Solving Global Warming is Going To Require Sacrifice

Tackling Global Warming Requires Tough Choices

Authored by Sherwood Martinelli

It seems the world is waking up to the reality that the planet, Mother Earth is in trouble, that drastic climate change is more than a possibility, but an already occurring reality. We have Lord Richard Branson of Virgin fame speaking before the United Nations and calling for a Global Warming War Room, and Al Gore winning a Nobel Prize for his “Inconvenient Truth” documentary. Natural Disasters are up, and polar bears are in danger of extinction in the Artic as ice melts into the oceans and sea levels begin to rise. The BIG TICKET item that most of the experts are banking on is carbon capture…not carbon reduction, but capture. Perhaps there is some hope in that strategy, perhaps that carbon could even be reprocessed back into energy for some future generation born centuries from now, but it is doubtful. Technology alone simply cannot save us from our self’s.

Reversing climate change is going to take GREAT SACRIFICE, and the world seems unwilling to accept that reality. Putting an end to Global Warming is going to take a major paradigm shift that is going to create policies and laws that people are not prepared for. These policies and laws, which certain religions and organized churches will perceive as sacrilege, must be implemented to save mankind, to save our world. It is imperative that our leaders here in America and around the world start speaking truth, preparing the citizens for the hard times that lay ahead.

Three words must be our guiding force as we embark on a journey to save the only world we have, a simple truth spoken to the people of the world, “Less Is More”. It will not be easy to ease people into this new mind set, will take time for world citizenry to adjust to a world where less is more, a world wherein having less, living meagerly is looked upon with honor and pride, rather than distain. Sadly, we as a world society do not have that luxury, our time to halt certain realities already passed, or time to adjust to harsh realities vanishing before our eyes. The concept of less is more has to start with the family unit as we see and understand it. The population of the world is out of control, growing at a rate that makes a sustainable world an unattainable reality, reversing Global Warming and impossible task. Large families must be outlawed, when necessary, forced sterilization the law of the land if we are to save Mother Earth.

No different than a deer herd, or cattle on federal grazing lands, the human population must be managed, our numbers reduced to under one billion citizens to have a realistic chance at having a sustainable world wherein we do not live in fear of devastation from climate change brought on by Global Warming. Must reduce our numbers if tens of millions are not to die cruel deaths from starvation and disease as the planet’s temperature rises. Hillary Clinton has said it takes a village to raise a child…perhaps in limiting the number of children born into this world as we rein in our own over population that dream could become a reality? Think about it…how much more precious would the children of the world be to every member of a community if there were far fewer of them in the world? Some, perhaps most will label me a heretic for speaking such blasphemy, how dare I control for harsh controls own human population growth, but ask yourself a serious question. If Global Warming is real, if we have to drastically reduce our carbon emissions, can we afford an ever escalating human population that is going to require an ever increasing amount of services and comforts, both of which will create ever increasing amounts of CO2 being released into our environment? We cannot afford the population growths around the world that are predicted between now and the year 2050, the world cannot bear the burden.

There are other changes that must be implemented that will send organizations like the Chamber of Commerce howling into our Halls of Government in attempts to curry favor, begging politicians to say it isn’t so. A major contributor to Global Warming is lost canopy cover in the world’s forests. Yet, each year over 100 million trees are felled to fill our mailboxes with junk mail as advertisers convince us that we need more and more product. There is a simple solution that would down size government, and go a long way towards reforestation…outlaw junk mail world wide. I would estimate, that preservation of 100 million trees a year, the carbon sequestration from such preservation would qualify me for Richard Branson’s $25 Million Dollar Science prize, and it could be accomplished with the simple stroke of a pen.

Sure it will not make the Postal Carriers Union happy, but while we are at it, let’s reduce mail delivery to three days a week. Do we really need to get our mail on a daily basis, would slowing down the pace of life really be so bad? While we are at it, let’s take a step backwards, and make it mandatory that all televisions (including cable and satellite) stations sign off at 2:00 A.M. like they used to do. How much energy could be conserved in shutting down mass media around the world four hours each and every day? We must take cars off the roads whenever possible. This can be done by making it mandatory that 80 percent of all clerical, administrative and executive work be done from home unless there is legitimate reason not to do so…the corporate need to see bodies in big buildings must come to and end, employers learning to trust that their work force can perform their tasks just as well without ever leaving the confines of a well executed home office paid for by the corporation.

Less is more, and that means learning to live differently, to adapt to smaller homes that create a smaller carbon footprint. Renovation and restoration of all infrastructure whenever possible, and if a building cannot be saved, it must be deconstructed, crews salvaging any and all usable materials to be recycled back into our stream of usable material resources. Citizens of the world must learn to share material items whenever possible or feasible, such as lawn mowers…do we really need a lawn mower for each and every house in America, for that matter, do we really need such large manicured lawns, or would something more rustic and rural (think wildflower meadow) be healthier for the planet? Should there be six or seven swimming pools in one city block that has only 12 homes on it? Why must American families have numerous television sets, and more gadgets than they know what to do with as they toss one after another into a drawer never to again see the light of day all because the new replacement gadget is newer, sexier, and has and extra must have gizmo that advertisers convinced the masses they just had to have.

Given a chance, our world has a great ability to restore itself, to replenish the oceans food stocks, to restore forests destroyed and burned in the name of progress, the ability to cool its environment, and restore lost ice pack around the planet, but only if we, the human race take the steps necessary to give our world a chance to heal herself. Time heals all wounds, but to give the world that time, we must reduce our own impact upon the surface, change our ways, and reduce our population base to a sustainable level that allows us to peacefully co-exist and prosper with the bounties given to us by Mother Nature. Corporations would have us believe that our salvation lays in technology. Technology can play a part, but it does not hold the full answer society needs. The solution will be found in sacrifice that does not come without certain pains. The longer we as a society put off acceptance of that basic truth, the deeper and more immense the pain will be.