Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on April 21, 2017

Bookmark and Share

Climate Change As Genocide, By Michael Klare

Climate Change As Genocide, By Michael Klare thumbnail

Not since World War II have more human beings been at risk from disease and starvation than at this very moment. On March 10th, Stephen O’Brien, under secretary-general of the United Nations for humanitarian affairs, informed the Security Council that 20 million people in three African countries—Nigeria, Somalia, and South Sudan—as well as in Yemen were likely to die if not provided with emergency food and medical aid. “We are at a critical point in history,” he declared. “Already at the beginning of the year we are facing the largest humanitarian crisis since the creation of the U.N.”  Without coordinated international action, he added, “people will simply starve to death [or] suffer and die from disease.”

Major famines have, of course, occurred before, but never in memory on such a scale in four places simultaneously. According to O’Brien, 7.3 million people are at risk in Yemen, 5.1 million in the Lake Chad area of northeastern Nigeria, 5 million in South Sudan, and 2.9 million in Somalia. In each of these countries, some lethal combination of war, persistent drought, and political instability is causing drastic cuts in essential food and water supplies. Of those 20 million people at risk of death, an estimated 1.4 million are young children.

The cost of intervention, to implement existing UN action plans in order to save nearly 20 million lives, is estimated at $4.4 billion. The international response? Essentially, a giant shrug of indifference.

Despite the potential severity of the crisis, U.N. officials remain confident that many of those at risk can be saved if sufficient food and medical assistance is provided in time and the warring parties allow humanitarian aid workers to reach those in the greatest need. “We have strategic, coordinated, and prioritized plans in every country,” O’Brien said. “With sufficient and timely financial support, humanitarians can still help to prevent the worst-case scenario.”

All in all, the cost of such an intervention is not great: an estimated $4.4 billion to implement that U.N. action plan and save most of those 20 million lives.

The international response? Essentially, a giant shrug of indifference.

To have time to deliver sufficient supplies, U.N. officials indicated that the money would need to be in pocket by the end of March. It’s now April and international donors have given only a paltry $423 million—less than a tenth of what’s needed. While, for instance, President Donald Trump sought Congressional approval for a $54 billion increase in U.S. military spending (bringing total defense expenditures in the coming year to $603 billion) and launched $89 million worth of Tomahawk missiles against a single Syrian air base, the U.S. has offered precious littleto allay the coming disaster in three countries in which it has taken military actions in recent years. As if to add insult to injury, on February 15th Trump told Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari that he was inclined to sell his country 12 Super-Tucano light-strike aircraft, potentially depleting Nigeria of $600 million it desperately needs for famine relief.

Moreover,just as those U.N. officials were pleading fruitlessly for increased humanitarian funding and an end to the fierce and complex set of conflicts in South Sudan andYemen (so that they could facilitate the safe delivery of emergency food supplies to those countries), the Trump administration was announcing plans to reduce American contributions to the United Nations by 40%.  It was also preparing to send additional weaponry to Saudi Arabia, the country most responsible for devastating air strikes on Yemen’s food and water infrastructure. This goes beyond indifference.  This is complicity in mass extermination.

Like many people around the world, President Trump was horrified by images of young children suffocating from the nerve gas used by Syrian government forces in an April 4th raid on the rebel-held village of Khan Sheikhoun. “That attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me—big impact,” he told reporters. “That was a horrible, horrible thing. And I’ve been watching it and seeing it, and it doesn’t get any worse than that.” In reaction to those images, he ordered a barrage of cruise missile strikes on a Syrian air base the following day. But Trump does not seem to have seen—or has ignored—equally heart-rending images of young children dying from the spreading famines in Africa and Yemen. Those children evidently don’t merit White House sympathy.

“This goes beyond indifference.  This is complicity in mass extermination.”

Who knows why not just Donald Trump but the world is proving so indifferent to the famines of 2017?  It could simply be donor fatigue or a media focused on the daily psychodrama that is now Washington, or growing fears about the unprecedented global refugee crisis and, of course, terrorism.  It’s a question worth a piece in itself, but I want to explore another one entirely.

Here’s the question I think we all should be asking: Is this what a world battered by climate change will be like—one in which tens of millions, even hundreds of millions of people perish from disease, starvation, and heat prostration while the rest of us, living in less exposed areas, essentially do nothing to prevent their annihilation?

Famine, Drought, and Climate Change

First, though, let’s consider whether the famines of 2017 are even a valid indicator of what a climate-changed planet might look like. After all, severe famines accompanied by widespread starvation have occurred throughout human history. In addition, the brutal armed conflicts now underway in Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, and Yemen are at least in part responsible for the spreading famines. In all four countries, there are forces—Boko Haram in Nigeria, al-Shabaab in Somalia, assorted militias and the government in South Sudan, and Saudi-backed forces in Yemen—interfering with the delivery of aid supplies. Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that pervasive water scarcity and prolonged drought (expected consequences of global warming) are contributing significantly to the disastrous conditions in most of them. The likelihood that droughts this severe would be occurring simultaneously in the absence of climate change is vanishingly small.

In fact, scientists generally agree that global warming will ensure diminished rainfall and ever more frequent droughts over much of Africa and the Middle East. This, in turn, will heighten conflicts of every sort and endanger basic survival in a myriad of ways. In their most recent 2014 assessment of global trends, the scientists of the prestigious Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that “agriculture in Africa will face significant challenges in adapting to climate changes projected to occur by mid-century, as negative effects of high temperatures become increasingly prominent.” Even in 2014, as that report suggested, climate change was already contributing to water scarcity and persistent drought conditions in large parts of Africa and the Middle East. Scientific studies had, for instance, revealed an “overall expansion of desert and contraction of vegetated areas” on that continent.  With arable land in retreat and water supplies falling, crop yields were already in decline in many areas, while malnutrition rates were rising—precisely the conditions witnessed in more extreme forms in the famine-affected areas today.

It’s seldom possible to attribute any specific weather-induced event, including droughts or storms, to global warming with absolute certainty.  Such things happen with or without climate change.  Nonetheless, scientists are becoming even more confident that severe storms and droughts (especially when occurring in tandem or in several parts of the world at once) are best explained as climate-change related. If, for instance, a type of storm that might normally occur only once every hundred years occurs twice in one decade and four times in the next, you can be reasonably confident that you’re in a new climate era.

It will undoubtedly take more time for scientists to determine to what extent the current famines in Africa and Yemen are mainly climate-change-induced and to what extent they are the product of political and military mayhem and disarray. But doesn’t this already offer us a sense of just what kind of world we are now entering?

The Selective Impact of Climate Change

In some popular accounts of the future depredations of climate change, there is a tendency to suggest that its effects will be felt more or less democratically around the globe—that we will all suffer to some degree, if not equally, from the bad things that happen as temperatures rise. And it’s certainly true that everyone on this planet will feel the effects of global warming in some fashion, but don’t for a second imagine that the harshest effects will be distributed anything but deeply inequitably.  It won’t even be a complicated equation.  As with so much else, those at the bottom rungs of society—the poor, the marginalized, and those in countries already at or near the edge— will suffer so much more (and so much earlier) than those at the top and in the most developed, wealthiest countries.

As a start, the geophysical dynamics of climate change dictate that, when it comes to soaring temperatures and reduced rainfall, the most severe effects are likely to be felt first and worst in the tropical and subtropical regions of Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, and Latin America—home to hundreds of millions of people who depend on rain-fed agriculture to sustain themselves and their families. Research conducted by scientists in New Zealand, Switzerland, and Great Britain found that the rise in the number of extremely hot days is already more intense in tropical latitudes and disproportionately affects poor farmers.

Living at subsistence levels, such farmers and their communities are especially vulnerable to drought and desertification.  In a future in which climate-change disasters are commonplace, they will undoubtedly be forced to choose ever more frequently between the unpalatable alternatives of starvation or flight.  In other words, if you thought the global refugee crisis was bad today, just wait a few decades.

Climate change is also intensifying the dangers faced by the poor and marginalized in another way.  As interior croplands turn to dust, ever more farmers are migrating to cities, especially coastal ones.  If you want a historical analogy, think of the great Dust Bowl migration of the “Okies” from the interior of the U.S. to the California coast in the 1930s. In today’s climate-change era, the only available housing such migrants are likely to find will be in vast and expanding shantytowns (or “informal settlements,” as they’re euphemistically called), often located in floodplains and low-lying coastal areas exposed to storm surges and sea-level rise. As global warming advances, the victims of water scarcity and desertification will be afflicted anew.  Those storm surges will destroy the most exposed parts of the coastal mega-cities in which they will be clustered. In other words, for the uprooted and desperate, there will be no escaping climate change.  As the latestIPCC report noted, “Poor people living in urban informal settlements, of which there are [already] about one billion worldwide, are particularly vulnerable to weather and climate effects.”

“The scientific literature on climate change indicates that the lives of the poor, the marginalized, and the oppressed will be the first to be turned upside down by the effects of global warming.”

The scientific literature on climate change indicates that the lives of the poor, the marginalized, and the oppressed will be the first to be turned upside down by the effects of global warming. “The socially and economically disadvantaged and the marginalized are disproportionately affected by the impacts of climate change and extreme events,” the IPCC indicated in 2014. “Vulnerability is often high among indigenous peoples, women, children, the elderly, and disabled people who experience multiple deprivations that inhibit them from managing daily risks and shocks.” It should go without saying that these are also the people least responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming in the first place (something no less true of the countries most of them live in).

Inaction Equals Annihilation

In this context, consider the moral consequences of inaction on climate change. Once it seemed that the process of global warming would occur slowly enough to allow societies to adapt to higher temperatures without excessive disruption, and that the entire human family would somehow make this transition more or less simultaneously. That now looks more and more like a fairy tale. Climate change is occurring far too swiftly for all human societies to adapt to it successfully.  Only the richest are likely to succeed in even the most tenuous way. Unless colossal efforts are undertaken now to halt the emission of greenhouse gases, those living inless affluent societies can expect to suffer from extremes of flooding, drought, starvation, disease, and death in potentially staggering numbers.

And you don’t need a Ph.D. in climatology to arrive at this conclusion either. The overwhelming majority of the world’s scientists agree that any increase in average world temperatures that exceeds 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above the pre-industrial era—some opt for a rise of no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius—will alter the global climate system drastically.  In such a situation, a number of societies will simply disintegrate in the fashion of South Sudan today, producing staggering chaos and misery. So far, the world has heated up by at least one of those two degrees, and unless we stop burning fossil fuels in quantity soon, the 1.5 degree level will probably be reached in the not-too-distant future.

“Unless colossal efforts are undertaken now to halt the emission of greenhouse gases, those living inless affluent societies can expect to suffer from extremes of flooding, drought, starvation, disease, and death in potentially staggering numbers.”

Worse yet, on our present trajectory, it seems highly unlikely that the warming process will stop at 2 or even 3 degrees Celsius, meaning that laterin this century many of the worst-case climate-change scenarios—the inundation of coastal cities, the desertification of vast interior regions, and the collapse of rain-fed agriculture in many areas—will become everyday reality.

In other words, think of the developments in those three African lands and Yemen as previews of what far larger parts of our world could look like in another quarter-century or so: a world in which hundreds of millions of people are at risk of annihilation from disease or starvation, or are on the march or at sea, crossing borders, heading for the shantytowns of major cities, looking for refugee camps or other places where survival appears even minimally possible.  If the world’s response to the current famine catastrophe and the escalating fears of refugees in wealthy countries are any indication, people will die in vast numbers without hope of help.

In other words, failing to halt the advance of climate change—to the extent that halting it, at this point, remains within our power—means complicity with mass human annihilation. We know, or at this point should know, that such scenarios are already on the horizon.  We still retain the power, if not to stop them, then to radically ameliorate what they will look like, so our failure to do all we can means that we become complicitin what—not to mince words— is clearly going to be a process of climate genocide. How can those of us in countries responsible for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions escape such a verdict?

And if such a conclusion is indeed inescapable, then each of us must do whatever we can to reduce our individual, community, and institutional contributions to global warming. Even if we are already doing a lot—as many of us are —more is needed.  Unfortunately, we Americans are living not only in a time of climate crisis, but in the era of President Trump, which means the federal government and its partners in the fossil fuel industry will be wielding their immense powers to obstruct all imaginable progress on limiting global warming. They will be the true perpetrators ofclimate genocide. As a result, the rest of us bear a moral responsibility not just to do what we can at the local level to slow the pace of climate change, but also to engage in political struggle to counteract or neutralize the acts of Trump and company. Only dramatic and concerted action on multiple fronts can prevent the human disasters now unfolding in Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, and Yemen from becoming the global norm.

Common Dreams



23 Comments on "Climate Change As Genocide, By Michael Klare"

  1. eugene on Fri, 21st Apr 2017 7:37 pm 

    Don’t count on America. We only kill people. Only for a good just cause of course. And if you don’t believe me, ask Fox News. And it’s not Trump incorporated at fault. Lets knock off the bullshit. Tens of millions cheerfully voted for him.

  2. onlooker on Fri, 21st Apr 2017 7:41 pm 

    We are screwed. The top 20% are not going to voluntarily forfeit our lifestyles for the sake of those “others”. And the elite power brokers seem especially reluctant. That is what has been happening. Why should we think it won’t continue to happen. Eventually, justice will be done and those in rich countries will also suffer the climate Armageddon

  3. Apneaman on Fri, 21st Apr 2017 7:52 pm 

    To be genocide there must be intent. “a giant shrug of indifference”, while true, is not intent. No surprise here. Expected in fact. A giant shrug of indifference is what the overlords will have for the commoners of the rich countries when food prices are through the roof. As it is now there is plenty of indifference towards the commoners. The consequences are just not fatal yet.

  4. Plantagenet on Fri, 21st Apr 2017 8:02 pm 

    The US gives about 12 billion dollars per year in foreign aid to Africa. IMHO a billon dollars or so should be diverted from bribing government officials into food for famine relief.

    Cheers!

  5. DerHundistlos on Fri, 21st Apr 2017 8:25 pm 

    The elephant in the room that neither Mr. Klare nor any journalist for that matter dare touch is P-O-P-U-L-A-T-I-O-N.

    1. Nigeria population

    1950: 41 MM
    2050 projected: 400 MM

    2. Somalia

    1950: 2.5 MM
    2050: 27.0 MM

    3. South Sudan

    1950: 2.7 MM
    2050: 26.0 MM

    What else needs to be stated?

  6. DerHundistlos on Fri, 21st Apr 2017 8:29 pm 

    @ Plant

    Why should one billion dollars be diverted to famine relief? For what end? For how long?

    How about diverting one billion dollars toward mitigating the mass extinction emergency sweeping the African continent. Preservation of the natural world would do more to sustain human populations then more grain shipments for some limited period.

  7. GregT on Fri, 21st Apr 2017 11:14 pm 

    The US federal government spent over 75 billion last year on SNAP.

  8. GregT on Fri, 21st Apr 2017 11:19 pm 

    And Derhund,

    The mass extinction emergency is planetary, and has more to do with consumption, than it does with poverty.

  9. ________________________________________ on Sat, 22nd Apr 2017 12:30 am 

    Your computer models are shit. Just like your self driving cars like to crash. Global warming will make the planet green from greenland to sahara. The carrying capacity will double.

  10. DerHundistlos on Sat, 22nd Apr 2017 12:56 am 

    @ Greg T

    Do you have evidence to back-up your claim? My experience in the field contradicts your statement. Poverty forces people to engage in actions that they otherwise would not. Example, the multi-billion dollar illegal trade in wildlife is one of the primary causes of species extinction. People break the law and accept the risks due to economic circumstances. In Colombia, la FARC guerrillas are known to execute persons pillaging wildlife regardless of economic circumstance.

    Yes, I am well aware that the mass extinction crises is global in nature. What’s your point?

  11. Cloggie on Sat, 22nd Apr 2017 2:15 am 

    Agree with the ApneaTurd for a change, the word “genocide” is a irresponsible exaggeration, because there is no intent here.

    When the Ottoman empire went down, a power vacuum was created and somebody had to take over from the Islamists and the contenders were Turkish secular nationalists around closet kosher Ataturk and the Armenians. The former set up a little genocidal organisation called “the Young Turks” [*], who decided that the Armenians had to go. Now THAT was a genocide.

    http://www.armenian-genocide.org/young_turks.html

    And for those folks, who are not afraid of a good “conspiracy theory” and who want to understand why the Bolsheviks supported Turkish nationalists and why Turkey was always so friendly for Israel, before Erdogan put Turkey back on an Islamist path again:

    http://tinyurl.com/8pgba2

    In the early 20th century there were three countries taken over by a “new group”: Turkey, Soviet-Russia and the USA (ignoring Britain for a moment).

    [*] – In the US there is a Marxist media group today that cynically calls itself “the Young Turks”.

  12. Cloggie on Sat, 22nd Apr 2017 3:33 am 

    Message to Michael Klare: the US might embark on your third carbon age, but 90 minutes ago this happened in Denmark:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/i/web/status/855678362278297601

    102% electricity from wind and 6% from solar.

    OK, it is Saturday, but still.

  13. Cloggie on Sat, 22nd Apr 2017 3:51 am 

    Coal-free day in Britain for the first time since the 19th century:

    http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/energiewende-grossbritannien-braucht-keinen-kohlestrom-mehr-a-1144368.html

    Yesterday for 24 hours Britain didn’t generate a single kWh from coal since the 19th century. Renewable, gas and nuclear sufficed and were simply cheaper.

    https://twitter.com/NGControlRoom/status/855544665172529156/photo/1

    In 1882 Britain had started the first coal power plant in the world.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AteCdXvZOZc

  14. Davy on Sat, 22nd Apr 2017 6:45 am 

    It appears climate change is a self-reinforcing natural process that has had a systematic tipping that is causing abrupt changes. Human civilization cannot degrowth nor reorganize its foundational energy capacity in scale and tempo to reduce dangerous carbon emissions. It may slow it slightly but a real meaningful effort would be a systematic killer. The numbers are daunting for both slowing carbon and removing carbon. In fact geoengineering is folly. Alternatives are a transformative technology that can make a marginal difference. We should embrace them because they are good on many levels but let’s remain realistic on what we are up against.

    Population and its growth is beyond the scale and tempo of a balanced dignified management. We are now at the point of draconian steps to deal with the problem. Supplying more aid is just an effort at futility. We need to do this since we are civilized people who should feel empathy for our common man but while we are doing this we must reflect on what we are doing and what is happening. We are allowing this to get worse by providing aid. We are allowing this to get worse because of the affluent way we live. It is our modernism and its global enterprise that has allowed the world to grow to this point. Continuing to embrace our status quo and the status quo of those in need is more of the same that got us here. We are doing a “Red Queen effect”.

    These problems are not in isolation and they are breeding and multiplying. The problem is deeper and goes to the very meaning that underlies our civilization and all its structures. This is multidimensional with ascending levels of abstraction. So this at our abstract religious level where meaning points to man as exceptional and unique before a “God”. Our very spirituality is exploitive. The exploitive is also at the basic level of work and play. Eating out is part of it. Our political economic system is based on individualistic values based upon consumptive growth. Techno progress is a basis of science and the social fabric. We now price everything and our morality is based upon growth and progress. We have created a civilization of consumption towards affluence and comfort. Man and beasts all seek comfort but this has never before been combined with techno modernism.

    Where in the above is there any hope of changing a momentum of destructive change? We must acknowledge all the above as predicaments. The acknowledgment must go deeper to the point where we realize the predicaments are so pervasive and inclusive they are in fact traps of the worst kind. They are “dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions” or IOW the definition of a catch 22. Blaming and finger pointing at this point works if it is at all of us and none of us. Seeking out targeted blame at any aspects of the catch 22 is useless and nothing more than emotions. Do we have individual blame, of course. Is some blame greater than others, yes. Does any of it matter for a solution, no.

    We are not going to change the gradient of destructive change that involves planetary destruction and the onset of a human die down. You are wasting your time sensationalizing this with drama. Modernism cannot change without bifurcating. We can save needy people but not solve the problems that made them needy. In fact more of the same just makes the problem worse. You are sending money because of emotions but all this is doing is financing a black hole of hopelessness.

    I continue to preach the view that meaning and hope can come to those who first have any hope at all. Many of those in dire need are likely doomed except for a lucky few. Those who have some kind of hope can find meaning and withdraw from the insanity by acknowledging the insanity. The individual, group, and small local can embrace a life boat and hospice mentality. This means acknowledging an existential catch 22. It means embracing poverty and decline. It means preparing for death. It means withdrawing from status quo and rejecting its meaning. This is a huge effort that then must be done as we participate in the status quo. This requires breaking through the doors of deception of denial and false hope and embracing the reality of a paradigm shift to a collapse of the planetary ecosystem and human modernism while you contribute to it. You can practice relative sacrifice of less as a moral gesture but even this gesture is meaningless except in your heart.

    Our civilization is going to end and the planet as we know it will be transformed. There is nothing that can be done but ride the wave. Meaning comes from within and action goes forth within the status quo but adapted per this transformative meaning. Transcendence is not possible but transformation is. You must live a paradox with a civilization that cannot. In fact you are swimming with the current that society is fighting against. We know who will win. The truth is the only source of real meaning and humans must have meaning. The alternative is to embrace existential insanity which offers unlimited temporary options until it doesn’t.

  15. Hello on Sat, 22nd Apr 2017 7:22 am 

    Funny that they talk about humans at risk when it’s actually negros. A fast breeding chimpanzee derivative.

  16. Midnight Oil on Sat, 22nd Apr 2017 7:43 am 

    All we need to do is follow the teachings of the Church and everything will be alright.
    The Pope is our guide and when the second coming arrives no one needs to fear.
    Hopefully, a tanker of oil and cargo of wheat is just behind in tow.
    Some articles one can submit a serious comment.
    Without industrial food production from fossil fuels that cause Climate Change 9 out of 10 of us sorry humans will be bye bye.
    Now that is what I call genocide.

  17. joe on Sat, 22nd Apr 2017 10:05 am 

    The nations at risk of famine have no resources and yet breed as if they had no problems, they have no schools and no representative systems and so they cant or do not know how to organise themselves except via internet to escape to Europe etc or to become the law in these places as part of various relgious military groups. It should be no suprise either that the role of Saudi Arabia in the Yemen crisis should be of serious consideration. England is never allowed to forget how many famines it caused, Saudi it seems gets a pass.

  18. Sissyfuss on Sat, 22nd Apr 2017 10:23 am 

    Sending food to starving nations is a classic form of enabling, doing for others what they should be capable of doing forr themselves. By cleaning up their mmess you’re not allowing them to realize the changes they need to make for stabilization. We have been participating in this foolish endeavor for years and it never goes away, it only increases in occurrence. It makes things worse but that never stopped us.

  19. onlooker on Sat, 22nd Apr 2017 10:33 am 

    That is right Sissy. We are just embedding ourselves deeper into overshoot

  20. Apneaman on Sat, 22nd Apr 2017 10:52 am 

    Hello, did one of those “Negros” beat you up in school a few times? Is that where all that hate and fear come from? I think all you white inbred loser are a bunch of cowards. Why do you use the antiquated and non-derogatory negro when we all know you mean nigger, but lack the balls to say? I guess you are afraid to even write “the N word” even while anonymous on the internet because you live in fear of the PC police – another thing you hate and despise and y’all are always belly aching about. Not me. If I was a sub human white supremacist and I hated black folks I would not be afraid to use the term nigger because I ain’t a sissy who is afraid of the PC police and everything else in this world. That’s why I have no problem calling you a cock-sucking faggot whose daddy was a hungry cocksucker and mommy was a nigger loving whore.

  21. Apneaman on Sat, 22nd Apr 2017 10:56 am 

    joe, they do have resources. There are probably some in the computer you are using and on women you know stupid wedding rings and dumb phones…that kind a thing.

  22. Jan Freed on Sun, 23rd Apr 2017 3:40 pm 

    Without commitments such as Paris, we are heading for 4 C and beyond. 4 c is expected to raise sea levels 35 feet, which would swamp 750 million people out of their homes. Not just the poor: New Orleans, Miami, New York, San Francsco, Hon Kong, etc. etc..

    And the solution must be to recruit responsible adults to inhabit Congress. Something the silly sheep voters seem unable to manage.

  23. POprepper on Mon, 24th Apr 2017 3:04 am 

    We can do a lot about climatechange on an individual level. We Need to get selfsufficient. Buy as much local supplys as possible such as food and energy. Look for a local job as near as possible to your own naborhood. Go working less hourers and minimalize your consumption spendings. Learn about wich local wild plants you can harvest and eat and learn to hunt local wildlife (not the in danger species of course) or other protein sources. This would drastically reduce your personal greenhousegas emmisions. By the way if you know about the oil dependancy of capitalist society you do really want to. A selfsufficient live style is the enswer to most of all major problems that we face today. As long as you do nothing to life beyond capitalism your are responsible for example the mass starvetion of African people as a result of climatechange, the power the elites have over you, the collapse of society through peakoil, terrorist organisations such as ISIS, WW3 and the eventuel New World Order. You can start right now to alter your life style no matter where you live on the globe. There are so many possibilitys to do that if you take some time to study science. And we need to hurry to prefend an global apocalypse.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *