Skip to main content

Every Progressive should recognize and incorporate, deep in their soul, the plain fact:  Global Warming is the single most serious threat to Progressive ideals, concepts, policies, and aspirations through the 21st century ... AND today.

This is not just a let’s wait until tomorrow issue, that should be put in the back of the line to deal with after other issues, we must address it with urgency today if we hope for a progressive world tomorrow.

This is part of the Climate Change Reality Blogathon dedicated to our dear friend Johnny Rook.

Making climate chaos even more pressing is the reality that it interacts with and impacts on every aspect of modern human existence from our water supplies to our food to our health (linkages health, energy, climate change) to our economy to our energy systems.

Without better energy policies starting now, the future could be bleak economically for decades to come with the impending strike of Peak Oil.  Amid recessions and depressions, what happens to mental health programs?  What happens to music in the classrooms? Training programs for economically disadvantaged among us? Will there be funding for these and other progressive causes? I doubt it.  Don’t you?

A key study on how to 'mitigate' Peak Oil concluded that serious action should begin 20 years before the peak hits to avoid serious impacts and over ten years beforehand to avoid massive economic disruption. The vast majority of serious analysts put peak as falling within that ten-year window (if not already having hit, masked by the economic crisis),  we are almost certainly headed toward future (and even larger) swift peaking of oil prices, as we saw in 2008, with accompanying economic and other havoc.

We are, in the United States, seeing budget cutbacks to arts programs, school systems, parks budgets, mental health care programs, ...

Peak oil, however, might be a low-cost challenge compared to unmitigated climate catastrophe ... which will send the possibility of 'progressive' agendas into the trash-heap of history.

With ever-increasing environmental stresses, global refugee and food crises, multiple-Katrina-like challenges and choices over whether to protect or abandon America’s coastal infrastructure, will Head Start funding be secure?  Will Americans focus on expanding GLBT rights? Will there these and other progressive concerns be the top of the agenda?

I doubt it.

Don’t you?

Jerome a Paris has written eloquently about his son's illness and discussed how this illness drives his passionate concern about energy and global warming issues.  He has written how desiring a world where his son (and others similarly challenged) can have a fruitful life drove him to a fundamental realism about the criticality of turning the world toward a better path in the face of Peak Oil.  He brought me – and many others – along with him.

NNadir, once (not seen in almost six months) one of the strongest proponents of nuclear power in this community, expressed how having children drives his passionate advocacy of what he views as a key tool for carving a survivable path to a better future.

So I'm writing all about nuclear power for a wholly selfish reason, to protect my own.    More nuclear reactors in my view will give everybody's children, including my own, their best shot.

They are not alone ... so many others are driven to change by their desire to foster a better (or less worse?) life for their children ... and, by extension, others’ children.

I share their passion.  

Staring one’s children in the eyes and considering the world that we are creating should be enough to motivate any of us toward change.

And, they motivate me to fight for a better world for me, for you, for my children, for yours, for all of us ... for US and the world.

Considering the potential implications for feeding an ever-growing population amid increasingly disrupted weather conditions does not make me sleep easily at night. When a key scientist from the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change tells me that, if things go well, we might lose "only" 30 percent of the world’s species by 2050, I listen ... and I tremble.

I think of myself and you, of my and your children.
We, collectively, have created and are creating a world that will be radically different for our children than what we enjoyed.  

30% of species extinct by 2050???  If things go well, that is ...

And, these crises interconnect.  Some of the paths toward Peak Oil mitigation, to solving potential oil challenges, could greatly exacerbate Global Warming challenges.  Fossil fuel from tar sands, heavy oil, shale oil will put far more carbon into the atmosphere to get that gallon of fuel into a Hummer than would be the case for Texas sweet crude.

But, the opportunities exist to enable us (US and all of us) to turn aside from our headlong rush into the economic disaster of Peak Oil and massive destruction of catastrophic Climate Change.

Now, dealing competently with these challenges is neither an easy task nor a quickly resolved one.  And, navigating a path through the Peak Oil minefield while charting (and sailing) a course through the turbulent seas of Global Warming is critical for ensuring a decent future for us all (US and the world).

Al Gore speaks of the calling of a generation.  That this is beyond politics and partisanship, that this is the moral and ethical challenge for this generation.  And that we must rise to the challenge as did The Greatest Generation in World War II.

For those focused on "national security", they must realize the ‘security’ implications of an economically disrupted world experiencing weather/climate conditions increasing refugee movements and driving natural disasters.  For those most concerned with traditional economic measures, they must realize that Peak Oil threatens decades of negative GDP growth and that Global Warming is already hurting the economy. (Tried to get insurance for a beach home recently?)

While these are challenges for us (US) all, progressives should realize the particular critical necessity to deal effectively (seriously) with Peak Oil and Global Warming.

Without resolving (mitigating) these challenges, Progressive dreams for a better tomorrow risk becoming dim memories rather than a reality of daily life.

To be clear: I advocate single-payer health care and have contacted Members of Congress. I believe in helping those who have problems feeding their families, want decent leave policies, value arts programs in schools, etc ... I believe in 'progress', that we have an obligation to strive for a 'More Perfect Union'.  That striving will, however, fail and become fantasy if we do not act seriously to turn the tides on Global Warming's rising seas.  We have the ability to enable progressive opportunities into the future with Energy Smart, win-win-win policies to deal with Global Warming.  

A quite simple Climate Change Reality: The reality of climate change, it is the progressive crisis!

Climate Change Reality Blogathon: Dedicated to our dear friend Steve of JohnnyRook's Climaticide Chronicles

KuangSi2Saturday December 12 (All times Pacific)
4:00a A Siegel
8:00a Senator John Kerry
9:00a Pete Altman
10:00a Keith Schneider and Senator Jeff Merkley
12:00p Daniel J Kessler by Phil Radford
4:00p Jill Richardson
5:00p rb137

KuangSi2Sunday December 13 (All times Pacific)
4:00a A Siegel
8:00a Dr. Amanda Staudt
9:00a Pete Altman
10:00a Keith Schneider
10:30a Jean-Pascal van Ypersele
11:00a RLMiller
12:00p Daniel J Kessler
1:00p Mike MacCracken
2:00p PDNC
3:00p Bruce Nilles
4:00p oke
5:00p boatsie

NOTE: I want to be clear. Assessing the realities and dimensions of climate change should NOT be a partisan issue, even if debates over which policies / policy constructs are / could be most effective certainly is ground for politics.  This diary / discussion is to highlight that 'climate change' is not 'wait until tomorrow' because there is something more important to do today -- for many reasons, including that 'progressive' causes will fall by the wayside in the face of unchecked climate catastrophe.

Originally posted to A Siegel on Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 04:06 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  i think there's something deeper, a more pressing (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      A Siegel, WarrenS

      issue at the core of our problems. that would be our values. our core values.

      it doesn't matter if we are talking about poisoning the planet or torturing prisoners. it really doesn't.

      we can not legislate values. we have to act them out. every day. much as you do, Adam.

      the most urgent thing, if we are to be taken seriously, is to hold the bad guys accountable. put muscle back into our desire to enforce our values via the law.

      it is us against them. what i hope is that we understand who the "us"  and the "them" are . . .

      for me? it's most of the 7 billion of us against the relatively few, all of whom can be found wearing expensive suits, eating the best food, and living in the best locations... lots of glittery packaging and very little new age humanity found after the unwrapping, i'm afraid.

      Obamabots are another matter completely, though. They're the political version of teenage girls passing out at a Backstreet Boys concert... JayinPortland

      by pfiore8 on Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 04:48:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  don´t agree (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RunawayRose, koNko, A Siegel, WarrenS

        in fact its most of the 7 billion against the planet.

        let´s not confuse worry about the viability of the planet as such with desires about the distribution of that wealth that there is between those who are there. The latter s an original progressive thing and separates, say, social democrats from liberals. The former transcends any problem of distribution or the way how we order our societies. It is in the interest of plutocrats as well to try to preserve an ecologically viable earth for at least a few generations. We needlessly throw away potential allies (which coporatists are) if we try to mix all kinds of wealth distribution problems into the climate challenge.

        Ici s´arrète la loi.

        by marsanges on Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 05:51:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  one nit (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NoMoreLies, A Siegel, WarrenS

          Goldman Sachs could care less about anything beyond this year's bonus.  Large corporations like ExxonMobil are only interested in preserving the status quo - their current business model.  Wealth will move, but only after it is clear that they have milked their current schemes dry.  There's a big problem with that - we'll be left holding the bag.

          Die energie der Welt ist constant; die Entropie der welt strebt einem Maximum zu. - Rudolf Clausius, 1865

          by xgy2 on Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 06:00:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  We need to address... (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LynChi, JayDean, koNko, polar bear

            ...the problem of corporate personhood.  Corporations are legally required to focus on the short term profit equation by the laws governing the granting of corporate charters, IIRC.  Couple that with the acquisition of civil rights, and you have the problem: our government has enabled a race of omnivorous sociopathic giants with profound ADHD to ravage all the rest of us.

            Freedom isn't "on the march." Freedom dances.

            by WarrenS on Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 07:12:31 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Afraid I don't agree (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        A Siegel

        When we say "20-80-70" meaning 20% of the world's population hold 80% of the wealth and consume 70% of the energy, it refers to percapita demographics which average and, although it's reasonably certian the most wealthy of wealthy nations account for a higher than average consumption/emission, this does not necessarly scale to net worth or significantly bias the whole.

        While the accumulation of wealth does represent the accumulation of carbon inventory used to produce it, it is the division of profits that makes the rich different than the rest of us.

        Hence, in keeping with the theme of the diary, if the US were to invest more in public mass transit which is fundamentally more effcient (enery/cost) in most instances and reduce dependance of the population at large, it would disrupt, in a productive way, the present consumption-driven ecoomic model of transportation that traps low and middle income people in a system where they have no choice but sped a significant amount of ther income polluting the environment for the profit of oil and auto companines that are the benificiaries of regressive taxation used to perpetuate their business model.

        To paraphrase Marx "Is personal transportation the opiate of the masses?"

        Diarist makes the simple point: reduce consumption.

        Diarist makes the point: reduce consumption.

        Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

        by koNko on Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 04:39:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Indeed. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      A Siegel

      CO2,emissions,environment

      To limit gobal temperatures to Pre-industrial +2C Maximum by 2050 percapita CO2 must be reduced to 2.0 metric tons, approximately the present level or Egypt and Brazil.

      Findamentally, this can only be achieved by rapid conversion to carbon neutral generation and reduction of energy consumption.

      BTW, France, at the bottom of the mid-consuming EU cluster derrives a significant fraction of energy from Nuclear generation.

      Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

      by koNko on Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 04:15:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  If there is one issue that should unite (14+ / 0-)

    everyone it is 'Climate Change'.

    Every man, woman and child on the planet is exposed to this phenomena.

    Even if you deny everything and say it is purely a natural cycle the end results are the same.

    If it is a natural cycle then we cannot stop it and we better prepare for chaos, in my mind this is about a gloomy a view as you can take.

    If however we are in the main responsible [my view] then there is something we can do, and to do nothing would be criminal.

    Oh no, the dead have risen and they're voting Republican. - Lisa Simpson

    by LaFeminista on Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 04:13:10 AM PST

    •  The "problem" (11+ / 0-)

      addressed in this discussion really is not the outright deniers, but the 'wait your turn' because there are 'more pressing issues'.  

      Dealing with climate change (and the intertwined challenges of energy) is at the core of it all. In a twist of Smalley's terrawatt challenge, there is no progressive issue not made worse and harder to achieve if there is unchecked climate chaos, and there is no progressive issue not made more possible if there is serious action on climate mitigation.

      It is, however, broader than this -- as you are aware since this IS NOT about progressives vs rabid conservatives, this is about providing decent prospects for the future of human society.

      Oh ... by the way ... reality is that there is no person on earth whose grandchildren have better prospect with unchecked climate catastrophe.

      •  Have you read Archdruid's post this week? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RunawayRose, A Siegel, WarrenS

        Failure is the Only Option, Part 1? That's been obvious to me since Jimmy Carter's solar panels were removed from the White House.

        Also at Energy Bulletin has been an occasional series of  about theeffect on medicine of PO/CC. In short: the current HCR effort will, in all likelihood, be moot within a decade or two.

        •  Sigh ... (9+ / 0-)

          Rarely happens. I lost a really long response/discussion of the Arch Druid post stating that I had agreement / disagreement in the discussion.

          For example,

          Carbon emissions can’t be cut by waving a magic wand; the cuts will cost trillions of dollars at a time when budgets are already strained, and impose steep additional costs throughout the economy.

          I see this, especially in next decade or so and especially in the US, as buying into NAM-type disinformation rather than looking at the opportunities before us. A massive 100% renewable energy within 10 years? Okay, maybe. But, a 25 percent (or more) cut from today has real opportunities to be a net positive for the economy (driving down energy efficiencies, leveling out subsidies so clean energy is not disadvantaged, etc ...) even without counting all the secondary/tertiary benefits (such as improved health with reduced pollution).

          While, as always, powerfully written, I find elements to be off the mark ...

          •  The point to be made (0+ / 0-)

            Perhaps, is that various means to improve enegy efficiency are immediately available which require fundamentally low or no investment and provide economic returns which enable investment in clean energy capacity, which in turn, produce short-term economic return in productive consumption as well long-term return in sustainable energy generation.

            Non-consumption costs nothing. Conservation is cheap and makes to quick return on investment. Building a green economy is business.

            For example:

            Turning off unused lights costs nothing. Installing motion decetor liting controls and compact florecent or LED lamps is cheap and the pay-back within 1-2 years.

            Any Kossacks who hasn't done the above is missing an opportunity to take control of the system and lower carbon footpront immediately.

            Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

            by koNko on Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 05:02:10 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Oh ... by the way ... (7+ / 0-)

          the basic point, however, of both is fundamentally correct: the mass of public discussion (and policy discussions) operates in a realm disconnected from the realities of the challenges that we face.

    •  One way or the other it will (10+ / 0-)

      This might be the straw that finally kills the conservative movement.  I often wonder if that's the reason they are so shrill.  They know they are doomed, they know their beliefs are unsustainable or just flat out falsehoods.  They've made a huge bet and if they are wrong it will be the end of them.    

      Bad bet, this is physics, not politics, and you can't beat the physics.  

      Die energie der Welt ist constant; die Entropie der welt strebt einem Maximum zu. - Rudolf Clausius, 1865

      by xgy2 on Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 04:42:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yesterday I started (8+ / 0-)

      the first of what might become a series of climate science presentations in my school.

      One of our teachers has been including an environmental component in her German classes each year, and she told me that for the first time she had a class in which students were skeptical about climate change.

      I spoke to this class and answered questions.  By the end of the class there didn't seem to be a lot of skepticism.  I mostly showed them the data and graphs showing trends, and this diffused the main arguments about the sun, natural cycles and so on.  

      Our economics teacher wants me to talk to his class about the economics of sustainable energy vs clean coal vs doing nothing.

      Right now the science is being drowned out by noise sponsored by those who will benefit in the short run if we do nothing (nobody benefits in the long run!).

      We should be getting the information about the science into schools and newspapers much more than we are.  Once people know the truth, we can be united over this.

      Wouldn't it be great if for once we realized that there really is a common enemy and it isn't some other nation that we should go to war against.  The common enemy is business as usual.  If we fight against this, we can stop fighting against one another.

      "Trust only those who doubt" Lu Xun

      by LookingUp on Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 07:19:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  To help you prepare (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        A Siegel, LookingUp

        May I suggest you visit the UNEP site UNEP GRID Arendal and the sub-pages Maps & Graphics Library and Climate Change where you will find a wealth of information and educational resources there for the taking?

        This extensive library include numerous graphic charts and maps to illustrate environmental facts and priciples, with are available free (just download) with the only provision that they be properly cited?

        Almost any subject matter you might want to tech is included and you could make exploring this site an extra-curricular activity for your students.

        Once people know the truth, we can be united over this.

        Yes, that is the founding priciple of the UN and UNEP is one way they deliver on their mission.

        Hope you find the site helpful.

        Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

        by koNko on Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 05:12:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I know too well of the urgency of this issue. (7+ / 0-)

    I have five kids and one grandchild. I can not stop thinking about what kind of world grandchildren of the Earth will inherit.

    •  Me too - three children (4+ / 0-)

      I too cannot stop thinking and worrying about the world we are leaving to them and to their children & children's children.

      The non-stop hedonistic abuse of the Earth's resources and climate just disgusts me - all while the masses of the US are opiated with TeeVee fluffery, bogus reality & competition shows, false-equivalence argumentation & 'debate', and trite gossip (heard much about Tiger Woods lately?).

      Memo to Republicans - "Nope" is not a strategy...

      by frisco on Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 08:15:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  See my sig line. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      A Siegel

      If you ask me the question I'll answer "It depends on us."

      Photobucket

      What does the future hold in store?

      Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

      by koNko on Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 05:16:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It should not just be a progressive cause (7+ / 0-)

    Unfortunately, stupid conservatives have become the hearts and minds of the denialist movement.

    As I nearly screamed at my conservative denialist parents a few weeks when they mentioned "climategate" to me, global temperatures are the highest seen in a hundred thousand years and CO2 levels are approaching not seen in over 5 million. Since temperatures lag somewhat behind C02, it will not be long until temperatures reach levels not seen in millions of years. Contrary to what imbeciles like Sarah Palin say, there is absolutely no way in hell the earth will be able to sustain 7 billion humans or possibly any humans by the time the slow processes of rectification take place. I closed my rant with: Stop listening to stupid politicians taking money from oil companies and starting thinking about your grandchildren. You may not have to suffer through the worst of a global climate crisis, but your grandchildren will.

    The uninsured keep dying. Death to AHIP!

    by DWG on Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 04:36:39 AM PST

    •  I agree ... (6+ / 0-)

      By the way, if they have any (any) openness at all, Greg Craven's What the Worst That Can Happen? might be of use as a gift.

    •  your local limbaugh megastation is denialist HQ (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RunawayRose, koNko, A Siegel, WarrenS

      their local sponsors need to asked WTF?

      some of  them are sponsored by universities!!!

      those stations are licensed to operate in the public interest.

      'climate gate' is a PR construction that succeeds in obstructing largely because it got blasted from 1000 radio stations for 2 weeks by ignorant and or paid shills who's soapboxes are uncontested. only then does it become acceptable in the rest of the MSM and on the floors of congress and senate. those 1000 radio stations are getting their backs.

      many cons still take their ques from the limbaughs and hannities only because no one can get through their call screeners to challenge them. they are legitimized by their royal untarnished certitude.

      the 350 protest i went to with 400 people recently was a start but we marched to the state capitol and there was NO media.

      if only 20 of us had gone to the limbaugh megastation the media would have noticed.

      US social and political reality is largely determined by 1000 radio stations blasting coordinated UNCONTESTED repetition all day long.

      by certainot on Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 05:44:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe that's the answer. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RunawayRose, NoMoreLies, A Siegel, WarrenS

        Maybe we should protest for it at Limbaugh's place.

        Perhaps we could whip this thing over on it's end...

        I think this is the root problem actually.

        I do agree with A Siegel that Climate Change is the greatest issue of our time, but the political impediment to a solution is themainstream corporate agenda.

        The mainstream Corporate Agenda stands in the way of Progress on this issue.

        It stands squarely in the way of almost of the important issues of our time.

        Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

        by k9disc on Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 06:18:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  they negate civil activism (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NoMoreLies, A Siegel, WarrenS

          on a large scale by distorting the message and intimidating/enabling MSM coverage and political response.

          they give cover to politicians to take the lobbyist money - they use the carrot and the stick at the same time and they're working hard to obstruct climate action now.

          the corporate message is blasted over everything on a national and local level. progressive local state initiatives are often beaten merely because the local talkers blast the chamber of commerce talking points all day everywhere. californians can largely thank their RW talk radio stations for selling the anti tax referendums that destroyed their economy.

          the feedback mechanisms our democracy relies on are getting shouted over and progressives are letting the right dominate speech in an essential and very loud medium.

          free speech isn't much good if one guy can scream over everyone else.

          US social and political reality is largely determined by 1000 radio stations blasting coordinated UNCONTESTED repetition all day long.

          by certainot on Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 07:10:13 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  crashing a party (6+ / 0-)

    I feel like I'm crashing a party or, at the least, just showing my persistently bad timing lately, by just having posted an environmental diary.

    Does "Clean Coal" make economic sense?

    Then again, I think JohnnyRook would see the embarrassment of riches as a good problem to have. :-)

  •  THE only long term issue (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RunawayRose, A Siegel, WarrenS

    It took the Earth, and life on Earth, 100s of millions of years to form the climate that now supports the current set of species. This included sequestering an enormous amount of carbon in the form of what we erroneously refer to as fossil fuels. It will take Homo sapiens a few hundreds of years to undo that. We have now taken a bite of the apple of technology and we are now aware of the fact that we are global terraformers. We had better learn how to live sustainably. This was inevitable.

  •  Thanks for this diary (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    koNko, A Siegel, WarrenS

    and for the climate change blogathon.  

    I don't think that the climate crisis as it unfolds will not  cause people to understand  that the deniers were wrong and progressives were correct.  In a crisis, truth is even less likely to be recognized, as the powerful and greedy take advantage to become more powerful, and spew out slogans and blame and  practice scapegoating.  People do not become more thoughtful and reflective at a time of crisis.

  •  Sustainability in the long term... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RunawayRose, JayDean, koNko, A Siegel

    ...should imply sustainability in all imaginable dimensions.

    A society that consumes more resources than it replaces is ecologically unsustainable — and a society that marginalizes and disenfranchises a significant portion of its membership (based on gender, sexuality, or some other attribute) is morally unsustainable.  

    A society which allows a statistically insignificant fraction of the whole to control the majority of wealth, power and influence is economically unsustainable.

    A society in which education is commodified and students are treated as disposable consumers of edu-products is epistemologically unsustainable.  A society in which art is produced only by a specialized caste of highly-paid professionals is culturally unsustainable.

    A society in which the vast majority of members cannot afford health care or have no access to it likewise cannot endure for the long term.

    This is, as A Siegel says, THE Progressive Crisis -- and it is why progressives must formulate a picture of the society towards which we strive: a society in which ecological, economic, epistemological, cultural sustainability are the norm, rather than the isolated exception.

    And we have to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.  I hope that in the months and years to come, we get more than just lip service from the current administration.

    Freedom isn't "on the march." Freedom dances.

    by WarrenS on Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 07:09:15 AM PST

  •  As hard as it is, (6+ / 0-)

    we have to consider the problem of unsustainable overpopulation.  Perhaps the coming crisis will "solve" this problem in a very hideous and disheartening way.  It would be nice to think we with our "big brains" could figure out a soft landing for all the people here now.  Whatever happened to "zero population growth?"  Now the octomom and the "plus 8" families are a goal for many people.  

    •  Agreed. (5+ / 0-)

      Overpopulation is the "rhinoceros in the living room" that we have been ignoring for far too long.

      Freedom isn't "on the march." Freedom dances.

      by WarrenS on Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 07:29:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bingo! You get the prize for mentioning (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RunawayRose, JayDean, koNko

      what everyone seems to be ignoring.  Population growth cannot continue forever.  There is a limit to how many people the planet will support.  Sometimes I think that climate change is a way the earth is telling people "enough is enough."  

      I am reminded of something Thom Hartman says:  The planet will survive, but the people may perish.

      If men were angels, no government would be necessary. - James Madison

      by LynChi on Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 08:08:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's not so hard. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      A Siegel

      You only need to think out of the box and looks at the facts.

      Since the start of China's One Child Policy in 1978, it has been (and continues to be) the subject of much criticism in the developed world.

      However, it was and remains a visionary policy, rooted in the realization that China's population growth was unsustainable and the cycle of povery and famine would not be broken unless population was controlled. Today, it is even more relevant as our economy develops, bringing with it ever higher energy demands.

      At inception, China's Total Fertility Rate (TFR) was approximately 3% verses the equlibrium rate of 2.1% Today, China's TFR is approximately 1.7%, and although our population is still growing it will peak about mid-century and then begin to decline rapidly (based on age demographics).

      In future, this will present some economic challanges, but may ensure our one daughter has a future.

      Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

      by koNko on Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 05:41:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  If rolled out with the goal of enlisting everyone (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JayDean, koNko, A Siegel

    to do their part, with energy and welcoming, we could become a team, the likes of which have rarely been seen.  

    We must convince the media and the legislators to present this to us as they might present a war: a war on GGs to save our children's future.  Combine this with government jobs all over and we might have a winner.

    I can see Americans getting very excited about being a "team" again, fighting for something, especially after the demoralization of experiencing how little we seem to mean to the powerful in this country right now.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site