I began studying climate change in 1982 when I read John D. Hamaker’s book The Survival of Civilization. Hamaker was one of the first to warn against the severe climate effects of burning fossil fuels. At that time, he concluded that only very rapidly ending fossil fuel burning and remineralization of the soil to encourage plant growth could stop climate chaos.
Hamaker was not correct about all the effects or how soon they would manifest. Over the past forty plus hears, however, his pointing to greenhouse warming as a threat to civilization became increasingly a reality and generally at a much faster pace than Hamaker predicted.
Unfortunately for us, he did not foresee all the potential tipping points and feedback mechanism that would arise. Most of those newly discovered mechanisms only make matters worse.
For example, he did not foresee that melting snow on the Greenland glaciers would provide water in which algae would grow. Where once there was reflective ice, there is now an algae bloom. That change means that more heat is absorbed by the algae, melting more ice, and growing more algae in a feedback loop that does not end until all the ice melts or slides into the sea. By that time, sea level from just the melting Greenland ice will rise up to 27 feet. The warming of the atmosphere accelerates this scenario.
Other impacts of climate change are more obvious and occurring with increasing regularity. Floods, droughts, wild fires, forests falling to beetle invasions, larger storms, and on and on.
In the face of this conclusive evidence that indeed civilization may be at risk from climate chaos, a species that calls itself Homo Sapien could be expected to respond accordingly.
Unfortunately again, the evidence is pointing in the wrong direction.
Take the Democratic Party committee that is drafting the party platform. In a recent session, various votes were taken on policies that might respond to the climate challenge.
Bill McGibben is an activist working for years to bring about sane climate policies. He serves on the platform drafting committee.
Here is Bill McGibben’s report on those votes:
We all agreed that America should be operating on 100 percent clean energy by 2050, but then I proposed, in one amendment after another, a series of ways we might actually get there. A carbon tax? Voted down 7-6 (one of the DNC delegates voted with each side). A ban on fracking? Voted down 7-6. An effort to keep fossils in the ground, at least on federal land? Voted down 7-6. A measure to mandate that federal agencies weigh the climate impact of their decisions? Voted down 7-6. Even a plan to keep fossil fuel companies from taking private land by eminent domain, voted down 7-6. (We did, however, reach unanimous consent on more bike paths!)
In other words, the Clinton campaign is at this point rhetorically committed to taking on our worst problems, but not willing to say how. Which is the slightly cynical way politicians have addressed issues for too long—and just the kind of slickness that the straightforward Sanders campaign rejected.
We know that ExxonMobil does not really care about its impact on civilization. The leadership [sic] of that corporation minimized those impacts four years ago.
More recently, ExxonMobil defended its telling lies about the impact of burning fossil fuels by claiming a First Amendment right to express its opinion.
So we are left with some difficult decisions to make. Which decision you choose may depend on how critical you believe the climate challenge to be.
As someone who has watched with increasing concern for more than forty years, I do not believe that we are responding at anywhere near the level called for by the seriousness of the challenge. We are going to spend billions or trillions just responding to what we can no longer prevent. If you think that the movement of refugees is fueling tension now, just wait until full on ecological catastrophe hits places with even larger populations at risk, like Bangladesh.
The choice is not easy because the choices are interrelated and the choices taking place in a unique context of potential civilization collapse.
So what to do?
Do the Clinton convention delegates who understand the immediacy of the threat form a Clinton
Climate Caucus to pressure their candidate to get real about climate change and bring that pressure to bear on the Platform Committee?
Do the Sanders delegates work for an upheaval in the Democratic convention resulting in Bernie Sanders being the nominee because he recognizes the need for aggressive responses to the threat of climate chaos?
If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, do those who understand the threat vote for Clinton, who appears from the votes of her representatives on the platform drafting committee to believe that opposing climate change does not necessarily mean doing anything substantive to stop it, i.e. vote that incremental destruction of civilization is okay?
Do those who understand vote for Trump, who believes that climate change is a Chinese-fabricated hoax?
Do those who see need for aggressive governmental action vote for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate of a party that does not believe in government?
Do climate stewards vote for Jill Stein of the Green Party, which has a clear-eyed and principled stand regarding the need for a comprehensive approach to climate change and energy in their platform on pages 41 to 46?
Can Jill Stein mobilize enough independent voters and disaffected Democrats to actually win or will those votes she gets result in Trump winning?
Will staying very active result in a Congress that is far more progressive than Hillary Clinton, so that Congress can then move her closer to progressive positions, should she be elected?
Would voting for Donald Trump bring about the collapse of civilization in the United States, thereby reducing consumption and the United States contribution to greenhouse gases? (Just kidding.)
Good luck to all of us.