One of the films up for an Oscar a couple weeks from now is “An Inconvenient Truth.” But whether it wins or not, I know enough people have seen it (or will now) that maybe all of us globally can start seriously figuring out what to do about the environment.

By environment, I’m not necessarily talking solely about saving the trees or blocking all development (although I agree with these two things); I’m talking about determining NOW how we are going to preserve what’s left of the Earth, and how much of humanity survives to see the successes we hopefully can achieve.

While I watched the movie, I was struck by two things: first, it was obviously an ad of sorts for Al Gore– it pushes him out front and made him extremely visible. He says he’s not running, but the movie definitely positions him perfectly for a run should he decide to throw his hat in the ring, or for him to be drafted should other contenders implode (and Joe Biden, just as he did in 1988, seems to have another, possibly terminal, case of foot-in-mouth disease. No, a case of “-isms.” Last time it was plagiarism, this time it’s racism. He could be paving the way…). But more importantly, the second thing is that the movie not only stressed global warming as a factor, but pointed to a problem that a lot of people, especially guys named Pius and Benedict, seem to want to blissfully ignore. That quandary is overpopulation.

Let’s face it, no matter how you slice it, or your political convictions, Gore got it right: the human population has exploded in the last 200 years. We went from approximately 1 million people around 1800 to more than 6 billion (and growing) today. In the meantime, the resources we have are finite, with larger and larger numbers of people wanting a piece of the pie. That’s more than 6 billion people wanting water, shelter, food, energy, and other natural resources. Since more than 70% of the world is water, that leaves just so much land for all these folks. Now figure in the percentage that is arable (and not yet developed), and the percentage that is habitable, and you’ve got one crowded blue marble.

As Gore demonstrated, it’s all interrelated. While Gore is viewed as a political figure and not some respected Nobel-winning scientist, many scientists said he got the facts right [Salon.com article– if you don’t have a membership, click through the ad. It’s an article worth reading]. Gore pointed out that the changes that are happening will impact how we live, and very quickly. Although there’s a lot more to learn, and Gore doesn’t offer complete solutions, the film is definitely worth watching. One thing I liked was how he ended on a positive note: rather than doom and gloom, he stated that while time is short, we still have a limited window of opportunity to try to stem the tide.

Oh, bosh, you say. Global warming is bunk. There are quite a few people who believe that global warming is a myth, or vastly overstated, including one of the few deaf/hard-of-hearing bloggers to broach the topic. Well, there’s quite a few others, including some in from rather unexpected quarters, who believe otherwise. While I’m not sure of the sampling or complete validity of the poll, a survey of hunters and fishers reveals deep concern among sportsmen that nature is out of whack. While these folks may be politically conservative, the article points out something rather logical: because they spend time outdoors, they’re more in tune with what’s happening in the wilderness than the average urban dweller.

It isn’t just subscribers to Field & Stream that are worried; it’s also a small but growing number of religious conservatives. Last November, Joel C. Hunter, the president-elect of the Christian Coalition stepped down, “saying the group resisted his efforts to broaden its agenda to include reducing poverty and fighting global warming.” I applauded his move, and I hope people listen to what he has to say. Whether you are a spiritual/religious person or not, we have inherited the earth from our forefathers, and from whatever deity or force originally created this planet. We are mortal, and thus we are not owners of this sphere, we are merely tenants. Like any good tenant, it is our responsibility to maintain a home that can then be passed on to the next “owners.”

So far we haven’t been very good stewards, in my opinion. Out of necessity, we’ve built our cities and towns near rivers, and polluted them. Cities and towns in many places (the American West being a very good example) were originally sited near scarce natural resources or on prime agricultural land. As these hamlets expanded, the topsoil was sacrificed so that we could have McMansions. Unfortunately, once you destroy top-grade farmland, it’s gone forever. You can’t wait around for nature to fix the problem; that takes generations, which is time we don’t have. As we built our McMansions, we continued in the proud traditions of our ancestors and had large families, even though we don’t need a bunch of extra farmhands anymore. Each of these precious adorable poppets grows up and wants to have a family of their own. Quite a few people choose to listen to the admonitions of elderly white males, some of whom have never had a sex life (or a normal one, at least), and refuse to consider family planning, eschewing it because it’s against “God’s will.” These folks then have tons of kids who then grow up to have tons of kids, and each child wants a home of their own, and the cycle continues.

Even in countries that don’t start with “United,” you have more and more people wanting the same lifestyle and sense of wealth that people in first-world nations do. Even though North America and Europe continue to lead in consuming natural resources, the third-worlders are catching up, and the second world continues to expand as well. When you have 1/3 of the world’s population jammed into two nations, and both consuming their natural resources and wilderness as fast as they possibly can, it’s a recipe for disaster.

In the meantime, some history is being changed. For centuries, Europeans and Americans have searched for the fabled Northwest Passage, a saga that constitutes much of the influences and changes on the Americas, from before Columbus’ day up until very recently. But as this article notes, global warming (or rapid natural changes, if you will), are doing what thousands of explorers couldn’t do: creating an ice-free route through the Arctic. One of the consequences of an ice-free North is the possible demise of those lovely polar bears– a prospect that has the current administration actually contemplating placing them on the endangered list.

Of course, if you’ve paid any attention to the news lately, you know it isn’t just the Arctic that’s having trouble maintain a cool climate– Europe is currently experiencing an extremely warm winter, and it’s having an effect on the Alps. If this continues, it’s very possible we’ll have no future Jean-Claude Killy to astound us. More seriously, it will affect the watershed for the regions in and around the Alps. The same is true in Africa, where the fabled snows of Kilimanjaro are vanishing, and predicted to be gone within a generation. Even more ominously, such warming is impacting the Andes, and already struggling South American nations will face an increasing shortage of water. Forget nuclear holocaust, boys and girls. Don’t worry too much about Iran and Iraq, either. If this continues, expect the wars of the early 21st century to focus on energy sources, but by the end of the century to focus on essentials such as food and water.

No, no, you scream! It isn’t global warming! It’s just a cycle of nature– nothing to worry about! Perhaps that’s true to an extent– at UC Davis, scientists are studying the fossil history of weather. But you know what? It really doesn’t matter in the end whether it’s global warming caused by man, or natural changes that are part of the planet’s cycle. Either way, we will soon face far more serious problems than some dictator’s temper tantrum, or paranoid fantasies about nuclear stockpiles. Regardless of why you think these changes are happening, they’re happening, and we need to find solutions quickly.

Another surprising group that seems to get this are CEOs. While CEOs are generally concerned with the bottom line and are thus rather short-sighted in their pursuit of the dollar, enough of them are looking down the line and realizing that no matter how much profit they raked in last quarter, it’s all gonna be down the drain if they don’t maintain a healthy environment in which their customers can continue to fill their coffers. A group of such executives just asked Smirk to get his priorities straight and start dealing with the crisis. When an executive publicly states that “[t]he science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now,” you know this isn’t some left-wing extremist fantasy. It’s real, and it’s happening.

Oh, but there are these scientists who are convinced none of this is happening! There’s no consensus– the jury’s still out! That may be true to an extent– this is something that is unprecedented, because the more evidence that pours in, the more it appears that we humans have had a hand in this, and thus it’s different from any natural occurrence from eons ago. But now it appears that our gummint, for whatever twisted reasons they had, have applied pressure to downplay the threat of global warming. If this is true (and I, for one, wouldn’t put it past this bunch), it’s a far more criminal act than anything that has occurred in the last six years. This is not just a bunch of dangerous games affecting the nation– it’s an act against life on earth.

Yes, an act against earth is what it is. The changes that are happening just might be altering the natural calendar to the extent that natural systems and the cycles of all living things are thrown out of sync, to the point that some species will fail to propagate, with the consequence of extinction for some, and reduced numbers for many more. This is very serious, because the ecosystem is like a giant piece of fabric: you pull out a few threads here and there, and they weaken the threads around them. Soon you have little holes, which erode the fabric and hasten its eventual disintegration. Each thread is interwoven with another, and if the support system for one thread disappears, then that thread is potentially lost.

It isn’t just the living species of the land and air that will suffer: the sea is being harmed as well. Little Nemo isn’t going to have a home much longer, it seems, since a scientific report suggests that in as little as two generations, the Great Barrier Reef will die. This is symptomatic of what is happening in the world’s oceans, where an intricate ecosystem depends largely on the survival of varied species that live together, play together, eat together, and devour each other together.

A major report to be released tomorrow strongly suggests that mankind is at least partially responsible for this mess. The rising tide of voices and evidence is finally pushing our gummint to admit that maybe, just maybe, perhaps, there’s something to it. The Democrats are starting to push back and demand some answers and explanations for the fudging that’s gone on so far. That’s fine by me, but rather than another investigation condemning the administration, I’d like to see some real bipartisan and international cooperation. I have very strong opinions politically; most of you know that. But I think in the end none of these other issues matter: abortion, religion, education, affirmative action, sexism, racism, class inequality, global thermonuclear war. If we don’t figure out how to save the environment now, none of this other stuff matters. In 2005 in the wake of Katrina and other natural disasters, I thought the Time “Person of the Year” should’ve been Mother Nature. It may yet be her turn at the end of this year. She’s a powerful bitch, Mother Nature; you don’t fool around with her. If we humans pass from the scene, she will not care; she will simply rebuild. We consider ourselves important, but in the scheme of things, we’re expendable. Whether Mother Nature’s answer is to create famine and drought, or other equally drastic ways of reducing our numbers, she will eventually begin again.

I’m not sure what the ultimate solutions will be. I’m not a total pessimist– I don’t think humanity will be extinct a hundred years hence. But I do think we’re at the tipping point, or past it, and that most likely what will happen is the population will have to drastically contract and the “era of limits” politicians like Clinton trumpeted is going to have to be a reality. A true Era of Limits– not just pseudopolitical resolutions to “reform” welfare or shrink the government, but an era where we wisely harbor and use the limited resources that will exist. The problems we face now– rising sea levels (which will obliterate many cities and towns in low-lying areas), melting snow and ice, dying seas and farmlands– are merely canaries in the mine. In esssence, we’re now at the fork in the road, literally, and we can’t go back; we also can’t stay where we are. One path leads to global devastation; another leads to a softer, if rather bumpy, landing.

The canaries are dying; will we?