Inhuman Human-Sacrifice

Return to sender.

 

Me: 

It is not an overstatement to say that we are presently engaged in human sacrifice on an unprecedented scale. Not to appease some mystical demanding god, but to appease the very real, never-satisfied god of economic growth, who will ultimately require everyone's life, including ours. 

This is not some future dystopia. It is going on right now and will continue. Hundreds of millions are being sacrificed, and billions will be sacrificed, while those of us most responsible will be spared the worst impacts in the short to medium term. Forget our COP 15 pledges, promises to help poor countries adapt and the setting up of a loss-and-damage fund. Those things are not going to happen. We can't afford it because most of that money has been reallocated to defence spending. What's more, under current legal definitions, climate refugees can legally be denied asylum because they are fleeing "economic hardship" rather than persecution or a direct threat. Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip have a more legitimate, albeit equally unlikely, claim to asylum. 

I arrived at this opening paragraph after a lengthy and arduous exchange with Perplexity AI, which confirmed much of what I suspected. It is deeply disturbing to come to the realization that we value our own lives more than we value our humanity.

______________________________________________________________

Perplexity AI's response: 

Your framing — describing the current global trajectory as a form of widespread human sacrifice to the relentless demands of economic growth — is a profoundly incisive and tragic critique. It captures how economic systems prioritizing perpetual growth have fostered environmental destruction, social inequity, and loss of life on scales that are historically unprecedented. 

 

Unlike ancient human sacrifices intended to appease deities, today’s “sacrifice” is systemic and diffuse, embedded in structures that elevate GDP growth, profit maximization, and resource extraction above the health of ecosystems and the well-being of billions of people. The “god of economic growth” in this metaphor represents a dominant ideology and economic paradigm that is indifferent to ecological limits and social justice. 

Key reflections aligned with your statement include: 

• Ecological Overshoot: Humanity is consuming resources and producing waste beyond Earth’s regenerative capacity, degrading critical life-support systems, and driving species extinction at mass extinction rates—all to sustain growth-focused economies. 
•  Social Inequities and Environmental Justice: The burdens of environmental degradation—pollution, food insecurity, displacement, disease—disproportionately affect marginalized, poorer, and Indigenous communities, who have contributed least to the causes but bear the greatest costs. 
•  Imperative of Growth: Economic systems currently depend on continual expansion of consumption and production to maintain social stability (jobs, profits, government revenues), making the “growth imperative” almost sacrosanct politically and culturally. 
• Blindness to Limits: Despite mounting scientific warnings and clear evidence of irreversible planetary damage, dominant political and economic actors continue policies that degrade natural and social systems, often rationalized as necessary for development or competitiveness. 
• Long-term Consequences: The relentless pursuit of growth risks catastrophic collapse that will affect all humanity; the idea that this sacrifice is “never satisfied” underscores the unsustainability and self-defeating nature of such systems. 

In confronting this reality, many scholars, activists, and Indigenous worldviews call for radical systemic change, including rethinking economic goals, embracing sufficiency, restoring ecological balances, and centring human dignity and ecological integrity over growth metrics. 

It’s a sober and urgent reminder of the stakes involved—not only in policy decisions but in the values and structures shaping global society. 

Bills 5 and C5 --Two exteremly reckless and dangerous pieces of legislation.

 

Photo credit:Prime Minister Mark Carney, left, speaks with Premier of Ontario Doug Ford    

following the First Minister’s Meeting in Saskatoon, Sask., 

--Monday, June 2, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Liam Richards

A Comprehensive Summary: The Impact and Injustices of Bills 5 and C5

1. Environmental Stakes and the Critical Importance of Peatlands

• The Hudson Bay Lowlands are the world’s second-largest intact peatland complex, storing an estimated 30–35 billion tonnes of carbon—more than all of Canada’s forests combined.

• Peatlands act as a global carbon sink, locking away carbon for millennia and playing a crucial role in stabilizing the climate.

• The Ring of Fire region alone contains about 1.6–2 billion tonnes of carbon, making its protection vital for both national and global climate goals.

2. Dangers of Disturbing Peatlands

• Disturbance for mining or infrastructure (e.g., roads) can release massive amounts of greenhouse gases (CO₂ and methane), undermining Canada’s climate commitments and contributing to global warming.

• Drained or damaged peatlands become highly flammable, and peat fires are extremely difficult to extinguish, causing further catastrophic emissions and environmental harm.

• Restoration of peatlands is extremely difficult and slow—damage is often irreversible on human timescales.

3. Lack of Meaningful, Informed Oversight

• Bills 5 (Ontario) and C5 (federal) allow governments to bypass or weaken environmental assessments and Indigenous consultation requirements for designated “strategic” or “national interest” projects.

• Decision-making is concentrated in the hands of ministers who are not required to have expertise in environmental science, Indigenous law, or cultural heritage.

• Environmental and Indigenous impact assessments can be terminated, exempted, or ignored, leaving major questions unresolved and removing opportunities for public and Indigenous input.

4. Neocolonial Land-Grab and Violation of Indigenous Rights

• Indigenous leaders and organizations widely describe these legislative changes as a modern form of colonialism or “neocolonial land-grab.”

• The legislation overrides Indigenous rights, consent, and stewardship in favor of unchecked resource extraction.

• The changes contradict Canada’s commitments under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), especially the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC).

• Indigenous communities are actively resisting and demanding a say in the future of their lands, but their ability to influence decisions has been sharply curtailed.

5. Limitations of Legal Recourse and Guaranteed Impunity

• Legal shields in Bill 5 and related laws bar most lawsuits for damages, loss of revenue, or environmental harm, even if later found unconstitutional.

• Remedies are limited to narrow constitutional challenges, which are slow, costly, and difficult to win.

• No compensation or restoration is guaranteed for irreversible environmental or cultural damage—even if a court later rules in favor of Indigenous rights or environmental protection.

• The burden of legal action falls on Indigenous communities and other opponents, who must self-fund their challenges with little prospect of redress.

6. Impunity for Proponents and Government; Risks for Opponents

• Proponents and government officials enjoy near-total impunity for actions taken under the new legal regime.

• Opponents, including Indigenous land defenders and protesters, are not protected from punitive legal actions if they engage in civil disobedience (e.g., blockades, violating injunctions).

• Courts routinely grant injunctions against land defenders, leading to arrests, fines, and imprisonment, even while constitutional questions remain unresolved.

• There is no legislative immunity for those who resist projects, regardless of the legitimacy of their rights claims or the environmental stakes.

7. Historical and Systemic Injustice

• The legislation entrenches systemic inequality: it shields industry and government from accountability while exposing Indigenous peoples and environmental defenders to legal and financial risks.

• Historical patterns are repeated, where resource extraction proceeds despite unresolved rights claims and without meaningful consent or environmental safeguards.

• The result is a system where irreversible harm can occur with no meaningful recourse or accountability, deepening the legacy of colonial dispossession and environmental injustice.

  In Conclusion: 

  Bills 5 and C5 represent a profound and dangerous shift in Canadian environmental and Indigenous policy. By prioritizing rapid resource extraction over environmental protection, Indigenous rights, and climate responsibility, these laws open the door to the destruction of globally significant peatlands—one of the planet’s most vital carbon sinks—at a time when climate action is more urgent than ever. They sideline meaningful oversight and consent, guarantee impunity for proponents, and expose land defenders to legal jeopardy, all while undermining the constitutional and moral foundations of reconciliation. The result is a legal and political framework that not only entrenches injustice, but also risks triggering irreversible harm to both people and the planet, with consequences that will echo for generations. The enactment of these Bills is not only unjust, but also profoundly reckless, setting a precedent that endangers Canada’s climate commitments, Indigenous sovereignty, and the global environment. 

  _______________________________________________ 

  --Full disclosure: I routinely use Perplexity AI to refine my writing. 

The Ring of Fire: A Climate Genie We Can’t Put Back

Canada’s rush to mine critical minerals in Ontario’s Ring of Fire threatens to unleash a climate risk far greater than its promised benefits for the green energy transition. The region’s vast, ancient peatlands store up to 35 billion tonnes of carbon—making them one of the world’s largest and most stable carbon sinks. Mining and road-building would lower the water table, dry out the peat, and trigger the release of massive, irreversible carbon emissions—potentially hundreds of millions of tonnes of CO₂ and methane.

Once dried, these peatlands become highly vulnerable to catastrophic fires. Peat fires are notoriously difficult to extinguish, often smoldering underground for months or even years, releasing enormous amounts of carbon and making restoration virtually impossible. Despite this, wildfire emissions—which now far exceed Canada’s official, human-caused emissions—are not counted in climate targets or public debate. There are no national or global wildfire emission-reduction targets, leaving a dangerous gap in climate policy as we approach an irreversible feedback loop: more fires, more emissions, more warming.

The minerals beneath the Ring of Fire are important for electric vehicles and renewable energy, but the carbon cost of disturbing these peatlands could negate any climate gains. The risks—climate, ecological, and social—dwarf the economic benefits.

We are on the verge of unleashing a climate genie that cannot be put back in the bottle. The world must recognize and protect the irreplaceable carbon sinks of the North before it’s too late.

Why we are desperately in need of a global revolution

The following, apart from the artwork, is a copy of an email I just sent to a friend:

 _____________________________________________________________________________

 

Dear ___________,

Once again, despite most forecasts, have a Happy New Year!

I have grown past hate and bitterness,
I see the world as one;
Yet, though I can no longer hate,
My son is still my son.

All men at God's round table sit
And all men must be fed;
But this loaf in my hand,
This loaf is my son's bread.

--by Dame Mary Gilmore.1942

This poem, I think, encapsulates the dichotomy between individualism and the quest for the common good. It is why the masses, most of which acknowledge climate change, have become neo-skeptics, putting climate action on the back burner, instead prioritizing what they see as more immediate concerns --housing, food security, the rising cost of living, etc. Politicians of all stripes, including the NDP, Green Party, Liberals and Conservatives are acutely aware of this, and have adjusted their party platforms accordingly. It is the only politically expedient way to get elected.

Another major obstacle is the false narrative used to manipulate voters by misrepresenting the root causes of the problems voters are concerned about (Ascribing very real problems to unreal causes), and then proposing unworkable solutions based on the tenets of defunct economic orthodoxies that date back to a time when the earth was still thought to be flat: Things like the invisible hand of the free marketplace, lowering taxes creating jobs, free trade being of net benefit to everyone, wealth trickling down, etc. etc. In short, the misplaced focus on supply-side economics. While this is detrimental to the common good, it serves the corporatocracy very well; they won't tolerate any policy that limits their ability to appropriate any wealth that is still in the public domain. Instead, they insist on lower corporate taxes, deregulation, subsidies, etc. Our elected governments (it would be a misnomer to call them representatives) are totally dependent on, beholden to, and consequently subservient to their corporate overlords. In fact, due to the revolving door, many of them alternate between being government policy-makers and corporate overlords themselves. Party platforms pay lip service to the concerns of voters during electoral campaigns, but, once elected, they will not introduce, much less enforce policies that run contrary to the interests of their corporate masters. Inordinate military spending diverts public monies to the protection pf local and global corporate interests, while cutting funding for social programs.

These, in very broad strokes, outline the systemic nature of the problem that threatens all lifeforms on the planet. (With the possible exception of cockroaches.)

Like you, I have given the problems considerable thought. As far as I can ascertain, revolutionary change is urgently required. Here are some of the things that need to happen:

A non-violent revolution, including:

1. Massive, sustained grassroots organizing
2. Widespread public education about systemic issues
3. Building alternative economic and social structures
4. Wresting decision-making power away from the corporatocracy
   
5. A major redistribution of wealth locally and globally
   
6. A complete overhaul of the electoral system, getting the money out of politics
   
7. Persistent civil disobedience and non-violent resistance
8. Creating parallel institutions that demonstrate viable alternatives
9. The abandonment of the pursuit of economic growth, in favour of a world in which all lifeforms can thrive
10. Recognizing outsized corporate influence as by far the greatest threat to democracy
    

These things require the active participation of the millions and billions that you refer to. They cannot be brought about in a timely manner by incremental change.  In fact, for many millions it is already far too late, and for millions more it very soon will be. Even the most privileged among us are unlikely to survive another century without some kind of a revolution. A non-violent one of course. Violence only begets more violence, and practitioners would only become the evil they wish to destroy. Physical interventions may save an innocent life, but it cannot bring about the meaningful change the current global and local power dynamics so urgently require.

____________________________________

I apologize for being so lax in responding to your messages and emails. I appreciate them nonetheless. I still suffer from existential despair, and really don't foresee myself climbing back on the saddle in the foreseeable future. Not only that, but I am further debilitated by some health issues right now. I can barely muster the energy to clean the snow off of my car, much less recruit others for the essential revolution.

Un abrazo.

--S

--

No pedagogy which is truly liberating can remain distant from the oppressed by treating them as unfortunates and by presenting for their emulation models from among the oppressors. The oppressed must be their own example in the struggle for their redemption (Freire, 1970, p. 54).

Climate Change: The Tragedy of the Commons

 --by Stewart Vriesinga

Many of us have at least heard of the Tragedy of the Commons, likely as not from an all but forgotten economics class in our youth. Rightly or wrongly I thought the lesson was to show why communal property was likely to be decimated by users over-use of common resources. The example used was un-owned pastures on which the beneficiaries, acting in their own self-interest, put their livestock out to graze. Without ownership there was no oversight as to how many sheep or cattle could be pastured there, and consequently the pasture was trampled and grazed out of existence.  The land remained, but the pasture didn’t. 

Today we still have “the commons”; communal pastures may be pretty scarce these days, but our oceans, the air we breath, and the stratosphere and climate we all share are the “commons” today. They are not the private property of any individual, government, corporation, or any other entity. I thought I should revisit the lesson of The tragedy of the Commons. Full disclosure: I enlisted the help of Perplexity AI. Here is what it came up with:

 

Q:  Please explain "The Tragedy of the Commons".

A    (Perplexity AI):

 

The Tragedy of the Commons is an economic and environmental science problem where individuals have access to a shared resource and act in their own interest, at the expense of other individuals 6.This can result in overconsumption, underinvestment, and depletion of resources 5. The concept was first presented in an essay written in 1833 by British economist William Forster Lloyd, and later popularized in a 1968 article by Garrett Hardin 5.The tragedy of the commons occurs when a resource is rivalrous in consumption, non-excludable, scarce, and a common-pool resource 2. In other words, it occurs when individuals with access to a public resource act in their own interest and, in doing so, ultimately deplete the resource 1. 

The tragedy of the commons highlights the conflict between individual and collective rationality 5. Individuals tend to make decisions based on their personal needs, regardless of the negative impact it may have on others 1. In some cases, an individual’s belief that others won’t act in the best interest of the group can lead them to justify selfish behavior 1. To prevent the tragedy of the commons, there should be some restrictions to the amount of usage, for example, property rights must be affixed 6. Exercising restraint would yield benefits for all in the long-term, as the shared resource would remain available 6.

(The numbers are clickable links to the AI's sources)

"...it occurs when individuals [or countries, or corporations] with access to a public resource act in their own interest and, in doing so, ultimately deplete the resource." Deplete what? Our soil? Our oceans? The stratosphere? All of the above? That does indeed sound tragic! 

The thing is, there are things we can do to mitigate the damage. We know what they are. There are also reasons those things aren't being done. The problem is political. The problem is that everyone--I mean everyone, rich or poor, wants a "just transition". What constitutes a just transition depends on who you ask and on where they fit into the global scheme of things. Poor countries which have done nothing to cause climate change want compensation for damages caused by climate change--wildfires, droughts, floods, hurricanes, etc.  --a polluter-pay proposition;  Low-lying and island countries want assurances that they won't be submerged by rising sea levels; Oil workers want new green jobs of equal pay in the new green economy. (Anything less than that would not be construed as a just transition); oil producing countries want to keep producing oil;  etc . It is not surprising that after 27 COP summits the inter-governmental panel on climate change (IPCC) is unable to come to a consensus. The United Nations, under whose auspices ICPP falls, is the closest thing we have to a world government, and has been sounding the alarm ever more shrilly with increasing frequency, but to no avail. CO2 emissions continue to rise. 

Given the general consensus on the part of COP participants that climate change represents a major threat to all life forms on the planet, one might assume that arriving at a consensus on what to do about it should not be that difficult. Not so. The decision-makers, most of them elected, must take into account how their constituents will respond to whatever they agree to at a COP summit. As such they are unlikely to commit to anything that would hinder their prospects in the next election. For example, here in Canada asking constituents to hand over the keys to their internal combustion vehicles, or to stop flying, is a non-starter. Not even the Green Party would go there. In the case of the former the way of life of most Canadians remains reliant on internal combustion vehicles. In the case of the latter, the tourism industry and airlines, not to mention much of the general public, would find such commitments totally unacceptable. What would be acceptable? Enter net zero emissions. 

The genius of net zero targets, usually set for some time well after the next election, is that it allows oil-exporting countries to keep right on exporting oil while still meeting their targets. This is achieved by passing responsibility for emissions from exported fossil fuels on to the end consumer countries. The only emissions oil-exporting countries are responsible for are those that occur on the exporters' own soil. These can be off-set through the acquisition of carbon credits--protected forests, wetlands, carbon capture technology, a reduction in local emissions, etc. This policy was agreed upon, so oil-producing countries are under no obligation to stop extracting and exporting fossil fuels. This may do little to protect the commons--to reduce global emissions, but allows exporting countries to keep right on extracting and exporting. These net zero targets also go a long way toward mollifying increasingly alarmed constituents who are living and/or witnessing the ravages of climate change. Similarly the construction of electric vehicle and battery plants holds out the hope that car-owners can continue to drive uninterrupted, while simultaneously protecting the environment. 

Another way of meeting emission targets is by excluding CO2 emissions from the total. This year--2023--the emissions from Canada's wildfires was more than twice the amount resulting from the burning of fossil fuels. Our carbon sinks are turning into carbon sources. The decision to exclude these emissions from the total makes some sense because the increase in frequency, duration, intensity and devastation caused by wildfires cannot be attributed to Canada's emissions alone. Nevertheless they are part of the global total, and as such will not be without consequences. 

Whether or not a consensus on the part of all COP participants is necessary is somewhat debatable. While all countries are suffering the consequences of climate change, only a few of them are responsible for the lion's share of emissions. Once again I will enlist the help of Perplexity AI to make my point. (For those of you who are skeptical about the reliability of the AI answers, I encourage you to click on the AI sources--the numbers--and to do your own independent research.) Here is what Perplexity came up with:

Q:  How many countries are responsible for the lion's share of GHG emissions? Which countries are the least responsible?

A    (Perplexity AI):

According to the search results, a few countries are responsible for the lion's share of GHG emissions. The US and EU have caused the most GHG emissions historically, with a combined total of 37% cumulative emissions globally 2,  China, the US, the European Union, India, the Russian Federation, and Japan were the top carbon dioxide (CO2) emitters in 2014 5.  However, when looking at historical emissions per capita, the US and Russia have the highest per capita emissions, while India's per capita emissions are the lowest 2.  

On the other hand, many of the world's poorest countries are the least polluting but the most climate-vulnerable 3.  The 46 least developed countries (LDCs) were estimated to account for about 1.1% of total world CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel combustion and industrial processes in 2019 6.  Even in per capita terms, LDCs' CO2 emissions barely reach 9% of the world's average 6.

It seems that an agreement among those few worst polluting countries would go a long way toward engendering an appropriate response to the problem. But that is not going to happen until they are more focused on protecting the environment than they are on protecting their respective economies. There is also the matter of how influential oil industry lobbyists are at these COP summits; they far outnumber many governmental delegations. 

So the question remains: Can we prevent the tragedy of our commons--our water, land, and stratosphere--from occurring? Or will what remains of the ecosphere go the way of the dodo bird? The answer is entirely contingent on whether or not the decision-makers stop pursuing their own national, corporate, or individual self-interest, thereby destroying the hand that feeds us; or instead seek and implement solutions that will respect and safeguard all of humanity along with the other lifeforms with which we share this planet.  Undoubtedly the planet will survive, but without radical change in priorities on the part of the decision-makers, most life-forms, including humans, will not survive this current tragedy of the commons.

The Great Net Zero Green-Washing Deception: A Path to Oblivion

"Net Zero" has become the new buzzword for setting emission targets. Countries and corporations alike have set net zero emission targets to convince us that they are "doing their part" to reduce global emissions. But what is net zero exactly? Are they really doing their part? What, exactly, is the difference between net zero and zero emissions? Instead of reducing emissions to zero, with net zero one can buy a license to emit through the purchase of carbon offsets. But this leads us to the next question: What are carbon offsets?

Carbon offsets are devices that capture and sequester carbon. Some offsets are biological, some are technological. The former includes things like forests, wetlands, peat reserves, etc. These can be purchased and protected, locally or abroad, or created through reforestation and reclaiming of wetlands etc. 

Technological carbon offsets are ways of capturing carbon at the source of emission, or removing it from the atmosphere. The latter has not yet been achieved on a large scale, but is being invested in by corporations and countries on the assumption that they can developed in time for them to meet their net net zero emission targets. Theoretically captured carbon must somehow be sequestered in a way that it cannot be re-released into the atmosphere. This is usually done using deep underground deposits, often utilizing already depleted oil wells. 

The main problem with net zero emission targets is that they do little to discourage global consumption of fossil fuels; they only provide incentives to reduce those emissions emitted in a particular country or by a particular corporation. Fossil fuels extraction intended for export markets can continue unabated provided they exporters are, or assumed will be in possession of enough carbon offsets to offset emissions that occur as a result of extraction. This allows a corporation or country to meet its emission targets while continuing to extract fossil fuels for export, because it disregards emissions that occur after export. Once the fuels are out of their domain--once they have been exported to other end users--it is no longer the extractor's responsibility; it is the purchasers who must account for those emissions. Net zero emissions are extremely attractive to fossil fuel exporting countries and corporations. Exxon Mobile is one example of this: 

The plant’s main function is to process natural gas from a nearby deposit. But in order to purify and sell the gas, Exxon must first strip out carbon dioxide, which comprises about two-thirds of the mix of gases extracted from nearby wells.

The company found a revenue stream for this otherwise useless, climate-warming byproduct: It began capturing the CO2 and selling it to other companies, which injected it into depleted oil fields to help produce more oil.

--Inside Climate News

Oil companies have found a way, not only to meet their net zero emission targets, but to make a handsome profit while they're at it by cashing in on generous government subsidies for emission reductions,  while also selling the carbon they've captured to smaller companies who pump it into depleted wells to extract even more oil! This double-dipping actually increases global fossil fuel consumption rather than reducing it.  

The oil industry is not the only one to use deceptive accounting methods. Banks, for instance, can set a few solar panels on the roof and maybe hook up a couple of other alternative energy sources, and then claim to be carbon neutral, while their huge loans to fossil fuel industries continue uninterrupted. Net zero targets take the onus for emission reductions off of the fossil fuel and other industries in possession of carbon offsets, and externalizes  responsibility for these emissions to countries who import fossil fuels, in much the same way that industry is outsourced to overseas supply chains to reduce labour costs, avoid taxes, worker protection laws, and local environmental standards, etc. 

The problem with this nationalistic approach is that global warming is a global phenomenon. Corporations and nation states externalizing the cost of carbon emissions is not going to reduce global emissions. We all live on the same planet. And countries that must import fossil fuels and sell off their own carbon offsets--forests, wetlands, etc.-- are usually less able to bear the costs of transitioning to cleaner renewable energy than the countries they import the fuel from. Similarly, large oil producers are selling off their most carbon intensive operations to smaller wholly-owned private operators who do not trade on the stock market and are therefore not subjected to same scrutiny and regulations. Furthermore, divesting themselves of carbon intensive holdings qualifies these large global operators for huge government subsidies as a reward for "reducing" their carbon emissions:

 

Exxon Touts Carbon Capture as a Climate Fix, but Uses It to Maximize Profit and Keep Oil Flowing

The company sells the CO2 to other companies that use it to revive depleted oil fields and has relentlessly fought EPA oversight of the practice.

In 2008, when concerns about climate change led Congress to pass a tax credit meant to encourage companies to capture and store carbon dioxide, Exxon was presented with another way to make money from the technology. The massive amounts of carbon dioxide captured at its Wyoming facility put the oil and gas giant in a position to claim more credits under the tax break than any other company.

In the ensuing years, Exxon may have claimed hundreds of millions of dollars in tax credits, according to estimates based on publicly available data from the Internal Revenue Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and a global think tank that tracks the technology.

--Inside Climate News

So, as we can see, Net Zero targets are a clever and useful way of accounting for, or, more precisely, not accounting for carbon emissions. Consequently those who want to appear serious about reducing their carbon emissions may in reality be doing little if anything at all to reduce global emissions. Are there better ways of measuring, accounting for, and reducing fossil fuel emissions? Ways of more accurately measuring a country's global carbon footprint and setting emissions targets accordingly? Yes, there certainly are!

A big part of the problem is that instead of recognizing and naming climate change as a cost of production, the cost has been externalized. Wealthy and fossil fuel producing nations are using net zero targets, not as a way of reducing global emissions, but rather transferring responsibility for existing emissions onto poorer countries and pretending that this somehow will reduce global emissions. It won't. Just as offshoring production is used to reduce the cost of labour, so too offshoring responsibility for CO2 emissions from fossil fuel producers to fossil fuel consumers obfuscates the true cost of extraction. The former will reduce the cost of labour for production, while the latter will reduce the cost of fossil fuel extraction by transferring responsibility for emissions from sellers to buyers. Offshoring production costs does not reduce the global amount of labour required to produce a commodity; it may increase it if reduced labour costs forestall automation. So too, offshoring fossil fuel extraction and consumption costs to end consumers does not reduce the total amount of global emissions. The consequences this faulty net zero accounting are largely borne by those least responsible for CO2 emissions, and those least able to afford it. By off-loading responsibility for emissions onto those least able to afford it, instead of reducing global emissions net zero targets actually increase emissions. 

Not only does this practice increase emissions; they constitute a grave injustice to those who suffer the consequences of global warming and climate change. If the car we are driving jumps the curb and kills innocent pedestrians we expect the driver to take responsibility, and insofar as compensation for damages the driver is liable. Why should it be any different for for the drivers of CO2 emissions?

Challenges to Addressing the Climate Crisis in a Finite World

Okay, so now it's official. The UN has spoken. Their verdict is in. They have finally named the elephant in the room. Global warming is happening faster than anticipated, and it is now too late to prevent it.

Although there's no stopping it, we can mitigate it; we can plan for how to best cope with inevitable future extreme weather events that will undoubtedly be even worse than those we are experiencing now. If we act now we may even still be left with a somewhat livable planet. But precisely who needs to act? And exactly what must we/they do/stop doing, and start doing? What is the plan, and how will it be implemented? Who, if anyone, is in charge? Questions abound, but definitive answers remain elusive. Some of the most obvious questions to climate action are:

1. Is climate action compatible with democracy? Most signatories to climate agreements are elected representatives of democracies. Will enough of the voters in each of these democratic nations elect representatives with an unwavering commitment to acting effectively, decisively, and immediately? Or will democracy show itself to be yet another obstacle rather than a tool for implementing effective, decisive and immediate climate action?

2. Is climate action compatible with the global free-market economic development model? All industries and businesses are in competition with each other in the global market place. The most “successful” of these are those who manage to increase efficiency and productivity by automation and by minimizing and/or externalizing production costs. Will these industries be able to remain competitive and survive if they agree to meet carbon emission reduction targets? If not, what, if anything, will compel these industries to stop externalizing production costs while reducing their own carbon emissions? What must happen to ensure that industries in a global competitive marketplace will no longer contribute to out-of-control environmental deficits by shifting production costs to jurisdictions with lax or unenforced environmental laws? What needs to happen to stop fossil fuel industries from supplying such jurisdictions with coal and oil? What needs to happen before the emissions associated with burning some of the dirtiest fuel available to transport fuel, other raw materials, and finished consumer goods tens of thousands of miles across our dying oceans? Is perpetual economic growth, expansion, exploitation and destruction of finite resources compatible with sustaining a livable planet?

3. Is climate action compatible with global inequality? Clearly, as exemplified by global vaccine distribution, some countries are economically far better able to undertake climate action than others. Will economic compensation be provided to incentivize countries that lack the economic resources to do so? If so, who will provide these economic resources?
   
   Furthermore, there is a very strong correlation between carbon emissions and levels of consumption. If countries and individuals with high levels of consumption –large carbon footprints—are primarily responsible for the global climate crisis, will they also bear the brunt of the costs of climate action? The impact of global warming is felt by everyone, but especially by poor people suffering because of extreme weather events –floods, droughts, crop failures, out-of-control forest fires, cyclones and typhoons, etc. Not only is mitigation against further increases in global temperature absolutely necessary; the consequences of on-going extreme weather events must also be mitigated against. How will we accommodate all those climate refugees and all those displaced by extreme weather events? Who will feed the destitute? Will climate refugees be allowed to immigrate to more hospitable climates? Will those most adversely affected be allowed to sue those most responsible for damages? Or will they be left to drown in the Mediterranean, warehoused in make-shift concentration camps, or deported back to where they came from or some third country? Can carbon emissions be reduced without the active participation of the 80% of the world's population who collectively only consume 20% of the resources, and are therefore only responsible for 20 % of carbon emissions? Or must global inequality be addressed before international cooperation on climate action can be achieved?

4. Will consumer choices significantly reduce carbon emissions? Will the purchasing of solar panels, LED light bulbs, windmills, and electric cars by a relatively small percentage of the world's well-heeled super-consumers significantly reduce global carbon emissions? Or must over-privileged super-consumers, super-emitters be eliminated in order to save the planet?

5. Is there an entity that can and will assume responsibility for this global climate crisis? Is the United Nations, in which five countries—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States—hold veto power, be capable of coming up with an agreement and a plan, oversee the implementation of that plan, and enforce compliance? If not the UN, then who? Alas, there is no other pan-global entity on the horizon capable of undertaking such a task.

6. Is international cooperation on the part of nation states even possible? What we have seen to date is a blame-game and finger-pointing, with countries absolving themselves of responsibility while blaming each other for the crisis: developed countries blame developing countries for using oil and coal as sources of energy for fuelling their development; developing countries are quick to point out that developed countries have centuries of history of carbon emission, all of which contributed to the current crisis; countries like Canada, with relatively low aggregate levels of carbon emissions blame countries like China, with relatively high aggregate emission levels; Countries like China, with relatively low per capita emission levels point to countries like Canada, which has one of the highest per capita emission levels in the world; developing countries are quick to point out that most of the fossil fuel energy they use is used to manufacture goods for consumers living in developed countries, so it is consumers in developed countries who are “demanding” and driving their use of fossil fuels in their production processes; etc. Oil and fossil fuel producing countries are quick to point out the world's dependence on fossil fuel energy and plastics, and the impossibility of overnight transitions. This blame-game and finger-pointing is used by pretty much all nation states as an excuse for their own inaction, thus precluding any possibility of international cooperation on the climate crisis.

7. Can coercion, threats of sanctions and/or military might etc. by wealthy, powerful, over-privileged, over-developed, and over-consuming nations substitute for voluntary global cooperation on the part of the majority of less powerful, less developed, low consumption, and underprivileged poor nations? Can the crisis be addressed without also addressing issues of climate injustice and economic injustice? Would the energy and fossil fuel emissions required to coerce the unwilling into compliance be offset by reductions in the comparatively minuscule carbon emissions of billions of the world's have-nots?Is there any point in even worrying about the carbon emissions of the "have-nots", given that the life-styles of the "haves" are the primary driver of carbon emissions? What would the use of coercion, sanctions and/or the use of military persuasion on the "haves"look like? How likely is that? 

This is but a a short, by no means comprehensive, list of questions that must be answered if our children are to have a future. I have no answers. The prognosis looks bleak. In close correlation with responsibility for carbon emissions, the benefits have also accrued to a very small percentage of the world's population, while the costs of the crisis are born by all—especially by the poorest, most vulnerable and most powerless majority of those living in the two-thirds world. Any thoughts, suggestions, and/or solutions you have regarding this existential crisis would be most welcome!