sudan, and resulted in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands
• Malaria and other plagues are spreading
• Growing season changes will result in crop failures, food shortfalls, and starvation
• Water resources are already stressed; climate change will eliminate the Himalayan glaciers that provide water to 3 billion people, some with nukes

The sinking countries are not going quietly, and nor should they. We in the West have been corrupted by false conservatives who conserve nothing and consume all. They have attempted to make greed virtuous, but this cannot be done. Our ‘leaders’ will protect their cronies until the end – unless we stand up to them, and the developing countries need to prod us into action.

Dear G77: We’re going to try to talk you into more talks. If you don’t insist upon immediate action to prove sincerity, then you will be destroyed. Here are five things the G77 should do right now; some to wake the rest of us up and some to demonstrate a commitment to justice and fairness. Here they are:

1. Charge Rex Tillerson with crimes against humanity. He is the CEO of ExxonMobil, which has funded climate denial public relations groups for many years. Make Tillerson an example; it is time paid deniers are held responsible for their actions.
2. Start planning to switch to OpenOffice and Ubuntu. It’s a small warning shot, but imagine if India, China, and every other developing country switched from Microsoft products to open source software; Microsoft would lose the entire developing world market and those countries would save a fortune in licensing fees to the West.
3. Formally request that all developed nations give up a portion of their land to displaced people. For example, The United States could give up Kauai to give the people of the Maldives a new home.
4. Formally request that Canada and the other developed countries accept climate refugees. For example, Bangladesh may see upwards of 17M people driven from their land by rising seas in the next 40 years; Canada should agree to accept those refugees.*
5. Limit corporate powers and size drastically and switch to cooperatives. This will stick a knife in the heart of American capitalist ideology, which has produced mega-corporations with far too much influence over governments.

To a Canadian or American, these actions sound extreme, ridiculous, even insane. To someone who is going to lose his home, his livelihood, and his land to become a climate refugee, they sound more than fair.

If you want to see some action from Canada, do these things. If you want the U.S. to get serious about climate change, do these things. Until then, we’re just going to keep talking. Do not back off; follow through. Serious action is needed to demonstrate sincerity.

*********************************************

UPDATE Dec. 18, 2009

* It has been brought to my attention that I appear to be advocating for Canada to accept 17M Bangladeshis, for the United States to give over Kauai, and so on. I am not. I make three points here: First, The sinking countries should be requesting this as a way to wake us up. Second, I am trying to wake Canadians and Americans up to the enormity of what they are doing to others. And third, I want us to consider what is right. Call me an old-fashioned conservative, but I believe that you try to do no harm in your life. When you do a wrong, and we all do, you try to right it as best you can. In our case, Canada is obstructing a climate deal for the benefit of the tar sands, aka money. We are doing things that are harming others. You don’t do that, if you have a conscience. And if we keep doing it, do we not have a moral obligation to try to make things right?

…what if there was a type of nuclear power that:

• Was radioactive for a few hundred years, not millennia
• Could not meltdown
• Could not be used to make weapons-grade materials
• Burns up existing high-level radioactive waste and weapons material?

There is. Or may be, if the current research versions of Thorium reactors pan out. I still don’t think nuclear is the way to go, and I still think that conservation should be the number one priority, but if this technology could be made to work, I could get behind it as a temporary measure.

The problem always comes, of course, when vested interests get their hooks into the government and arrange subsidies and favourable regulations for their industry, thus eliminating both competition and more efficient ways of doing things. And this type of nuclear power would be no different unless we make our governments much more transparent and accountable – and unless we prioritise sustainable power generation.

Keep in mind that there are no perfectly clean electricity generation options. Dams destroy habitat and use enormous amounts of concrete – with the corresponding vast amounts of CO2 that are released during its manufacture. Solar panels use all kinds of exotic and toxic materials and chemicals to make. Wind turbines are made of metal that must be mined and smelted.

Even direct solar, or passive, requires glass, and it is not adequate in our climate. Active combined with passive solar can do the trick, but again this requires mined and manufactured materials like copper and glass.

The most attractive feature of these new types of reactors is that they degrade current highly radioactive and extremely long-lived wastes into much less radioactive and relatively short-lived wastes. If we get stuck for energy because of governments that have dithered too long, and if it looks like nuclear is going to be pushed down our throats, let’s at least make it Thorium.

For a very thorough article and easy-to-comprehend article, check out Cosmos Magazine.

Originally posted Sun, Mar 30, 2008 to Environmental Graffiti.

UPDATE Dec. 16, 2009: India has announced it is going with thorium reactors for its own use, and will also be exporting the reactors. India has approximately 25% of the world’s thorium. It should be noted that thorium reactors are currently in the prototype stage, and have not yet been commercialised.