---

Indifference is an indicator of a lack of conscience. Indifference has always frightened me. Indifference is a perfect breeding ground for hatred. Indifference allows politics of hate to flourish. And that lays the groundwork for bigotry, racism and hate to seem reasonable to ordinary human beings. The results of politics of hate are always horrifying and inevitably catastrophic.
- Lily Brett, grazkunst 03.2017, p. 9

The greatest damage arises from the silent majority that -- just wanting to survive -- toes the line and goes along with everything. (Der größte Schaden entsteht durch die schweigende Mehrheit, die nur überleben will, sich fügt und alles mitmacht.)
- Sophie Scholl, victim of the death penalty, 1943.

What no one will admit to having believed / what no one believes they could have known / what no one will remember having suspected / that will again / have been that / which no one admits having wanted (Was keiner geglaubt haben wird / was keiner gewusst haben konnte / was keiner geahnt haben durfte / das wird dann wieder / das gewesen sein / was keiner gewollt haben wollte)
- Erich Fried, "Dann wieder"

In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
- Martin Luther King, Jr.

The closing window of opportunity

In a decade or two, or perhaps just a few years, when global warming is a serious problem everywhere, and most people (not just the crazy "alarmists" and "doomers") are talking about the point of no return, and we are all mourning what has been irretrievably lost, while trying to deal with the ever-increasing global chaos, I will look at my friends, family, and academic colleagues, and they will look at me, and we will all ask ourselves: How could good people have been so evil? How could generous people have been so selfish? How could intelligent people have been so stupid? How could kind people have been so cruel? How could courageous people have been so timid?

By then, it will be too late and too tragic for "I told you so". The window of opportunity will have closed. The irreversible damage will be done. We won't be able to turn back the clock and try again. 

My children will ask me: Why didn't you do something? Surely you knew? Why didn't you talk to your family, friends, and colleagues? And I will say: I did know. And I did talk. Again and again, in different ways. But even the nicest, kindest, most honorable people were not listening. Or if they were listening, they were not responding.

Considering the consequences, this has been the most shocking experience of my life. And the shock is ongoing. My friends, family, and colleagues will read the previous paragraphs and still won't get it. Nor will they get it after reading this paragraph, or the next one.

Right now, we can still do something. Will we? Or will we not?

What you can do

Many people regard global warming as the biggest threat humanity has ever faced. Many also feel powerless to do anything about it.
 
In my experience, there is a simple solution, and that is to use social media. On most days, I post information in Facebook about global warming, with the goal of showing people how serious it is and what must urgently be done.

In Facebook, most people have between 100 and 1000 friends. If you adopt my strategy for a few weeks or months, you might convince between 10 and 100 people about the urgency of the climate crisis -- people who previously thought it was just another news item. In a democratic country, that is an enormous contribution. Imagine what would happen if everyone did that! The crisis would soon be over. The political momentum of the climate action movement would be unstoppable.

You may be reluctant to do that, for fear of losing friends. It's a real possibility. If you get too direct about the issues, some of your climate denying pals will think you've lost it, and disappear from your life. But is that such a bad thing? After all, you disagree with them on what could be the most important issue, ever. Besides, you will at the same time gain new friends -- people who admire you for your honesty and courage.

Please think about taking that risk. I have done so for a decade. It's one of the best decisions I ever made. I have also discovered that people who are not sure about the seriousness of the climate crisis nevertheless respect me for the information that I am distributing and the positive motivation that lies behind it.

Countering denial

For the past few decades, professional deniers have been spreading false and misleading information about climate change, financed by fossil fuel industries. Those of us who see through their fake arguments need to think about how we explain to people that the arguments are wrong. 

Take this familiar denialist argument: "Humans can pollute the environment but they can't change the weather. The world is too big and too complex for that." I wouldn't be surprised if half the world's population still believed that. How to respond?

First, repeat some arguments in favor of the misleading idea, so that your denier realizes s/he is being taken seriously. Perhaps like this. We are used to thinking of weather as something humans cannot control, as if it was god-given. That’s our instinctive way of thinking. For that reason, many people doubt that humans could change the climate.  It's a reasonable idea. The deniers were certainly right back in the days when there were fewer humans on the planet and less industry.

For the past couple of centuries, humans have indeed been in a position to change the climate. We know that because we can realistically estimate the extent of human-caused climate change and compare predictions with measurements of what is actually happening:

• We know that humans are currently burning about 10 billion tonnes of fossil carbon per year. 
• The mass of CO₂ being released into the atmosphere is 3.7 or (12+16+16)/12 times bigger than that. Basic chemistry.
• About half of that is being absorbed by the oceans, which is raising their acidity. 
• We can estimate the increase in CO₂ content of the air because we know how much air there is. The effective depth of the atmosphere is about 10 km. 
• The greenhouse gas effect is simple and well understood. The theory allows us to estimate the increase in global mean surface temperature due to human activities. 
• On that basis we can show that recent warming has been mainly caused by additional greenhouse gases in the atmosphere -- not mainly by sunspots, changes in the earth's orbit, volcanoes, and so on.

These ideas belong to the simplest foundations of modern climate science, upon which other climate research is built. Most climate scientists regard them as obvious. But given the enormous profits being made by fossil fuel industries, it is no surprise that many deniers are pretending to be qualified climate scientists. Conversely, some qualified (climate) scientists have even been tempted to contribute to denialist discourse, given the possible financial rewards. That's no surprise, either.

Clear critical thinking 

To succeed in this game, we need to keep our heads. It's easy to get distracted by logical fallacies. Here’s an example.

One of the few biggest climate-destroying corporations, BP, popularized the concept of personal carbon footprint in 2004. Many have been saying that's a reason to reject the concept of personal footprints, or at least not to worry about it (more -- more). The argument runs like this: BP is evil therefore everything they say is wrong. It's called an ad hominem argument.

In fact, the question of whether personal footprints are important or not has nothing at all to do with who invented the concept or for what reason. Personal footprints are clearly important because the problem of global warming can only be solved if the biggest footprints are reduced. If we are non-racist and understand that all people have equal rights, it follows that people with relatively high footprints -- and especially those with the biggest footprints -- are the ones who have to reduce the fastest.

Disruptive climate protest

I recently met an old school friend, for the first time for many decades. We had a great time talking about all kinds of things. He is a wise and smart fellow. Then the topic of disruptive climate demonstrations came up. He rejected them categorically, with the following arguments:

• Effectiveness. Disrupting traffic doesn't work. It just makes people hate the demonstrators.

• Health risk. If an ambulance is held up, the medical consequences could be life-threatening.

• Motivation. Disruptive demonstrators are professional trouble-makers. They are more interested in disruption itself than climate politics.

We need to think carefully before responding to such arguments. First, they are often based on a simple misunderstanding. Probably, my friend simply underestimated the seriousness of the climate crisis. If he realized how serious it was, he would not be talking that way. Like many people, he had been exposed to climate denial discourse in the social and print media, the internet, TV, and private conversations for decades. It's understandable. 

I must admit: I was so shocked I hardly knew what to say. Apart from explaining the seriousness of climate change, here is what I should have said: 

• Effectiveness. For decades, conventional climate demonstrations have not worked. Global emissions are still increasing. Most politicians and most fossil fuel corporations are still ignoring the warnings. From climate science we know that the consequences in coming years and decades will be catastrophic and that the danger is unprecedented. Whether the demonstrators are loved or hated is not the point. The point is to attract attention to an existentially important issue so that it will be discussed seriously in public, as a step toward public understanding and an adequate response.

• Health risk. Climate demonstrators are more concerned about promoting human health and saving human lives than anyone. Climate change is already indirectly causing about a million premature deaths per year. The death rate will certainly rise gradually in coming decades. Toward the end of the century, climate change will probably indirectly cause about ten million premature deaths per year (roughly) from exacerbation of existing diseases, starvation, heat stroke, migration, conflict and so on. That can and must be prevented, and that is why people are demonstrating. In addition, air pollution is currently causing eight million deaths per year, largely from burning fossil fuels. Apart from that, people are dying in ambulances every day, and ambulances are being blocked by traffic every day. That's because too many people are driving private cars. Any person who drives on a busy road when they could have walked, cycled, or taken public transport is potentially contributing to a medical emergency when an ambulance is held up. One of the aims of climate demonstrations is to reduce private car usage, and one of the consequences will be fewer health problems and better health care. 

• Motivation. Since the climate situation is so serious, it's natural that some people are prepared to participate in disruptive demonstrations and even risk a jail sentence. They should be praised for their courage and not vilified. They are acting on behalf of everyone. The argument that they enjoy disrupting traffic is absurd. If you can read this, thank a primary teacher. If your grandchildren are still alive and happy in 2100, thank a climate demonstrator.

Well, that seems pretty clear now. But someone could still object and say to me: What if that was your relative or friend dying in the ambulance, held up by the climate demonstration? What would you say about that? The question implies not only that the above arguments have not been understood, but also that the life of my relative is more important than the lives of other people. Perhaps thousands or millions of times more. Perhaps infinitely more. That's the kind of attitude that leads to wars in which we only care about deaths on our side and not about deaths on the other side. Us and them. The question also suggests that the person asking it has momentarily forgotten that climate change is in fact really causing, and will in fact really cause, the premature deaths of countless millions of people. The victims are and will be real people who really exist. Of course I care more about the lives of my relatives or friends, but that is no excuse to ignore the suffering and death of other people.

Personal change

To constructively and effectively address the climate crisis, we urgently need radical change on two levels: personal and collective (government, corporate). Both at once! The corporate level is more important because corporations got us into this mess during decades of denial. The responsible CEOs should be tried for crimes against humanity. But even if the fossil corporations suddenly got their act together and went completely sustainable, we would still be left with the problem that individuals are burning large amounts of fossil fuels in their daily lives. The sum of individual emissions is far too high.

It's necessary but not sufficient for corporations to do everything in their power to reduce emissions. Individuals also have to reduce. This is simply a matter of arithmetic: if we add up the emissions of individuals and get a large number, we have a problem.

So let's start with the personal level, because that is where our power lies. We can easily and quickly change many aspects of our personal behavior, and talk to other people about doing the same so that it becomes a collective effort. When many people do that, they will infect others with their positive action. Political opposition to fossil-fueled capitalism will grow, which will feed into corporate-governmental level. That may sound like a long shot, but what other chance do we have?

The personal level includes social movements that, unlike governments and corporations, are not hierarchically structured. A social movement is a network that is powered by grassroots individual action and motivation. Past movements have fought for and achieved civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, and the rights of specific groups in specific countries.

We need a new global children's rights movement -- one that not only talks about a child's right to care, food, shelter, and education, but also to political and environmental stability and hence quality of life in the future. One that not only talks but also acts, showing people how to reduce their personal emissions and then actually doing that. The Wikipedia page on that topic currently doesn't mention climate change (5 January 2020), nor does the Declaration of the Rights of the Child -- not surprisingly, since it was written in 1959.

Saying goodbye to the Big Four: Reproduction, flying, driving, meat

Currently, the average person is causing 5 tonnes of CO₂ to be emitted every year (more in richer countries, less in poorer). About half of that is being absorbed by plant life (on land and in oceans). The other half will stay in the atmosphere and oceans for centuries.

People in rich countries are emitting several times the global mean. Clearly we have to reduce that, and fast. That is true regardless of what crazy things happen or do not happen in politics, and regardless of how callous or hopeless the rich and megarich are.

The main contributors to the carbon footprints of people in rich countries can be calculated and are well-known. There are four of them: having children, flying, driving, and eating meat (more). Let's call them the Big Four. The best way to reduce personal carbon footprints is to avoid all of these, as far as possible. If a lot of people did that we would be well on the way to a solution.

Having children. People are scared to talk about this topic, but let us be clear: We are talking about children's rights. Children are the most valuable thing that we have. And that is the reason we need to stop reproducing -- to protect the rights of those children that are already born. If you are likely to become a parent in the next few years -- whether for the first time or again -- by far the best way to reduce your effective carbon footprint, and in that way to express your love for all children everywhere, is to change your plans. But there are two important caveats. First, this is a personal decision. No-one has the right to pressure others into avoiding reproduction, and no-one should suffer as a consequence of becoming a parent. Second, the children of environmental campaigners are likely to become environmental campaigners themselves, and every one of them counts!

Flying. The effect of flying on climate is far greater than most people realise and it is increasing faster than any other major contribution (more). Aviation is currently contributing 3% of global CO₂ emissions. Due to other greenhouse gases, the contribution to global warming is about twice that. These figures are increasing by 5% per year with no end in sight. Moreover, flying is elitist. Only about 10% of all people fly. For those who fly, flying typically represents half of their personal CO₂ footprint. Half! But emissions must fall in all sectors, and individuals with the largest footprints must make the biggest cuts. Biofuels are no alternative: producing them means destroying rainforests and agricultural land. Electric flying has a big environmental cost of its own and cannot scale up. Therefore, most flying will have to stop. Of those who fly, almost everyone is in denial, but that does not make stopping flying any less urgent. Since climate change is a matter of life and death for billions of people, flying is only justified if necessary to save lives.

Driving. Electric cars are a step in the right direction, provided the electricity is from renewable sources. But the emissions produced during production and the environmental impact of the batteries mean that step is not especially big. Besides, one of the biggest problems caused by cars is fine particle pollution from the tyres on the roads. The situation is similar for solar-powered hydrogen cars. The best solution is to stop driving. Cycling and walking can make you healthier and happier! We should especially avoid driving alone or driving daily, and it is obviously wrong to do both. Exceptions: People with disabilities, small children, heavy loads.

Meat. The optimal amount of meat and dairy consumption on a sustainable planet is not zero, but perhaps 10% of the current level. To get anywhere near that goal, a majority of people will have to go vegan. The situation will be much improved if many people cut down on meat, avoiding juicy steaks and instead adding a little bit of meat to otherwise vegetarian food (more). Whether you do it for your health or for the world's children, the result is the same.

We also need to make buildings more energy-efficient, use less power for heating and cooling, avoid using drying machines when clothes can be hung out to dry, and so on. But these are not the main sources of personal emissions in rich countries. If we are serious about reducing global emissions, we must start with the Big Four. Recycling and avoiding plastic are also very important, but they are mainly about biodiversity, not climate. They are equally important, but different.

Everyday objections 

Not surprisingly, we don't want to give up the Big Four. We like them too much. So we start looking around for reasons why the above arguments might be incorrect. It's a natural response. Let's look at some of the most common counterarguments.

Some object that it is impossible for the average person in a rich country to give up reproducing, flying, driving, and meat, or to come anywhere near that. Therefore, the claim that we must do that cannot be correct. But that is not logical. Whether a claim is true or not does not depend on whether it is possible. Those are two different things. Whether this particular claim is true depends on (i) how much greenhouse gas people are producing, (ii) how much of that is being absorbed (e.g. by plants), (iii) how much is necessary to cause a global catastrophe and (iv) some simple arithmetic. It follows that IF humanity is to have a reasonable future, or any future at all, THEN most people in the rich world must seriously reduce or give up the Big Four. Period.

In fact, the average person in a rich country can give up reproducing, flying, driving, and meat -- remarkably easily. For many people, it is simply a matter of stopping, like smoking one's last cigarette. Regarding driving, in most cases public transport is available. It may not be convenient, but it is not impossible. In general, there will be different consequences for different people, and we will all have to find our own path. In wartime, the average civilian often faced bigger challenges and survived. Today, we need to radically reform tax-welfare systems to eliminate poverty and enable everyone to do without fossil fuels. This is an essential aspect of system change that is urgently required. But even without such a reform almost everyone can do what is required. The question is, are we willing to do it? Said another way: Do we love our children? Do we care about children? Do we care about other people?

Some say it is unrealistic to expect people to do these things. Of course, they are right. But the alternative is even more unrealistic. What could be more unrealistic than self-destruction?

Some object that there are other ways of getting greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere. There are, but none are realistic. So far, no method has been discovered that would sustainably and safely absorb the required amounts of CO₂ or slow down global warming by any other method without existentially dangerous side-effects. In the absence of a miracle, nothing else will work. That being the case, nothing could be more immoral than relying on a low-probability surprise solution that will somehow turn up in the nick of time, Hollywood style. There are good partial solutions, of course. Reforestation and rewilding are very important and should be promoted on a massive global scale, but even that will not be enough. Research on biological and technological solutions is ongoing and equally important. But the basic situation is not going to change in a hurry.

Some argue that governments, corporations, and deniers got us into this mess, therefore it is up to them to get us out of it. Therefore, we don't have to reduce our personal emissions. Again, this is not logical. Of course the climate-denying corporate CEOs are primarily responsible for the climate crisis and therefore should be first to change, and of course the political-corporate transition is urgent. But regardless of whether or how fast that transition happens, individuals will still have personal carbon footprints, and those footprints will still have to be reduced to achieve the required global reduction. Besides, our political demands are more convincing if we walk the walk.

Taken together, objections and counterarguments of these kinds are a form of climate denial. They do not deny the reality of climate change and its human causes. Instead, they deny the availability and efficacy of solutions. Like other forms of denial, they tend to protect the fossil fuel industry from loss of profits, as if that were more important than everything else.

Astonishingly, some people don't care whether our children have a future or not. Social media are full of them. What if those people simply ignored this message? Do they have that right? Clearly not, because there is no longer any doubt that producing excessive emissions is infringing the basic rights of other people. Therefore, there is only one morally acceptable course of action, and that is for everyone to do what is necessary to save our environments and ecosystems for coming generations. No exceptions!

Smart, well-meaning people will read these lines, understand them, and (regardless of whether they agree) refuse to change. In an attempt to alleviate their guilt, they will invent arbitrary justifications for not changing. If that is not evidence of humanity's inherent selfishness and stupidity, I don't know what is. What can I say? I am not trying to offend someone or start a fight. Nor am I interested in "shaming" anyone. I am just trying to raise awareness. Everyone agrees about the importance of defending the inalienable rights of young people. That means telling the truth about climate change.

This is not about being perfect. I decided a few years ago never to fly to an academic conference again, but since I live in Europe and I have family in Australia, my idea is to limit visits to once in five years. In 2024, I'm planning take trains and buses from Europe to Australia, wish me luck. Why not see all the countries on the way? I have flown an awful lot in my life, which puts me high on the guilty list. I don't own a car, but I do have a valid driver's license and occasionally borrow a car. I regularly eat small amounts of meat. Nobody's perfect! The main thing is to genuinely decide (or try) to get rid of the biggest sources of personal emissions.

The earth's surface is sick. The diagnosis: cancer.

Many of us already know that we have to give up the Big Four, but something inside us is resisting. Strongly! Where is the resistance coming from? Perhaps an analogy will help.

The existential threat of global warming involves self-reinforcing feedback loops.  Forest fires produce CO₂, which in turn causes more warming and reduced rainfall in dry areas, which in turn causes more forest fires. Melting ice changes the color of the earth's surface from white to blue, causing more heat from the sun to be absorbed and more ice to melt (albedo). Melting permafrost causes greenhouse gases to be released, which causes more warming, causing more permafrost to melt. Hot weather means more air conditioning, which means more electricity, more emissions, and more hot weather. The feedbacks are called "positive" because the feedback reinforces the original process, as opposed to "negative feedbacks" that slow it down. All parts of the atmosphere are connected, so  these processes interact with each other.

This is already happening, and the process is already accelerating. At some time in the future, global warming will continue even after all human emissions have stopped, leading to warming of the order of 10°C, which will surely mean the end of humanity. To prevent that from happening, all human emissions must be stopped urgently.

Cancer is similar. It starts with benign tumours that do not spread and can be treated. As tumours become malignant, the rate of cell division increases, and the cancer spreads to other parts of the body (metastasis). At some point, treatment is no longer effective and care becomes palliative. Positive feedback processes play an important role in this ominous development (more). That's why early diagnosis and prompt treatment are so important.

Our beautiful blue planet got an early diagnosis when global warming was discovered and understood in detail several decades ago. But treatment has been consistently denied. If things don't change radically, the cancer of global warming will bring about the extinction of most species including humans. Climatic metastasis is already underway.

Eating a steak is like offering the world a puff on your cigarette. It won't hurt the world to take that puff. Actually, it's quite fun. You'll have to do it many times before there is a measurable effect. At least that is what we think, but we are wrong. In fact, every single cigarette is bad: there is no healthy level of smoking. The same applies to CO₂ emissions: every emitted tonne is contributing to the future global catastrophe (link).

Driving a car is like offering the world a cigarette. Taking a flight in economy class is like offering the world a packet of cigarettes. Flying in a private jet is like offering a carton. Bringing a new human into the world in a rich country, where personal carbon footprints are far too high, is like opening a tobacco shop. Don't get me wrong: a baby is the most wonderful and valuable thing. But "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

The solution, as we know, is to give up. It's very simple, and there is no other solution. Again, the comparison with smoking and lung cancer is interesting. In many ways we are addicted to fossil fuels. We know we should give up, but we are very creative when it comes to inventing reasons not to do so (climate denial, addiction denial). Strategies for giving up smoking include:

• suddenly stopping, leading to withdrawal symptoms (imagine what would happen if flying was suddenly banned except in emergencies -- as it should be),

• cutting down then quitting (what the IPCC has been advising the stubborn world to do for many years),

• behavioral counseling (reminiscent of those ridiculous public discussions between scientists and deniers, presented as two valid standpoints when in fact one person is telling the truth and the other is lying), and

• nicotine replacement therapy (like continuing to burn carbon and then trying to capture the CO2, or developing sustainable energy sources when it would be better to use less energy or develop low-energy alternatives, e.g. to improve public transport rather than promote electric cars).

Clearly, carbon addiction and carbon abuse are big issues that need more attention. Humanity is sick. It's time to admit that and accept the doctor's advice.

At the same time, humanity is suffering from another kind of cancer. As George Monbiot brilliantly explains in this video, "capitalism is the planet's cancer, and just like cancer in the human body, it has to be cut out“.

The good news is that many of us used to smoke, gave up, and never looked back. We were confronted with the psychological barrier of addiction and somehow managed to break through it. If we can do that, we can give up fossil fuels.

As for capitalism, it needs to be tamed by following its own principles. First, capitalism can only work in a democratically regulated marketplace, in which participants obey the law. That counts out tax havens and much else. Second, the marketplace should establish the true cost and benefit of products. If capitalism does not recognize the true environmental cost of fossil fuels, it will destroy itself and everything else with it. Third, actors in the marketplace should compete on a level playing field. Their success should be determined by their good ideas and hard work and not by privilege. To solve this problem, incidentally, we need universal basic income. We also need globally harmonized wealth taxes.

How will it work?

Giving up the Big Four is not as hard as it sounds. It's a change of lifestyle and a change of attitude. It's about finding fun, happiness and fulfilment in new ways.

Governments can and should help. Public education campaigns (more) might for example explain that riding bikes, taking trains, and eating vegetarian are fun and good for your health and happiness.

We won't have to give up everything at once. The main thing is to make sustainable progress toward lower personal emissions. We all have different constraints and can draw up own own personal plan.

From a different perspective, we should all be aiming for net zero emissions, Only that will allow the natural environment upon which we depend to return to the previous natural carbon cycle. (Perhaps that is still possible, if we hurry.) But to allow that to happen, we will first have to halve global emissions. One thing at a time!

The stakes have never been higher, but so far almost nothing is happening. When will people begin at last to reduce their footprints? If we fail to drastically reduce family sizes, flying, driving, and meat consumption, our grandchildren literally have no future. Anyone who disputes the basic truth of this argument, and by doing so gives others excuses not to change, is contributing to the future calamity over and above her or his personal emissions. Our words matter as much as our actions.

Political change: Bringing back democracy and honesty

It is essential, but not enough, to change our lifestyles. We must also strive for political and social change.

According to IPCC (special report 2018), humanity has until 2030 to roughly halve global emissions and until 2050 to eliminate them (net zero). If we don't achieve that, the probability will increase that global warming will take on a life of its own due to self-reinforcing feedbacks and humans will be powerless to stop it, even after all emissions stop. That is a very real possibility toward the end of the century and it could lead to human extinction in the following century, following a long period of unprecedented (and presently unimaginable) global turmoil, conflict, and suffering.

To achieve this, we need to convince powerful governments and corporations to make quite radical changes. How can that be done?

Each of us has many relationships with individuals and groups. We also have a relationship with humanity. Relationships are successful if partners seriously consider each other's needs. For that to work,

• partners should tell each other clearly what they want, focusing on the most important points;
• partners should take each other's requests seriously;
• the requests should be realistic; and 
• the requester should not expect or rely on a positive response.

Sound familiar? That is also how peace negotiations should work; and when two political parties need each other to create an absolute majority, that is how coalition negotiations should work.

In the following, I have tried to formulate briefly what I want from influential people such as politicians, corporation CEOs, and the very rich. All of these requests are urgent; the survival of everyone, including the rich, depends on them.

What I want from the rich and powerful

Value human life. Every human has the same inherent value, regardless of wealth, cultural background, skin color, gender, ability, and so on. The value of a child is equal to or greater than that of an adult because a child that dies loses more life-years. Protecting human life should be our top priority. That includes protecting the earth's complex systems that make human life possible. Therefore, ecocide should be part of national law, everywhere.

Stop the killing. Half of the world agrees that the death penalty is never justified. That's a great start. No-one should be killed for any reason. The only exceptions apply at the very start and the very end of life (legally and ethically controlled abortion and euthanasia). But many governments are still killing their own citizens. China and the USA should agree to end the death penalty, inspiring the world to follow suit. Their leaders could actually just do that. In addition, enormous numbers of people are being killed violently. Military "defence forces" should stick to true defence and peace keeping (for example, the defence of Ukraine from within Ukraine, or of Israel from within Israel). International arms trading should be universally banned. If you want peace, make peace. But the death penalty and the military are not the worst form of killing that is happening today. In terms of numbers of killed people, the worst by far is the killing of future people by carbon emissions. Every year, 10 billion tonnes of fossil carbon are burned, causing the premature deaths of roughly 10 million future people (more).

Recognize the urgency of the climate crisis. We are in the midst of the sixth mass extinction event. A million species are at risk, and one of them is Homo sapiens. The global climate system is approaching multiple tipping points, after which the damage will be irreversible. Enormous areas will become uninhabitable due to rising sea levels, unprecedented droughts, heat waves, forest fires, storms, and water/food shortages. The details may be hard to predict, but scientists agree about the general tendency and extreme urgency.

Stop premature deaths due to poverty and climate change. Poverty is a big killer: Roughly 20 million people die prematurely every year because they cannot afford food or medical care. Up to 10 million die yearly from effects of air pollution caused by burning fossil fuels. An additional ten million future people are  killed indirectly every year by current greenhouse gas emissions. Every 1000 tonnes of carbon burned today is causing a future premature death (more). The death rate due to violence during the Second World War was also about 10 million per year. Today, no one is intending to kill anyone with carbon emissions. Instead, there is an unprecedented rate of indirect, unintentional, mass killing. To stop it, emissions must be radically reduced and poverty alleviated globally. Not in 2050, not in ten years. Now! What are we waiting for? Alleviating poverty means many things, including closing tax havensand stopping the exploitation of developing countries by multinational corporations. The Sustainable Development Goals need much more financial support from rich countries. Most richer countries agreed long ago to contribute 0.7% GDP to international development aid and then failed to do that. Within countries, tax-welfare systems need to be reformed to alleviate poverty and reduce the wealth gap.

Reduce emissions and convert to sustainable energy as quickly as possible without causing additional deaths. In rich countries at least, reducing energy consumption is even more important than the conversion to sustainable energy. For example, houses should be energy-efficient and located not far from workplaces. Beyond that, all those currently working in the fossil fuel industry need new jobs, e.g. in sustainable energy; the world's richest people are in a good position to finance the transition. Governments can and should demand the finance. The transition should not cause power shortages that cause additional human deaths (e.g., hospitals should not run out of power). The main point is to minimize the number of preventable human deaths. We urgently need new leaders to motivate and organize this massive project. Ban all new fossil fuel projects and close down all existing ones. Tax flying, gradually increasing the tax until global emissions from flying start to fall steadily. Same for meat consumption. Alleviate poverty at the same time by returning part of the proceeds to the people ("fee and dividend"). Ban private jets, and ban any advertising that encourages people to burn large amounts of fossil fuels, e.g. ads for cars or distant holidays. Corporations, businesses, and universities should stop funding flying for any purpose and use electronic media instead. Those who fly should pay for their own tickets. Offsetting should be required by law. As respected places of independent learning and freedom of speech, universities should be leading the world out of this crisis (at the moment, up to one half of the carbon emissions of a university are from flying). Governments should be using proceeds from environmental taxes to build fast trains that criss-cross all continents, powered by electricity from sustainable sources, and to revive international and intercontinental commercial sailing, supported by solar-powered electric motors. They should be financing the end of deforestation and the reforestation of a billion hectares. They should be subsidizing the construction of carbon-neutral buildings, and radical improvements in public transport and bicycle infrastructure. All emissions sectors should have legally enforceable plans in place to halve emissions by 2025 and reach net zero by 2030; from a human rights perspective, anything else is too slow.

Restart democracy by reducing the wealth gap and eliminating poverty. Climate change may be largely caused by capitalism, but a communist revolution is not the answer -- the risk of massive violence and corruption is too great. We need to transform and tame capitalism. Democracy is being undermined, both globally and within countries, by the rising gap between rich and poor. It may be ok for the rich to have ten times the income or wealth of the poor, but not 100 or 1000 or even a million times. We need an agreement that roughly ten times is the limit, and the agreement must be inforced in the interest of human well-being and democracy.  One solution is wage transparency: all tax declarations in all countries should be published in the internet, to help reduce pay gaps (gender, "race") and tax evasion. Another form of transparency is a radically simplified tax-welfare system that eliminates poverty and reduces the wealth gap. We need more progressive taxes, those that are paid mainly by the rich (wealth taxes, environmental taxes, financial transaction taxes) in every country (internationally harmonized). We don't need regressive taxes that mainly affect the poor, such as consumption tax (value-added tax, VAT) on everyday non-luxury goods. People cannot contribute or adapt to massive social changes if they are preoccupied with making ends meet; for this and other reasons we need a universal, unconditional basic income that practically eliminates poverty. This is possible in an country by drawing a straight line through the current complex relationship between income before tax/welfare and income after tax/welfare (details here). Then and only then will it be appropriate to introduce and/or gradually increase carbon taxes. In the US, Bernie Sanders has shown that people will vote for changes of this kind if they are clearly explained.

Reduce population growth. While reducing or eliminating poverty is necessary for ethical and humanitarian reasons, and anyone who claims to be anti-racist can only agree, it is also the best way to reduce population growth in developing countries. That is essential to get climate change under control and reduce the magnitude of future humanitarian crises. African's population is currently expected to triple, reaching 4 billion by 2100, with unimaginably catastrophic consequences. We must reduce population growth while at the same time respecting human rights, especially the rights of women and children (no-one anywhere should be penalized for having children). Birth rates can be reduced by improving education (for girls and boys equally), standard of living, and public awareness. An unconditional basic income or pension can alleviate the fear of poverty in old age. Population growth must also be reduced in richer countries where individual carbon footprints are high. Regardless of socioeconomic status, there are two good reasons for not having children: they will not have a rosy future and they will further increase emissions. If you love children, don't have any.

Promote world federalism. We need an international parliament with legislative powers to regulate global affairs including global warming and wealth tax. That means all countries giving away part of their sovereignty in exchange for permanent security. Read about Einstein's political views here.

Consider the true selfish interests of the rich. For better or for worse, that is our only politically realistic option. Our world is also their world and their children's world. There is indeed no planet B, and no amount of money can change that. At the rate we are going, in a few decades civilization and global capitalism will be collapsing, wars (like hurricanes) will be getting more frequent and more serious, and money could become worthless. The rich will lose their quality of life. When the Titanic sank, rich and poor died together. Today, the rich can serve their own long-term interests by promoting political changes that reduce poverty and the wealth gap in exchange for a significant proportion of their wealth. Money can indeed buy love! Besides, some rich people realize how intrinsically unfair it is to inherit wealth or to create it by luck or exploitation, and are promoting wealth taxes. After the transition to a fairer distribution of wealth, the rich will still be rich. Wealth taxes will not change the pecking order. As more rich people realise this, regarding it is a new challenge to their entrepreneurial skills and their ability to "think big", more will join the global fight to save the global climate.

These are not radical demands. It is not "radical" to try to prevent mass suicide, generatiocide, or human extinction by the most reasonable and realistic means available.