The Definite Article

Shhhhh, Nathan, you can't say that here; the CIA is watching you. OH, right they published their findings on the environment a year or so ago in strong agreement with you. No, big brother, I can't think of anything that will solve the worlds problems short of marching every owner of vanity plates over a cliff like the lemmings that they are. Very unique, vain lemmings, nonetheless.

I think we should all agree to breathe less. Start with something simple, like just holding your breath for a few seconds every third time you inhale.

Inhale
Exhale
Inhale
Exhale
Inhale
Hold...1...2...3...
Exhale
repeat

Assuming the 3 seconds saves about one full breath, it means we are reducing carbon dioxide production by as much as 25%.

This will also help the human race prepare for the day we have to terraform Mars and exist in the thinner atmosphere.

We also need to do something about cow farts. It is an issue our politicians are not addressing. All that methane wasted. In all the discussion about renewable energy, why aren't the environmentalists pushing cow farts? Because the enviros are bought and paid for by the powerful solar panel and wind turbine lobby, that's why!

Some people think that the best solution to a problem is destroying it or making it dissapear, but some times thats a hard thing to do, and you need to adapt to the new situation like it or not.

I vote for more hair. Yeah! more hair, all over the body, that should keep everybody warm there. I can picture the fashion magazines titles, "Hair is in" "Hairshon", or some books "How to comb the missing link in you"

I think the boy who cried wolf is a more accurate label. Cassandra's prophecies, though disbelieved, were always accurate. At least part of the skepticism over this sort of thing is driven by memories of the fear-mongering environmental movement of the '70s. The dire predictions of doom by Paul Ehrlich, the Club of Rome, etc., didn't pan out.

Now, that's not to say that climate change in general, or the possible disruption of the North Atlantic Conveyor in particular, isn't a real phenomenon, but the point of wolf fable is that once you get a rep as an alarmist, people don't believe you whether or not you're correct.

It's funny that I'll be able to guilt-trip my children one day by saying: "When I was a youngster in homeland Latvija I had to take a physics test when it was -26 C and the pipes had burst in my school!" (for greater affect, say with heavy Russian accent). Although if I have kids in Britain, perhaps one day they too will experience something similar. Yikes.

The boy who cried wolf was right once, the one time it mattered. How unfortunate that he had lied so often.

It is our responsibility to be on guard for that behaviour and to not act like the villagers. Instead of allowing ourselves to suffer from alarm fatigue, we should carefully assess the information available to us. I disregard most of the statements of the mainstream environmental movement, although it sure looks like there is a looming environmental challenge that has powerful repurcussions for the U.S., NATO, Europe and the war on irreconcilable radical Islam.

Good to see you back, F.S.

Don't let them dupe you. The real reason that nobody, by which I mean politicians, are raising an eyebrow in alarm, especially in the states, is because they're all radical Christians. Their beliefs go something to the effect of, the sooner humanity causes its own holocaust, the sooner Christ has to return! And, America is paying off Europe and encouraging people to live a life of reckless hedonism. Oh, and they're trying to dupe the smarter Asians by infecting them with passive Buddhism and hateful Islam in order to confuse the world. As for Africa, well, to quote my older brother, "Unfortunately, no one really cares about brown people." Hokay, so then California breaks off from the U.S. and goes down to hang out with Australia:)

Or, maybe I'm confusing the conspiracy, somehow I've left out J.F.K.

-on to the serious post-

In order to effectively fight a potential collapse I suspect that something on the scale of wholesale rejection of neo-liberalism is required. We need to find a way to convince the world that television, drugs, and the entire whiny middle class are a doping mechanism that are, by in large, keeping people who are capable of unique and productive actions demure and inactive. Which means that we need to convince people in developing countries that they can be content without largescale development and convince people in developed countries that they will actually be happier if they have less.
In other words, we need to
a. awaken the masses
b. halt the materialistic aspects of globalism, especially the ones that say that status=possession of stuff
c. convince people that they need a radical change to alter the situation.

It seems to me that the largest problem that we are facing here is different from, "We might recreate massive glaciers in Northern Europe." Though it includes it. Rather, on a long term scale, if people are injecting even 1% more pollutant than the environment can absorb we will overpollute the world. Pollutant, in this case, is anything that cannot be immediately reabsorbed by the environment before more of that substance is introduced to it. Eventually, this buildup of pollutants, much like a bacterial culture, will become toxic to either us or to the balance of ecosystems.
For example, consider the use of fossil fuels and the carbon cycle. The carbon cycle takes a very long time to distill carbon from the environment and return it to an inert state in the ground and not in the atmosphere. By digging them up we are creating a log jam of carbon in the atmosphere. There is a sudden influx of carbon that cannot be removed (see earlier in the post). Now, we have to ask ourselves what geology has told us about the history of the Earth and what type of weather patterns persisted with what atmospheres. Effectively, mankind is fighting the effects of entropy (which manifests itself in eutrofication, in this case) and causing the environment of the planet to shift. What I am concerned about is that, at some point in the future, humanity will push the atmosphere to a state that is essentially primitive enough at a rapid enough pace that there will be a large scale snap in the ability of organisms on the planet to function under the conditions. This may not trigger another mass extinction but the results could be very dramatic. Perhaps, before adaptive radiation and a significantly reduced human population could rebound, another ice age would be triggered, or a quick and intense global warming that melts both caps and turns the equator into pretty much a huge desert. Despite the continued existence of humanity, the rebuilding of a habital planet would be left to custodians that didn't realize the significance of their actions until it was too late. Will we see changes to such a degree in our lifetime? Probably not. But, I am reminded of a Native American quote that I found insightful, "That which we do to the earth we also do to our children."

When one thinks of the 'masses' - think of that term "mass" = huge quantity. Huge quantities do not move in one large surge of power. Everyone, no matter how alarmist people get, is not going to suddenly stand up and jump into action. It has to be by increments (unless we're talking very sudden mass devastation that has already taken place).

And those increments best be wrapped in a very trendy package if people are to implement them.