[Disclaimer: I've said before and repeat here: Predicting when a major event like a collapse will happen is for mugs. One can look at current trends and extrapolate, but one cannot know how humans will respond to changing circumstances. That said, one can make educated guesses.]

We face ‘converging catastrophes,’ driven by pollution and resource depletion, and made worse by overpopulation. The two most visible and clearly dangerous are climate change and peak oil.

The Climate Change Social Tipping Point

At current rates of sea-level rise, tens of millions of people will be displaced within 25 years. If you think all those people, and the countries they live in, are going to go quietly into the night…well, would you?

Current projections suggest a sea level rise of at least one metre this century is now likely. A one-metre rise will displace at least 56 million people, and possibly double that.

From Bangladesh to the Maldives, from Vietnam to Pakistan to Alexandria to Venice, millions upon millions of people will be driven from their homes and livelihoods. And where are they to go? Into ever-more crowded areas of their own – and neighbouring – countries. Rising sea levels will produce a tide of climate refugees that will make the chaos in Darfur look mild.

Many of those refugees, and the people whose lands they attempt to crowd into, are going to be angry. Combine that with nothing left to lose, and we have a recipe for human-caused Armageddon .

The embattled governments will be driven to extreme actions to try and maintain control, and one proven method is to distract the people with an external enemy. Now, Bangladesh isn’t about to attack the world’s largest contributor to climate change to date, the United States. However, they might consider charging climate deniers like Rex Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobil, which continues to this day to fund climate denial – to bankroll, in effect, the dispossession and death of millions – with crimes against humanity and demand reparations.

That might be interpreted as an indirect attack on the United States and one the G77 would consider as a last resort, I’m sure. However, faced with insurrection, what choice will they have but to take extreme measures?

Long before the sea rises one metre by 2100, many millions will have been displaced and many hundreds of millions will see their future clearly – they will lose everything: Their land and farms, their businesses, their livelihoods – virtually everything of any value. This is almost certain to be a social tipping point; when sufficient people realise that climate change is real and will affect them quite adversely.

The Peak Oil Tipping Point

Even if we avoid mass violence caused by rising seas, spreading deserts, water shortages, and other effects of climate change, there is still the very real problem of peak oil. Put simply, a limited supply of oil existed on the earth and we appear to be at or very near the point at which half of it has been extracted. That means the supply of oil will henceforth begin to decline and the cheapest-to-extract oil is gone. Given how massively dependent our entire economy is upon oil, this is not good.

The effects of peak oil could well hit much sooner than those due to climate change. At the moment, most oil-producing countries are pumping about as fast as they can. Any increase in demand or decrease in supply will cause a price spike. Remember the 70s? There were long, long lines to get rationed gas in the United States. The U.S. has become far more dependent upon oil since then, as have many other countries.

Because oil is in virtually everything, any increase in price or decrease in supply is potentially devastating. Most agricultural fertilisers and pesticides are petroleum-based, and of course tractors and trucks run on diesel. If the price of oil goes up, it has a ripple effect through all these points and many more, and the price of the end product – your food – goes up significantly.

The price of commuting also goes up, and given the number of Americans who live in suburbs only accessible by car, that is a real problem. Heating bills will go up. The price of plastic will increase, and plastic is in everything. The cost of transportation will rise, making importing and exporting more costly. This would hit big exporters like China hard.

Predictions on the effects of peak oil range from immediate collapse to a long decline. It depends how it happens and how we react. A sudden collapse in oil supply, say from terrorists bombing the Saudi oil fields or another hurricane wiping out much of U.S. refining capability, would have a serious and immediate impact on the U.S. economy. The U.S. does maintain the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) – which contains a 34-day supply of oil. Thirty four days.

We could mobilise the economy and redirect all resources to converting to solar, wind, and other power sources, as well as drastically cutting energy use through conservation. A little insulation would go a long way. Suburbs could be abandoned and reverted to fields, while the former inhabitants move to more densely populated, walkable areas. However, this kind of mobilisation likely won’t be politically acceptable until ‘things’ are quite bad, and by then it may be too late because the remaining supply of oil is so limited and expensive. And honestly, the U.S. government is so corrupt at this point that they will probably screw up any mobilisation.

How Long Have We Got?

I give us a maximum of 25 years before riots begin, and probably wars. Within 25 years, sufficient millions will have been dispossessed or drowned by sea level rise alone – not considering other impacts of climate change like stronger storm surges, desertification, the spread of malaria-carrying mosquitoes, and so on and on – that everyone else will know the bell tolls for them, too. And in 25 years, the price of oil is going to be much, much higher. Food prices will go up, especially for meat, suburbs will become uninhabitable, and there will be a lot of newly poor people looking for someone to blame.

The world will become a more hostile place. No longer will Americans slap Canadian flags on their luggage when touring the world, because all developed countries will be reviled. Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom will be especially loathed, as we are the countries that have spewed the most greenhouse gases, that continue to do so, and that refuse to change because we are too greedy.

Another very likely outcome of climate change will be the end of American-style capitalism and a rise in religious fundamentalism, as people return to values that recognize greed as a sin, not as a virtue. Rightly or wrongly, there is likely to be a backlash.

You have, at best, 25 years to see the world, to experience different cultures, to remember the world as it is and could have been. After that, if you have a home, it will be safest to spend the remainder of your days there.

Originally published as a shorter article on Celsias.com as You Have 25 Years. It did not mention peak oil.

Ever since I woke up to the danger of climate change, I have been trying to bring people together to do something about it. I thought it would be relatively easy; approach various groups and show them how ‘their’ issue would be mooted by climate change, and they would make fighting climate change the lead plank in their battle.

It didn’t work out that way. While many of them admit intellectually that climate change is a big problem, nobody wants to give up their piece of the pie. I slagged these groups elsewhere for this reason; egos and fear of losing their donations are making them insular. However, divided we are falling.

It seems straightforward enough. Concerned about starving children in Africa? Won’t matter if we don’t stop climate change. How about AIDS/HIV? Global warming will wipe most of it out.  Human rights of moral importance to you? Remember the massacres of Darfur? Exacerbated by global warming, which dried up the water and dried out the land, and starving people were driven to move.

We’ll see lots more of that with climate change. Europe is rightly worried about tens of millions of climate refugees flooding across their borders from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. India is building a giant fence to try and keep out anticipated Bangladeshi climate refugees, as Bangladesh is looking at perhaps 17 million people driven from their land within the next 40 years. India will have millions of her own people to resettle. The Pentagon is looking at 111 million Mexicans and wondering how to stop them swamping the border as their country runs out of oil and deserts expand.

Perhaps animal rights is a concern? In one of their stupidest moves, PETA attacked Al Gore immediately after An Inconvenient Truth became a big hit – because he didn’t advocate vegetarianism in the movie. Al Gore and PETA should be on the same side; as climate change progresses, animals and their rights are going to be forgotten.

This is a key lesson the social justice/animal rights/environmental activists have yet to learn: cooperation. Without it, each group will continue its battle to save the baby seals or protect a swath of wilderness, and then watch the results of their struggle swept away by the overwhelming destruction of climate change.

If you are fighting for animal rights or human rights or nature or any other individual goal – while it may be a very worthy goal – you are wasting your time unless you put climate change first. It is quite possible to feed starving Africans and fight climate change simultaneously, and we must do so.

If you are fighting for climate change, you are helping every other one of these groups, and if they had more sense (or less pride) they would make the battle against climate change their primary target. If you are a climate change warrior, you are also fighting for human rights, for preservation of nature and species, for social justice, for animal rights, for the poor, for civilisation – for everyone and everything we know and hold dear.

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.

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?

In a previous post, I listed mostly illegal things that individuals are likely to do unless serious action is taken on climate change – very soon. The actions listed here are things we all need to be doing to prevent getting to the stage where people are desperate or angry enough to become destructive or dangerous.

Here are useful, worthwhile things you can do right now to be the difference we need.

1. Set an example

Gandhi said, “You must be the change you wish to see in the world,” and “My life is my message.” Both are still true, and this is the most important thing you can do. We are social animals, and your example will push us toward a social tipping point.

Before the tipping point, there is much resistance and it seems change is impossible, or at best far away. Afterward, when everyone is doing it and a new social norm has been set, it seems impossible we would ever go back to the old way. Think recycling: Now it is shameful not to recycle in Canada and some parts of the United States. Or single-payer health care: there is enormous and well-funded resistance to it in the United States, yet nobody in their right mind in Canada or Europe would consider moving to a U.S.-style private-only system.

When it comes to setting an example, go as far as you can within your circumstances – then push a bit further.  Use some of the ideas below to expand yourself and be a better example.

2.  Get to know climate change and Peak Everything

Many people simply are not aware of how dangerous – and real – climate change and other threats are. Once you know, anyone with a grain of a conscience (this excludes those with the predator morality) will feel compelled to take action.

I have listed some sources to educate yourself on these issues under Resources, which describes the stages I went through and the books, movies, websites, and people who helped me. Most newspapers, television, and radio are not trustworthy. There is some reliable information there, but there is also disinformation. The Guardian has an excellent Environment section, and the BBC is also decent.

3. Go meatless on Mondays

It doesn’t have to be Mondays, but one of the best things you can do for the planet right now is eat less meat. The meat industry generates anywhere from 18% (more than the entire transportation sector) to 51% of greenhouse gases. Excess consumption of animal products is also blamed for most heart disease, so do yourself and the planet a favour and learn a few good vegetarian dishes. I recommend How It All Vegan!: Irresistible Recipes for an Animal-Free Diet and The Vegetarian Kitchen.

Note: If your meat is venison or free-range, hormone and antibiotic-free, and local, then it may actually be greenhouse gas-neutral. Unfortunately, very little meat meets these criteria.

4. Take an Earth Institute course

The Canadian Earth Institute and the Northwest Earth Institute (U.S.) offer several excellent and simple courses, including: Choices for Sustainable Living, Voluntary Simplicity, Discovering a Sense of Place, Exploring Deep Ecology, Globalization and its Critics, Healthy Children, Healthy Planet and Global Warming: Changing CO2urse. If you’re not sure about global warming, take the last course.

All courses are done in small groups and self-paced. There are no tests, and the only cost is for the workbook. It’s the best way to gain knowledge.

5. Organize an Earth Institute course

Host a course in your house with family or friends. Talk to your minister/preacher/rabbi/religious leader about the church/temple/whatever hosting the courses. Religious leaders are like you: they want to do something constructive but are often not sure what. The Earth Institute courses are a great idea, simple to do, and religious leaders generally love ‘em. You could also start a meetup to get people together for a course. Run a singles course.

6. Host a documentary

Organize a showing of An Inconvenient Truth, Who Killed the Electric Car?, or one of the other great documentaries related to our current crises. Many are available from local libraries.

7. Arrange a live presentation of An Inconvenient Truth

These presentations are free, and most presenters have updated the original Gore slideshow to include the latest science, local impacts of climate change, and more solutions. The presenters are ordinary people doing an extraordinary thing. Canada, U.S., Australia, India, Spain, or the U.K. All presenters are volunteers, including me. I also have a presentation entitled The Way Home, not free, which describes how to get back to living sanely.

8. Arrange a speaker

There are many other speakers/presenters who are well worth bringing to your town if you have the wherewithal to organize it. Beware, though; the deniers also go around speaking. Some speakers I recommend (the books noted are also well worth reading):

• James Howard Kunstler (author of The Long Emergency
  The Geography of Nowhere, and more) on Peak Oil
• Ray Anderson (CEO of Interface Carpets and author of Confessions of a Radical Industrialist: Profits, People, Purpose–Doing Business by Respecting the Earth) and speaker on Sustainable Development
• Paul Hawken (author of The Ecology of Commerce, Natural Capitalism and, Blessed Unrest) on ecology/economy
• David Korten (author of The Great Turning, When Corporations Rule the World, and more) on the end of empire

9. Get active

If any of the speakers listed above comes anywhere near you, go see them! If a local group is bringing a speaker to town or organizing a showing of a documentary, GO! I saw David Korten thanks to a local business group, and the premiere of The Age of Stupid thanks to a local eco-group.

Note: I have not recommended joining eco-groups like The Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund, or Greenpeace.  Although some of these groups do great things, right now they are all working in silos. There is no synergy among them; they all have their own agendas, and often egos keep them isolated. United we stand, divided we fall is as true as it ever was, and I cannot recommend joining these groups until they start acting in concert on climate change. In addition, many people join a group, send off a cheque, and think they’ve done enough. Anyone can do more and better.

10. Go to local vegetarian potlucks

Most cities have a vegetarian group, and most of those groups have monthly or even weekly potlucks. It is worth going at least once or twice; most are populated by very nice people and you’ll get to try some great food. They are generally very gentle with newbies, so you can take a salad to the first one to see what it’s all about. Raw food groups and potlucks are booming, and are often organized by the veggie group.

11. Listen to real scientists

There are a lot of disreputable people claiming to be climate experts. Tim Ball, for example, is often welcomed as a speaker at Chambers of Commerce because he tells the local business people there is nothing to worry about, the world is actually cooling, and business-as-usual can continue. None of these are true, but all are very tempting to believe.

Scientists are speaking out more frequently now as the urgency of the danger becomes more obvious. Go listen to your local university scientists if you can. Many people wake up when they hear from a real person with real experience.

12. Support the sinking countries

The Maldives, Tuvalu, and other Pacific nations will cease to exist due to rising seas and stronger storms, probably this century. China, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Vietnam and many other countries will have to relocate millions of their citizens inland for the same reasons. The least you can do is sign the petition saying you support strong action on climate change, including charging Rex Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobil and long-time funder of climate denial PR groups, with crimes against humanity. That will get his attention.

If you want to participate in rallies, candlelight vigils, and so forth, go ahead. People like Rex Tillerson and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper are not paying attention to them, but if it makes you feel good…just make sure you are doing something constructive, too, like the other actions listed here.

I am also not recommending civil disobedience unless it is en masse. Divided we fall, so individuals or small groups make easy targets – and are easily discredited. If there is a march of millions – legal or illegal – get in there. If there is a national strike – strike.  But small actions allow you to be picked off by the authorities and discredited on the news as a lone nut.

13. Sharpen the saw

This expression comes from Stephen Covey, famous for his excellent books and courses entitled The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.  It means that once you have a new and better  habit, keep it sharp by exercising it constantly. Get in the habit of raising your awareness on climate change. Find reliable sources of information.

14. Torch a Hummer

I’m kidding. One of the reasons for this list of useful things to do is to prevent things like Hummers being torched. If climate change is not addressed – soon – then desperate and angry people are going to do desperate and angry things. Fat-cats and their Hummers will become targets unless we take other actions, soon.

Disclaimer: If you purchase a book or video by clicking one of the links above, Amazon pays me a small commission. I do not make any money from the speakers, courses, or other resources listed.

And one more thing…

And, of course, you can donate to support what I do.

UPDATE – I am pleased to report that this post will be featured in the All Things Eco Blog Carnival.

Every person I know who has faced the reality of our climate crisis battles with feelings of despair, some or all of the time. When you pull the pieces together and take what the scientists are saying and combine it with our foreseeable political reality, it is hard not to believe we are doomed. Meaning, the collapse of civilization and a massive dieback of humanity is inevitable, and the only question is when.

But wait, there’s worse. The more you look into it, the more you realize this collapse and dieback will certainly affect you personally quite negatively, and is likely to happen sooner than later. And you also see such powerful vested interests who have corrupted our economic and political systems to their short-term benefit standing in the way of change, that you really cannot see the needed change as possible.

From James Lovelock saying it’s all over but the crying and dying, to James Hansen saying we are already over the safe threshold and have 5 years to get our carbon under control; or John Holdren saying we are now dealing with climate change and what we are fighting to avoid is catastrophic climate change, to mainstream scientific views that climate change is happening more quickly than they thought…well, it can lead to despair.

Despair can come with the realization that we have no hope of saving the current beauty and wonder of the planet, or saving humanity and the ongoing quest for civilization, or the very real possibility that this climate catastrophe will occur in your lifetime and take your family. I can now say this without worrying about the age of most readers. Look around you: If you’re in a crowd, at least half will likely die from this disaster. If there are two of you, one of you isn’t going to make it. And if it’s just you: 50/50. Good luck.

Let’s take one small facet of the crisis: rising sea levels. Let’s not concern ourselves with desertification, the collapse of the fisheries, ocean dead zones, ocean acidification, the collapse of the marine food chain, stronger and longer storms and fires, the spread of plagues and pests, or any other climate change-related disaster. Sea levels are predicted to rise over 1 metre (3’3”) by 2100. That will displace approximately 100 million people. (A more recent report suggests one billion people will become climate refugees by 2050.) More accurately, it will drive 100 million people onto already crowded and claimed land, and conflict will ensue. Many of those people will be very angry at the countries primarily responsible both for causing their dispossession and for stalling action on it, primarily Canada and the United States. A few may become terrorists. Many more may call for sanctions, reparations, an end to global capitalism, war, that sort of thing.

But…2100, you think. That’s far enough away yet not to worry now. Well, think about that. First, that’s still 25 million climate refugees by 2030ish. From Shanghai to Vancouver, people will be flooded out of homes and businesses; where are they going? Who is paying to give them new land, homes, livelihoods? 2030 is not so far away – only 20 years now.

And second, awareness of their impending fate will come to many people well before then. And then all hell will break loose, because there will be panic and rage. There are already calls from nations that are scheduled to be drowned for a new territory. The President of Maldives has said his people “will not die quietly.” Who is going to give up a chunk of their country to provide a new one for these climate refugees? China, India, Bangladesh, Vietnam, and other countries will have to relocate millions into already crowded areas.  It would seem fair that the countries that caused the problem accept many of these millions, but…will Canada, population 34M, accept 17M climate refugees from Bangladesh? Unlikely.

Mass awareness may come at any time before 2030; it is a social tipping point. Another Katrina might do it, for example. Or charging deniers with crimes against humanity, or ‘leaders’ with treason. Or simply the constantly rising tide of reality which is slowly but surely showing that the deniers can’t swim.

However, even if things totter along without major catastrophe until 2030, I must say I was hoping for a longer life and leaving a better one for my children and grandchildren. The thought of leaving them a world in the middle of the collapse of our civilization and a massive dieback of humanity – of living in this world myself – is dread-inducing. This is not just death, it is the death of life as we know it. The fact that I can’t do anything about it causes despair. ecoDespair™.

There are various ways to cope with this loss of hope. Alcohol and drugs, for example. Writing letters to the editor. Joining rallies. Everything is temporary. Once you know, you cannot unknow. Ultimately, I have to think it will lead to violence. Not everyone is going to go gently, especially when those who caused and concealed the problem are getting a plush ride. Knowing that the world is going to hell is going to cause moral values to regress in some people.

During a collapse, there will be many people with nothing left to lose. Much of their family wiped out, their remaining childrens’ future a bleak and short hell, their own life consisting of scraping to get by…some people are going to seek revenge. Others will simply try to get by however necessary, and if that means stealing and murdering, they will do so.

Maybe me at some point. I don’t think anyone knows until they are at that point. I still have things to live for and hope that we can still make it. We have to get radical, but I do think we still have a chance to save ourselves. Failing that, and so far we are failing badly, I’m simply hoping to save myself and my family for as long as possible.

The only cure for despair is the knowledge that the obstacles are political, and therefore can be overcome very quickly if the people so will it. So far, there is very little progress, and near-zero acceptance of climate reality. But that does not mean that it will not happen; tipping points are visible only in hindsight – and there is a groundswell building.

To some, this seems ridiculous. To others, however, it is eminently reasonable. Let me explain why the charges are justified, and why Rex Tillerson.

The Case for Prosecution

In a post on Celsias.com, I laid out the case:

If climate change can reasonably be expected to cause severe consequences, including large-scale loss of material goods, wealth, land, livelihood, and life; and

Given that there is considerable evidence in favour of climate change occurring, that it is dangerous and will only get more so, that Exxon has given substantial contributions to organizations and individuals whose job it is to obscure the truth about climate change, and that Rex Tillerson has been the responsible person at Exxon during the time of the contributions, I believe there is sufficient evidence to charge Rex Tillerson with crimes against humanity.

The prosecution could call virtually any climate scientist working in the field today.

Mr. Tillerson’s richly compensated defence team could only counter with paid shills possessing highly dubious credentials. Some previously worked with the tobacco companies to conceal the truth about the danger of cigarette smoking. Many still do.

Why Rex Tillerson

As cited above, Tillerson was and is the man in charge at ExxonMobil, the responsible party. Tillerson has also made no secret of his opposition to doing anything about global warming.

Still, why him in particular? Why not go after Steve McIntyre or Fred Singer, who are do the actual denying?

The reason is simple: to kill the beast you must cut off its head. The individual deniers have the power they do only because they have been backed by large corporations like ExxonMobil. Cut the funding and the beast will wither. Cut down a denier and another will sprout in his place.

While other corporations have funded denial – see the excellent Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming by Jim Hoggan for a more complete accounting – many stopped their funding a few years ago. ExxonMobil continues to fund denial, and continues to lie about doing so.

To set an example, you don’t go after the small fry, you fry the big fish. Then all the other big and little fish are warned. Tillerson is the biggest fish in the denial cesspool. Putting him on trial would likely dry up almost all funding and support for deniers; a conviction surely would.

Who Should Bring the Charges Against Tillerson

In an honest world, the American government would have done so a long time ago. In reality, the U.S. government is heavily influenced, one might say “bought,” by monied interests, with Big Oil among the most monied and influential.

The other developed nations could do so, but I think everyone is afraid of going after the CEOs. They are too influential in the media, campaign donations, country clubs, and so forth. Many Western politicians expect to walk out of politics and into a plum corporate gig someday, so are unlikely to bite the hand that feeds them.

That leaves the poor countries. I suggested Maldives, which certainly has reason to do so – Maldives will cease to exist thanks to rising seas – but any developing nation could do so. Better, the G77 group of developing nations should do so, whether the United Nations agrees or not. If the United States can invade Iraq without UN approval  to secure its oil supply, then surely Bangladesh, Maldives, or the whole G77 can charge Rex Tillerson with crimes against humanity for sinking them.

* I realise that the charge of crimes against humanity applies only to “a government or a de facto authority,” but this is the other end of the stick that corporate leaders picked up when they decided to make it their business to “influence” governments. Corporate CEOs become the “de facto authority.” Welcome to being responsible for your actions.

In a previous and apparently somewhat controversial article, I laid out what individuals are likely to do as despair and anger rise over climate inaction. I was not recommending these actions, but some readers interpreted it that way and seemed very threatened by what desperate individuals will do. We must also consider what nations are liable to do, especially those right on the front lines of climate change. Many nations will be desperate – they are literally in a life-or-death situation – and some are certain to take drastic action.

Useless Actions

Also known as symbolic actions, these have on effect on someone who really doesn’t care what you think of him. I have previously described the actions of the developed nations as predatory, in that they will still be talking long after the poor countries have devolved into climate chaos.

• Hold an underwater session of Parliament. The Maldives recently did this; Canada and the United States did not change direction noticeably.
• Entreat, appeal to reason, point out the advantages to acting now, etc. The developed countries are locked on their current path by powerful corporate interests, so reason is irrelevant.
• Participate in international conferences, including trusting that the rich nations are sincere and will be honourable. See: Danish text.

Likely Actions: Potentially Harmful to All

Desperate people are likely to take desperate action. Don’t expect them to die quietly for our benefit.

• Make an example of an individual denier. I have suggested charging Rex Tillerson with crimes against humanity. Tillerson is the CEO of ExxonMobil, which has funded climate denial liars for years, and continues to do so. This action would strike at the head of the beast, and may be one of the only ways to move the rich to action. It is also the safest for all of us, though embarrassing that someone else had to take out our trash.
• Make an example of a denier country. Boot Canada out of the Commonwealth, for example. Efforts to do this are already underway. Or, for that matter, charge Canada’s PM Stephen with crimes against humanity. Or fund an effort in his own country to charge him with treason and terrorism.
• Stall. Buy land in other nations in order to grow crops to feed your people. China and Saudi Arabia are doing this in Africa, and it seems certain to lead to conflict.
• Demand that rich nations give land to sunken countries for a new home. Much like was done for Israel but this time willingly by the people who caused the countries to sink. The Maldives are going to disappear and countries like Canada and the US are largely responsible; why shouldn’t the US give Kauai to the people they dispossessed? If Bangladesh must relocate 17 million climate refugees by the end of the century, why shouldn’t Canada accept them as refugees?
• Geo-engineering. Yes, it could destroy much human life on the planet if it goes wrong, but if your country is dead anyway…. And if we don’t stop climate change we’re all dead, so certainly some desperate nation will try. It may not work, but it would cost very little for Bangladesh or an African nation to dump a shipload of iron filings into the ocean to try and cool the planet. Or for China and India to inject sulphur into the atmosphere.
• Steal. Divert water for your own nation’s use. The Himalayan glaciers provide water to 40% of the world’s population in Asia, and they are melting fast. When they are gone, someone is not going to get sufficient water.
• Reduce population any way possible. Wars work, as does starvation if you can prevent rioting. Lenin and Stalin starved millions to death, as did Mao. Some sort of influenza would do the trick, assuming a vaccine was developed in advance and given to the favoured few.
• Go to war. China could invade Russia to get more land. Or Canada. Unlikely? At the moment, yes. If the Chinese government is facing revolution and economic collapse as millions of residents of Shanghai are drive from their homes by rising sea levels, then the scenario becomes much more plausible. Or India could nuke Bangladesh if refugees from that country are overwhelming India.

Some of these scenarios will seem more plausible as time goes by, even with concerted action on climate. This is because we have already set in motion climate changes that will result in, for example, significant sea level rise. Gwynne Dyer covers this well in his excellent book Climate Wars, which used research from the U.S. Pentagon. The Pentagon considers climate change a much greater threat than terrorism, and for good reason: the United States shares a very long border with Mexico, population 111 million. Mexico is rapidly running out of oil and is predicted to suffer badly due to desertification as the tropics warm.

I would much prefer that we get serious about climate change now, before millions are starving, migrating, and warring – before people and nations are backed into a corner with their life on the line. Getting serious means to stop doing things that don’t work, like candlelight vigils or expecting rich nations to act honourably, and to take actual action. Step 1 should be to stab a dagger through the heart of the denier Medusa by charging Rex Tillerson, the lead funder of climate denial.

And while any one country could (and may) do this, it would be far more powerful to have the G77 band together to do it.