More thoughts on the brontoburger post: it seemed to imply that environmentalism is a form of racism that a bunch of wealthy white elites are forcing upon us poor Black people.

Indigenous peoples are the original environmentalists, the peoples who excelled at thriving in and taking pleasure in their world without destroying it. Modern white people did not invent environmentalism. When they first encountered it, they attempted to exterminate it and its practitioners. Over the past two centuries, White elites have quit despising the natural world, and have realized they must protect it. And a tiny minority are clumsily trying to market it.

But environmentalism is not a White man's fad. And quit pretending that Black, Brown, and poor people are not environmentalists.

Brontoburger's arguments on 2/22 strike me as silly. Yes, it is an attempt at irony, but does anyone honestly believe that some Guatemalan peasant subsisting on corn, rice, and beans, walking virtually everywhere unless he is fortunate enough to own a bike or be offered an infrequent car ride, does this person threaten the environment more than some latte-swilling prius driver?

That's really dishonest.

WE ARE THE PROBLEM, not the "thirdworld" poor.

I'd bet an entire Bangladeshi village of 50 utilizes less energy, water, and emits less pollution than a single adult inhabitant of Los Angeles or Atlanta.

The problem with "trying to incentivize... people from having MORE and MORE of [babies]them" is that unless a government does indeed dictate to a population how many children an individual or couple may have, those who have the means to afford fines and don't need government assistance will be free to have as many children as they wish, and, once again, those who cannot pay fines, meet means tests or do without some kind of financial aid will not be able to afford to reproduce themselves. Of course, the reality is that those who are affluent and well-educated ALREADY tend to have fewer children; those who are poorer and less educated, whether you are talking about here in the US or worldwide, ALREADY tend to produce far more children.

There are many reasons for this discrepancy. It reminds me of a saying I heard from one of my ESL students from Mexico: "Familia pequena, vida mejor." Those in the third world and on the bottom end of the income scale in the US have less access to birth control than their wealthier counterparts. Societies in which power belongs almost exclusively to men also tend to reproduce more, since women are not free to choose whether or not to bear children (childbirth is STILL the leading cause of death among women, worldwide) and cannot deny their husbands their "rights" over their bodies.

When infant mortality is high, families have more incentive to reproduce, and when females are undervalued, families tend to try for sons, as female babies are worth less (if they are not actually worthless. Female infanticide has been a serious problem in China: reproductive rights were limited to one child per family; if female babies are not wanted or valued, the incentive under such restrictions is high to simply dispose of a female infant until a male heir could be produced. In India, traditionally a girl becomes a part of her husband's family; because she cannot provide financial assistance or security to her birth family after she marries, she can be perceived as a liability to her parents, unlike a son, who will bring his bride and her dowry home to his parents house where she will help to care for them in their old age. If birth control is either not available or is not approved of, it is hard for a family to voluntarily keep to a one-child limit, and unless the couple is willing or able to abort every female who is conceived, they will have to keep trying until they have a surviving son.

Imposing external controls over those populations who produce multiple children is not only difficult, the reality is that such controls ARE inevitably racist, and that imposing economic sanctions DOES favor rich over poor. Only a country which is OPENLY authoritarian, regardless of whether that authority is fascist, communist, patriarchal or religious, will government restrictions be possible. In a "democracy" such as ours (where the reality of de-facto fascism is unacknowledged, and the MSM maintains the national mythos) any limits on reproductive rights would be anathema to a population that prides itself on its "freedom" and "rights". Although that freedom is eroding further every day, and individual rights as they were enshrined in the Constitution and its Amendments is increasingly endangered, officeholders are still obliged to maintain the national fictions that comprise "The American Dream". Prominent among them are "family values"; anything perceived as "anti-family" is a third rail among those running for office. Although health care is something to which ALL PEOPLE in the US should be entitled, greater priority is always given to ensuring CHILDREN than adults.

I have no idea how you get around these conditions either in this country or in the third world. I tend to favor the carrot over the stick, if only because I believe that people are more inclined to do something if they feel it's to their benefit. I don't believe people in the US would stop having children if you took away what public assistance there is now, and fining people or imposing means tests reeks so strongly of institutional racism some might call it a kind of economic genocide. But what if you were to PAY people NOT to have children, rather than taking away the assistance we currently give those who HAVE them? I think that putting a cap on the number of children for which a family can receive assistance, coupled with a reward for those who either choose to have none or else choose to limit their families voluntarily might carry less of a taint.

The truth is, I'm not optimistic even such modest steps will ever be feasible in this country, with its strong culture of individualism and the increasing perception of government as an ENEMY which began as a sort of romantic mantra with Reagan and with the current administration turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The problem with "trying to incentivize... people from having MORE and MORE of [babies]them" is that unless a government does indeed dictate to a population how many children an individual or couple may have, those who have the means to afford fines and don't need government assistance will be free to have as many children as they wish, and, once again, those who cannot pay fines, meet means tests or do without some kind of financial aid will not be able to afford to reproduce themselves. Of course, the reality is that those who are affluent and well-educated ALREADY tend to have fewer children; those who are poorer and less educated, whether you are talking about here in the US or worldwide, ALREADY tend to produce far more children.

There are many reasons for this discrepancy. It reminds me of a saying I heard from one of my ESL students from Mexico: "Familia pequena, vida mejor." Those in the third world and on the bottom end of the income scale in the US have less access to birth control than their wealthier counterparts. Societies in which power belongs almost exclusively to men also tend to reproduce more, since women are not free to choose whether or not to bear children (childbirth is STILL the leading cause of death among women, worldwide) and cannot deny their husbands their "rights" over their bodies.

When infant mortality is high, families have more incentive to reproduce, and when females are undervalued, families tend to try for sons, as female babies are worth less (if they are not actually worthless. Female infanticide has been a serious problem in China: reproductive rights were limited to one child per family; if female babies are not wanted or valued, the incentive under such restrictions is high to simply dispose of a female infant until a male heir could be produced. In India, traditionally a girl becomes a part of her husband's family; because she cannot provide financial assistance or security to her birth family after she marries, she can be perceived as a liability to her parents, unlike a son, who will bring his bride and her dowry home to his parents house where she will help to care for them in their old age. If birth control is either not available or is not approved of, it is hard for a family to voluntarily keep to a one-child limit, and unless the couple is willing or able to abort every female who is conceived, they will have to keep trying until they have a surviving son.

Imposing external controls over those populations who produce multiple children is not only difficult, the reality is that such controls ARE inevitably racist, and that imposing economic sanctions DOES favor rich over poor. Only a country which is OPENLY authoritarian, regardless of whether that authority is fascist, communist, patriarchal or religious, will government restrictions be possible. In a "democracy" such as ours (where the reality of de-facto fascism is unacknowledged, and the MSM maintains the national mythos) any limits on reproductive rights would be anathema to a population that prides itself on its "freedom" and "rights". Although that freedom is eroding further every day, and individual rights as they were enshrined in the Constitution and its Amendments is increasingly endangered, officeholders are still obliged to maintain the national fictions that comprise "The American Dream". Prominent among them are "family values"; anything perceived as "anti-family" is a third rail among those running for office. Although health care is something to which ALL PEOPLE in the US should be entitled, greater priority is always given to ensuring CHILDREN than adults.

I have no idea how you get around these conditions either in this country or in the third world. I tend to favor the carrot over the stick, if only because I believe that people are more inclined to do something if they feel it's to their benefit. I don't believe people in the US would stop having children if you took away what public assistance there is now, and fining people or imposing means tests reeks so strongly of institutional racism some might call it a kind of economic genocide. But what if you were to PAY people NOT to have children, rather than taking away the assistance we currently give those who HAVE them? I think that putting a cap on the number of children for which a family can receive assistance, coupled with a reward for those who either choose to have none or else choose to limit their families voluntarily might carry less of a taint.

The truth is, I'm not optimistic even such modest steps will ever be feasible in this country, with its strong culture of individualism and the increasing perception of government as an ENEMY which began as a sort of romantic mantra with Reagan and with the current administration turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Yes, human life IS the problem. This species is responsible for it's own unsustainability.

But no one is suggesting that we treat humans (already alive) with anything less than what is right and socially just. We are trying to incentivize (read: not dictate to ) people from having MORE and MORE of them. The more babies born now and in the future, the less resources (and fairness and justice) there is for the ones already here and struggling.

Human life is not the problem...

If you view human life the problem (like those old germans) than it is than you truly do want:
(1) AIDS to continue to ravage africa...don't change anything that might stopd the death toll. Promote means of transfering the disease and increasing its transmission rate while continually telling them its 'protection'
(2) Universal Health Care might keep a lot of people alive that should be so while claiming you want it undermine the actual compassion of people and focus on other things instead. Focus on things like denying the right of conscience (like what the NAZI's did) that way you can turn doctors into death doctors.
(3) Oh yeah...in Africa oppose things like DTD that might stop deaths due to malaria. Claim environment or anything but do we really want more people born?
(4) Since poor people and minorities don't have the resources to aid in the environmental effort we need to limit their population so lets make sure that abortuaries are in place their to kill their kids...babies...oh wait honesty isnt' the best policy so we'll call them untermensch...or fetus...yeah that works (thanks George Orwell) www.blackgenocide.org

A fair consideration; and I would counter with the fact that it IS indeed more expensive to have more than one child. By their very nature, they are expensive!

Makes sense; Except for the fact that our government does offer each of those additional little poopers a tax incentive, doesn't it? And don't forget that we'll gladly ladle on additional AFDC & support payments for each newly minted little tyke.

Dang! It seems that we're incentivizing having MORE and MORE people come into this world! And if I'm not completely mistaken, we're also bringing more and more registered voters into the world who's existance and continuance is subsidized, begatting multi-generational layers of more and more voters who continually vote for those who subsidize them!

Wow, are we doing the right thing here?

Maybe making it much more expensive to have more than one child (per what? per woman? per couple? hmmm...) would be the answer. One child=no tax. The second and on=more and more tax?

I don't know but we really SHOULD be having this conversation.

My above question cuts to the heart of my feelings about the article. There is a marked and substantial difference between voluntary compliance with a policy ~ even a wonderful policy ~ and being directed by law or being compelled against one's will to conform to that policy.

Example: I have a great compost pile in my backyard. Really neat way to reutilize lawn & garden cuttings. I wouldn't have it any other way, and it makes sense for me. What happens when I go to my neighbors and tell them that they too MUST have a compost pile? Do you really think that will encourage them to do so? Human nature, like it or not, will compel them to tell me, probably forcefully, to mind my own &^%$ing business and will likely be very unlikely to comply with my demand.

But if I act as a cheerleader to composting, and show my neighbor enthusiastically just how great a resource this is and the layers of benefits derived from doing so ~ I stand a pretty good chance of seeing a growing pile of mulch in his yard.

Do you see what I'm getting at here? Encourage, educate & promote the right thing to do ~ but when you DIRECT others to accept your beliefs ~ you are counterproductive to the cause.

Population control ~ you're all saying this is needed. I'm asking the specific question: How do you impliment this policy?

On a personal level, I'm childless by choice, and for me that's the right answer.

However, I'm trying to understand on both a personal and societal level how I would respond to a gov't or society that would attempt to dictate to me what my rights are in this regard.

Are you suggesting a lottery? Some sort of means testing? I would just like to understand on some level just what kind of "population control" you would envision.

For the record, No; I don't and won't subscribe to the Communist paradigm of having the State dictate who reproduces and when. What an absurd notion, and I can't believe it was suggested in the above discussion.

This is a Progressive site, no? Progressing towards what?

Education curbs population growth and overpopulation produces cheaper labor. Might be nice if these root causes of ecocide were explored further.

Yes, population is a problem. So is technology. So is affluence.

Paul Ehrlich said it first: I = P * A * T Or Impact equals Population times Affluence times Technology.

You can't focus on just one term of the equation. They all have to be dealt with.

Okay, we all know that population is a huge part of the problem. 'Nuff said.

"Affluence" is really "resource usage" which is really "energy consumption." This term is about to head south, with or without our help. This one works hand-in-hand with population. What about the famous movie star who has adopted lots of third-world children? Too bad, those children, transplanted to affluent US, will cause much more environmental destruction than they ever would have if she had just left them in their own countries! Harsh criticism of someone most would consider a "do-gooder," but something that needs to be brought up when the focus is on population.

"Technology" is a wild card. The more of it you have, the more impact on the environment you have. Yet the technophiles think it can save us. "If we all just bought hybrid cars or compact florescent bulbs or had a hydrogen economy..." yea, right. To do so, we have to mine more non-renewable resources and disperse a lot of mercury. On the other hand, technology can be a driver for reduced impact, if done carefully and if the other two terms are reduced. I'm not talking high-tech, which carries with it a whole stream of supporting industries. I'm talking bicycles. I'm talking hand pumps. I'm talking methane digesters. These are things you can make entirely from salvaged or recycled materials, unlike a new Prius.

So please, don't go out and buy a CFB or Prius for the environment. And for heaven's sake, don't require other people to do so, either!

Instead, turn off the damn light completely and go to bed when it's dark. Instead, ride a bike or walk.

Re-localize! De-consume! Starve the beast!

Dear Johann,

Thank you for your fine article. The Living Planet Index--down 37% since 1970--shows that the problem is not just about climate change but also about over consumption of our natural resource base.

We can't begin to halt this problem until we address the root causes of this crisis: population, consumption, and equity.

As it stands right now, any discussion of these root causes is considered pure lunacy--the dislocations, psychological, economic, and otherwise, are just to scary. It is about a PARADIGM change, something that even scientists don't take kindly to.

When we can find a way to begin this discussion with our community leaders, we can begin working on a brighter future (vs continuing this "theft" from current and future generations.)

You got any ideas on how we can do this? This is really what I want to devote my life to.

Thanks.....JonEden@yahoo.com Port Townsend, WA, USA

PS: I guess one bit of good news for the world is that we will soon be rid of George Bush barring some ill timed disaster. What a night mare this idiot has been!

MELTING ICE & GLOBAL WARMING ARROGANCE
The melting ice sheets which will absorb rather than reflect heat, the melting permafrost which will releases more CO2 & methane, and ocean acidification are not the only self perpetuating consequence of carbon pollution. Inundation of low lying areas, spread of tropical diseases to temperate latitudes, sea life destruction from changing ocean chemistry, & currents, are only some potential consequences.

The US rejections of Kyoto, and now the Bali Conference, underscore the dangerous control that special interests exercise over this administration''s policies. Their distortions of scientific data typifies their unconscionable war on science. Evidence linking carbon pollution to warming has long been as close to certain as science can be. Its causes, consequences, and mitigation requirements have been documented by many dedicated environmental organizations including The Union of Concerned Scientists.

Special interests argue that the current warming trends follow historic warming cycles, and hence reflect natural weather patterns--but they omit obvious differences: The earlier warming trends developed at slower rates which permitted the ecosystems to adapt. Morever they resulted from temporary natural events, which allowed transitions back to normal temperature patterns--by contrast, the current warming patterns result from artificial causes that will only intensify unless mitigated.

Often overlooked is the fact that, the same measures needed to mitigate global warming would be necessary even if it were no issue. Conservation, alternative energy development, anti- pollution refinements, etc are essential for other vital environmental reforms such as air and water quality, reductions in toxic waste generation, land preservation, etc.
Contrary to right wing assertions, measures to reduce greenhouse gases could only improve our economy by lessening our trade deficits, and improving our security by reducing our dependance on foreign oil. We could also regain some of our lost world respect that has resulted from our rejection of Kyoto while arrogantly contributing disproportionally to carbon pollution. With our participation in international efforts, China & India could no longer use our non-compliance as an excuse for their non-participation.

The environmental and social damage from our indifference to carbon pollution can only worsen

Poverty and carbon pollution can never be mitigated until an effective means of family planning/population control is implemented. Our environment can not sustain the current reproduction rates.

Compared to over-population, other measures are almost irrelevant. Unless it is addressed now, increasing poverty and eventual degradation of the quality of life--as well as environmental degradation-- is inevitable.

Agitkid I agree. I inferred that when I wrote that all that matters in this country is keeping the economy growing and that we keep consuming.

Maybe we should just stop beating ourselves over the head for the problems that man, or perhaps i should say THE MAN , has done to the planet.Sure weve seen the rape of the earth all in the name of progress and personal greed.Sure weve seen the nasty sides of others as they have seen ours.Sure we have marveled at the advances of man.If not you shouldnt be reading this on your computer.Sure we have come a long ways in the 42 years ive been on earth.And i was sure that we were responsible for the changes that the earth is going through.All that changed when i was thrilled by the haunting sounds of a glacier in retreat.And then after becoming fascinated by the Maya calander i have figured out a few things that many others know.Our earth is going through a natural progression.And we are in for a thrilling ride. and what a ride it shall be.Keep your friends and family close.You will all need one another in these upcoming trying times.

Um, not one person here has addressed the real problem; namely, CAPITALISM and a political economy based on the presupposition of endless growth. Until we address the economic system, all talk about working with nice environmental organizations to legislate capitalists is hot air. This is the "truth" that people like Gore refuse to address.

We need to address the fundamental premise of an economic system that ignores environmental destruction and human/non-human exploitation in its quest for profits, and a political system that protects the capitalist class with the ability to excersize force and violence in the service of elite interests. Quite simply, they don't give a FUCK about the environment, only in so far in that it might interrupt profit making potentials. And yes, they will profit off the destruction of the environment by selling you "green" products that will have zero effect on runaway climate change, the one major point of this article i completely agree with.

The only way we will reduce the damage already done is to overthrow the capitalist system, and i have no idea how, but transition it carefully into an economy that is locally based, where every single transaction is calculated into a sustainable relationship with the environment, where production is done in the interest of the public good, not for profit. And this of course will require real democratic institutions, not centralized states. In short, we need some type of revolutionary movement. Anything short of that is a naive proposition, or we begin to accept what expatincebu says above, that humans may have to go.

I think the communalism movement is our best hope. They have good forums here:

http://www.communalism.net/

We need to reduce consumption in general. We have become a nation of consumers. More is better. Bigger is better. We need to reduce, reuse and recycle. All that matters in this country is keeping the economy growing. As soon as it starts to slow we are encouraged to consume more. It's more patriotic to consume, than to conserve for the good of the planet. Until that mindset changes the environmental problems will continue to get worse.

You are correct twalsh1 EDUCATION IS KEY TO CHANGE>

Great article.

Were not at the point of controlling births in the US, but it should be important to make adoption a much easier and cheaper option for families (both international and national adoption). Tax incentives and these types of things could make adoption more popular amongst progressives like truthteller. Also, education for males and females (especially in the third world) will help with birth rates. Birth control widely available for cheap prices (or for free) is good too. I agree, population overgrowth is the number one issue behind all of our problems (as a country and a society). But not many people understand this yet, and therefore any talk of curving births will be seen as a radical extremist thing. EDUCATION is the key to change this.

Overpopulation is a huge problem - but when is the last time (hell, how about the FIRST time) you saw an article specifically talking about it?

thundermoon quote: But when people write that the "only" way to stop global warming is to stop having kids, I think maybe what is really being said is, "I'd like a far-off solution that involves me not at all, and lets me do what I want, while feeling virtuous." Kind of like the population version of carbon offsets.

I have no children - by choice - because I have always felt it more imperative to take better care of the children already here than to add more. And this does involve me very directly. There are few days that go by when I don't feel pangs of sadness at not knowing what it feels like to be pregnant or to give birth. If I did 'what I wanted' I would bear children. I find that there is little virtue in this choice - especially when those with children claim that I have no 'parenting skills' simply because I've not born my own (a frequent occurence).

mutantliberal is right on - population control begins with literate and educated women. Support organizations that work in this field.

Let me pose this question to "truth teller" and whomever else cares to ponder this.

You say over-population is the problem and population control is the cure. But how would YOU institute such a control? Apply for permission to breed? Prove yourself worthy of procreation? By what standard would you choose?

Imagine the political and societal upheaval over those topics!

Your "solution" could well be far worse than that which you attempt to "cure", no?

One thing that really bothers me is how things like soap and toothpaste have changed to plastic bottles from simple wrappers and tin/aluminum.

In the name of progress, your shaving cream now comes in a bottle with a top that will take a thousand years to degrade.

What was wrong with the old metal?

Even companies like Aveeno are putting out this trash, calling themselves green. I would like to see a number on the tonnage of the items as compared to yestyears bio degradable metals.

Why arent these people held responsible for the trash they fill our landfills with?

Why do they products at Costco and Sams need the same packaging required at stores? Why can it not be a transparent bag that simply has a small sticker that says what the product is, since you know why you are there - to buy the stuff that you get at Albertsons at half price.

This is where the government should begin - making manufacturers cut their end waste by half.

great artilce, johann hari. leave it to someone from across the way to write something of great importance, seemingly overlooked by the masses in this country.

it's easy, thundermoon. you create a procreation tax. very easy. also, take away the tax benefits for having children. that's only despairing to those with children. you are so right though, we most definitely need a change of lifestyle.

it is unfortunate indeed to know that the majority of americans alive today have never experienced adversity the way our parents/grandparents did: dust bowls/great depressions. now, 16 trips per week to the grocery store is the norm. hauling selfish children's asses to soccer, t-ball, cheerleading, basketball, dance lessons, piano lessons, girlfriends/boyfriends homes, and on and on. and that's just on week-days.

truthteller, it's a frightening reality that you bring home here. how many people are really prepared for a 4 billion (count 'em) loss in head count, by whatever means necessary? and other posters pray for peace. reality hasn't quite set in for some. when the oil is gone, or drastically dwindling, those draconian means will be firmly in place. peace. right.

civilization is getting ready to have its ass handed to it, and it doesn't know whether to use a fork or a spoon.

SAVE THE PLANET? YOU ARE STUPID!

The "planet" is just fine. What you are really talking about is saving humanity. If global warming wipes out humans, along with many other living species, the earth will go on. It does not care about humans survival. Some species will survive, and evolve, and live on earth will go on.

So stop talking about saving the planet when what you mean is saving humanity. And start the conversation by asking the most pertinent and obvious question, does humanity DESERVE to be saved? Because the point we do not want to admit is that from an evolutionary perspective saving the planet may require eliminating humanity.

The best contraceptive on a mass scale is female literacy. Once women become educated they begin to deny men control of their bodies. The developed world's problem is not overpopulation; it's that the population we have keeps increasing its energy and land use. Europe and Japan have leveled off in their population and may decline over the next 50-75 years. America continues to grow mainly because of immigration from Mexico and other poor countries. It could comfortably house and feed 1 billion people if we weren't all so determined to live the lawn fertilizer, two-car garage suburban lifestyle.

truthteller, when I read comments like yours about overpopulation, I sigh with despair. Even if you manage (how?) to stop procreation, what good does that do the climate with the lifestyles we're leading? Bringing procreation to a halt (how?!) will stop the already-greatly-worse global warming that is in existence once we're all dead and gone, I suppose. But when people write that the "only" way to stop global warming is to stop having kids, I think maybe what is really being said is, "I'd like a far-off solution that involves me not at all, and lets me do what I want, while feeling virtuous." Kind of like the population version of carbon offsets. How long until the last human dies, once you've managed to halt procreation (HOW?!) and what will the climate, being put through everything we put it through in the meantime, be like?

Stop flying, period. Stop everything you can stop. Then maybe examine the lives of others and begin to stop them all from having kids (HOW?)

Mother Earth will save herself as she has for eons. She shall burn us off of her or use the seas to drown us. She, as we, are living organisms that must purify ourselves or die.

Theosopists have spoken for years of other cultures that were destroyed, the Alantians, the Lemurians.

The Hopi's speak of a coming 5th World http://www.welcomehome.org/rainbow/prophecy/hopi1.html

I am not worried about our Beloved Earth Mother, she will survive, I feel sorry for all the good people who have never harmed her, many who honour and respect her, who suffer the worst of the effects of our selfish, consumeristic deeds.

your planetary sister

There's a lot that the U.S. could do right now.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), many European nations and Japan and China already have stricter standards than the new U.S. C.A.F.E. fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks that won't take full effect before 2020. The IEA also says that U.S. utilities could make more use of existing technology that would increase our coal plant efficiency by 20 percent.

This could be done right now - or as soon as Bush leaves office.

Raising the awareness that we respond in phases is important. I hope we see much more of this sort of perspective. I am told the creative process has very identifiable stages. Can anyone elaborate?

Overpopulation, not mentioned.

How can we be so blind to the Nr. 1 threat? Sure, we all need to consume less and aim for sustainability. But as long as human population keeps growing, we should expect catastrophical, unwanted, population reduction.

"The only way that can ever happen is by governments legislating to force us all - green and anti-green - to shift towards cleaner behaviour."

And the result will be just as it is now - the real violators like Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Whatever - will ignore the new "green" laws as they ignore every other law while We The Little People will be taxed and fined and penalized and regulated up the ass... or "detained" for harboring a "radical ideology" that could perhaps lead to "terrorism related activities." (Detainees will be held only until the Global Warming situation is reversed.)

We Americans still can't stop driving drunk and overeating crap and stealing as much as possible from one another. Does anyone seriously believe we are all gonna wake the f**k up and start "doing the right thing?" No, seriously.

Well stated. I would only add that while I consider the work of NGOs like those listed above to be vital, we can't abandon direct electoral work - getting fossilized politicians out of office and getting future minded ones in. They are the only ones who can approve the economy-wide carbon taxes and massive renewable investments that are required. Political activists too must strive beyond easy measures. Tabbing through a form letter may be incrementally helpful, analogous to changing bulbs say, but we really need to be getting out of the house to get it done.

Let's quit avoiding the single biggest aspect of the problem and the hard solution to it: Global human overpopulation, and mandated population reduction. Pretty much everything else is coincidental to this, and will improve with the population reduction.

Just as the author says that forcing people to make other changes will help climate change, forcing people not to procreate will produce the biggest changes of all. The Earth cannot sustain 6.6+ billion people, let alone projections of 10 billion or more. With the now fairly apparent occurrence of World oil production peak at around 84 million barrels per day, events will force a reduction in World population by Draconian means - war, famine, plague, and pestilence - if we do nothing to do it as fairly and rationally as possible.

I have no illusions that most people would happily and willingly give up their reproductive "rights". Many will take to heart rational arguments and proof as to the disaster awaiting us. However, most, even in the environmentalist/green community, will resist to the bitter end. Their argument being that they are raising good, environmentally aware future leftist activists to counter the ignorant, religiously fundamentalist, knuckle-draggers on the right. Well, I was supposed to grow up to be a good, Christian Republican, instead of a leftist Atheist, so the best laid plans and hopes of any parent are just that. We need to deal in hard truths, and using organic baby food and hemp cloth diapers is not the solution. Not birthing the babies using them is.

The hard truth is that unless we reduce World population to under 2 billion before mid-Century we will most certainly suffer a population crash that will take us there tragically. I want everyone under 25 or so reading this to look around at their friends and family of the same generation and ask themselves which 80% of them they want to lose prematurely? Probably even yourself! Those are the stakes we face. Unless you are among the fortunate 1% living in wealth in a gated community with private security forces, you face this fate as much as anyone living in Bangladesh.

Yes, this goes against the sweep of human history. I would like to think that Man's supposed rational intellect can overcome hormones and biological urges to do what is right for the future of Humanity and the Planet.

One thing consumers have to do is STOP BUYING NEW CARS - unless the cars are near zero emission [most hybrids are not so great] or electric. This should have happened in 1990, and car makers would all be making zero emission cars by now.

However, consumers doing their greenest best, and becoming activists too, will not be enough - the big industrial emitters also need to change, possibly as a result of the consumer activism, but still they need to reduce their carbon emissions.

And it's too late to stop the increase from happening. The best we can do is slow it down. Meanwhile, places like Bangladesh, where much of the country is a whopping 3 feet above sea level, are going to wind up underwater. The people who live there are going to be displaced, and probably pretty damn angry. Another thing government could do is put plans in place to ameliorate the conditions that we can't prevent.

What a great article. No, me buying local and doing my "greenest" isn't going to solve the problem, but more people doing these things has brought the message to the masses which, in turn, can promote political change.