We don't seem to get it.  By "we," I mean the majority of people around the world, especially people in developed countries.  By "it," I mean the simple fact that global warming-along with a few other indignities perpetrated by humanity on Mother Earth-is killing the planet.  A decade or more ago, I would have said killing the planet slowly.  No longer.  The scientific evidence clearly indicates that our environment is heading down the tubes, from glaciers receding at ever increasing rates, to deserts expanding, to tropical diseases moving outward from the equator, to progressively more violent storms.  And, for the most part, the developed countries-those who have set Earth on this catastrophic course through burning of fossil fuels-continue business as usual-that "business" being the gospel of profit at all cost.  Without a major change in attitude, a paradigm change, at the governmental level and the personal level, life as we now know it simply will disappear, along with most of the world's population.  Grim stuff, especially for the young people of this world.

Why don't we get it?  I've had people tell me that global warming is crap.  I see letters in the newspaper talking about global warming as a liberal con job.  Over 40% of Americans think the threat of global warming is exaggerated. As if the scientific evidence from around the world doesn't exist.  As if stunning pictures of climate change exist in some sort of vacuum.  As if the Pentagon has not said the climate change is the greatest threat this country faces.  Lisa Bennett has thrown some light on this apparent disconnect (www.alternet.org/story/106982).   Drawing on the expertise of psychologists, Bennett points to a number of reasons that may be in play, including how we've been psychologically wired by evolution to ignore seemingly distant threats, how our emotions often motivate us rather than statistical analysis, and how we have a predilection to ignore bad things that might happen in the future in order not to give up an immediate pleasure.

Part of the problem has been the lack of serious and consistent coverage by mainstream media.  No surprise there.  Our media is controlled by corporations or ideologues more interested in profit than news that might make us consider whether the acquisitive society we've created is killing the planet.  The power of those who would have us continue in the dark of ignorance is reflected in the amount of money and number of lobbyists working to block congress from meaningful action against global warming.  Figures from Environmental Defense:  $450 million spent against global warming action in 2008; 52 public spokespersons spreading disinformation in the media and online; 2,340 paid lobbyists working in DC on climate change in 2008 (7 out of 8 against climate action); $45 million spent by coal industry denying global warming.  Is it any wonder 40% of Americans think global warming is exaggerated?

What happens if we continue on our present path?  Economist Nicholas Stern has looked at the figures and estimates that without urgent action, the planet will heat up 4 to 6 degrees Centigrade.  A 4-degree rise will destroy 85% of the Amazon rainforest, that great regulator of the Earth's atmosphere, leading to massive shortages of fresh water and failures of food harvests according to Stern.  Perhaps half of all species on Earth may become extinct.  Right now, the Antarctic is melting at an alarming rate, with huge ice sheets the size of states disintegrating.  The journal Science published a peer-reviewed study on Antarctic ice melt pointing out that sea level could increase as much as 21 feet, which would completely submerge cities such as New York, London, and Tokyo.

Jonathan Porritt in his book, Capitalism as if the World Matters, observes the following:

"At the start of the 21^st Century our lives are bounded by two very different and potentially irreconcilable imperatives.  The first is a biological imperative to learn to live sustainably on this planet.  This is an absolute imperative, in that it is determined by the laws of nature and, hence, is non-negotiable-this side of extinction, it permits no choice.  The second is a political imperative: to aspire to improve out material standard of living each year.  This is a relative imperative in that it is politically determined, with a number of alternative economic paradigms available to us."

"If we don't learn to live sustainably with the natural systems and limits that provide the foundations for all life forms, then we will go the same way as every other life form that failed to adapt to those changing systems and limits.  Deep down in our collective psyche, after hundreds of years of industrialization that systematically suppressed a proper understanding of our continuing and total dependency upon the natural world, that atavistic reality is beginning to resurface."

Is our future hopeless?  Not quite yet, though some scientists are saying we have perhaps less than 10 years to fix things.  If we don't get it right quickly, we may end up with 200 million or so people surviving in the northern most lands circling the north pole, something that James Lovelock, senior British scientist, sees as a possibility if business continues as usual.  Let's not mince words, we will have to make sacrifices, but isn't saving the planet worth some sacrifice?

What can we do?  With virtually no expense, we could conserve energy, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  One estimate suggests we could easily save close to 20% of our energy.  Part of this conservation would be recycling, which can save massive amounts of energy.  We could insist on better gas mileage in our vehicles, easily done right now with off-the-shelf technology.

We must put an end to our massive military spending and military adventurism and put that money into renewable sources of energy, especially solar energy.  (According to the American Friends Service Committee, 57 cents of every tax dollar goes for military expenditures-and that doesn't count the trillions we've borrowed for wars of choice during the Bush years.)  Right now there is a concentrated solar cell virtually ready for market that will revolutionize solar energy with its efficiency.  Rather than throwing money away on war, our government should be subsidizing that solar cell so it's quickly available to every American, and to people around the world.

We need to change how we eat.  According to a new U.N. report, 18% of global warming comes from raising animals for food, causing 40% more global warming than all cars, trucks, and planes combined.

If Americans would go vegetarian for just one day (How much of a sacrifice is that?) the results would be quite dramatic as pointed out by Kathy Freston (www.alternet.org/story/134650):

The U.S. would save:  100 billion gallons of water, 1.5 billion pounds of crops, 70 million gallons of gas, 3 million acres of land, and 33 tons of antibiotics.

The U.S. would prevent:  1.2 million tons of CO2, 3 million tons of soil erosion and $70 million in resulting economic damages, 4.5 million tons of animal excrement, and almost 7 tons of ammonia emissions.

To quote Freston , "Globally we feed 756 million tons of grain to farmed animals.  As Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer notes in his new book, if we fed that grain to the 1.4 billion people who are living in abject poverty, each of them would be provided more than half a ton of grain, or about 3 pounds of grain/day-that's twice the grain they would need to survive.  And that doesn't even include the 225 million tons of soy that are produced every year, almost all of which is fed to farmed animals.  He writes, ‘the world is not running out of food.  The problem is that we-the relatively affluent-have found a way to consume four or five times as much food as would be possible, if we were to eat the crops we grow directly.'"

One component in saving the planet cannot be overlooked-population growth.  Right now, the world's population is expanding at the rate of 70 million new carbon footprints a year.  Since 1950, grainland per person has been cut in half, to 1/10th of a hectare.  Instead of sending bombs and bullets to countries, we need to be sending family planning strategies.  We also need to do a much better job of offering family planning to Americans, especially poorer Americans. Around the world, there are too few resources for too many people, and if we don't address this basic problem, it may not be a stretch to say that nothing else we do will matter much.

We still have time, but if we don't act, we will kill this wonderful planet.  And there's one thing for sure about this hole we've dug, as someone observed recently, Mother Earth doesn't give bailouts.  We either commit to saving our planet or we will lose it.