Now that only a handful of critics seriously object to the notion that human activities are destabilizing the climate on a global scale, you would think that there would be a monumental, coordinated worldwide effort to reverse this potentially catastrophic trend. Instead, the human community is behaving more like a family of Floridians that, when faced with an impending Category 5-level hurricane, start gathering up the pink flamingoes and lawn furniture from the front yard in leisurely fashion, instead of quickly boarding up the windows and preparing to evacuate. Of course, in the case of climate destabilization (a better term, I think, than either global warming or climate change), we don’t have the near-term option of evacuating to another planet. But, I think there are some clear reasons why progress on this front has been so slow.

The Unlimited Growth Credo: The reigning economic model that dominates worldwide commerce is based on a principle of unlimited growth. Proponents to this idea—a camp that includes that vast majority of those teaching and practicing economics—don’t even acknowledge the notion that to continue promoting unlimited growth on a finite planet is essentially insane. Those who even bother to address this solidly entrenched paradigm usually cite all the reasons why we’re not even close to the limits and how Malthus, Ehrlich, and others have been proven wrong and, essentially, there are no limits to growth. Human ingenuity and technology will solve all. Look at the agricultural revolution. Look at how technology has improved people’s lives. Of course, even as they speak, we’re witnessing large-scale collapse of fisheries and immense dead zones encompassing ocean areas as large as states, accelerating deforestation, vastly lowered groundwater resources tainted by chemical pollution, peak oil, peak natural gas, peak uranium, scenarios that hint at water wars in the near future, climate conditions that threaten human health and impact agriculture, and a host of new diseases, many of them related to overburdened immune systems, sweeping the planet. Sadly, much of the interest in green products is just a way to continue the pattern of unlimited growth in a manner that is slightly less damaging than past practices. Within this frenzy of uncontrolled growth, the root causes of climate destabilization (rising greenhouse gas emissions, livestock production, deforestation, and so on) are essentially ignored in the interests of "economic development." The solution, rarely discussed, is to start working toward a steady state economy, but when is the last time you ever heard such a thing mentioned in a global warming discussion. Economic growth is still viewed by pundits and the people, as well as the politicians they elect, as the engine that drives human progress. An alternative view is offered by the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (http://www.steadystate.org/).

The Population Growth Conundrum: Discussing population growth is another taboo topic in most circles. For one thing, if you’ve already taken the orange “unlimited growth pill”, than you naturally need to take the “more people spurs more growth” purple pill. The two go together and to argue against either is to subject yourself, in most circles, to charges of being backward, racist, anti-third-world, a Luddite, or worse.

As the developing world increasingly adopts the consumptive habits of Americans—driving more cars, eating more meat, using more electricity, purchasing more goods—all of the factors that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions are multiplied.

If you’re living on a planet that is running out of fresh water, forests, topsoil, food sources, arable land, conventional energy supplies, and so on, does it make any sense at all not to address the unprecedented increase in population growth? Preventing climate destabilization is impossible unless one vector of the problem, more people using more energy and consuming more resources, is faced squarely. At a time when more than ever we need sex education and birth control, we have factions in government pushing unrealistic abstinence-only approaches for dealing with unwanted pregnancies. One group that spells out the problems fairly is Population Connection (http://www.populationconnection.org). And, if you embark on programs to encourage and educate people, to try to voluntarily bring down population levels, you’ve also got to deal with the corresponding economic issues. Fewer people, less growth, more need for a steady state economy.

The Problem with Meat: As has been documented in numerous studies, including the United Nations report, Livestock’s Long Shadow (http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm), the consumption of meat is one of the most serious contributors to the climate destabilization problem. From a report summary on mongabay.com (http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1130-un.html):

"Livestock’s Long Shadow" estimates that livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of carbon dioxide, 65 percent of nitrous oxide, and 37 percent of methane produced from human-related activities. Both methane (23 times) and nitrous oxide (296 times) are considerably more potent greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide. Livestock also generates 64 percent of human-related ammonia, which contributes to acid rain.

As developing nations adopt western habits, their meat consumption rises as well, and this unsustainable circle threatens every human being on the planet. There are abundant ethical issues connected with the massive factory farming operations that turn hogs, chickens, cattle, turkeys, and other animals into commodities, but at this stage of human existence, survival may depend on the number of people who choose to go vegan, or at least vegetarian. The arguments most often against taking this route usually fall into a few rote responses (“People get sick if they don’t eat meat.” “I like the taste of meat too much to give it up.” “We’ve always eaten meat and no crazies are going to change our habits.”). Physicians for Responsible Medicine (http://www.pcrm.org/) offers more perspective on what eating meat really means, both to your body and the body of the planet you live on.

These are three deeply engrained sets of habits and beliefs, none of which is going to change easily and none of which can even be discussed without eliciting furious, deeply emotional debates. Next time you’re talking with someone about the problems of climate destabilization, try bringing up these issues and see what the response is. The mental obstacles to change need to be overcome before the physical challenges in our finite world can be effectively addressed.