The Logical and Foreseeable Consequences of Our Acts

What will the next 50 years hold, the next 20?

50 years ago really isn't that long, especially for anyone over 50. 50 years ago I rode a pretty quick Yamaha 350. I had time to take in Expo 67. I smoked Export A. Pea jackets, turtle neck sweaters, stove pipe jeans and really nice Italian made boots were my uniform when in season. Sometimes it seems like yesterday.

Now this quiz isn't for me but it may be for you if you're, say, 30ish.  How do you think you'll see 2017 in 2067 or 2050? What will you recall?

We're already getting a taste of what lies in store. Record-breaking cyclonic storms, hurricanes here or typhoons in Asia and elsewhere, of increasing frequency, duration and intensity. Sea level rise, saltwater inundation and retreat from the sea. Worsening floods and flash floods, droughts and flash droughts, tornadoes, lightning storms and wildfires that will dominate between rainy intervals, mudslides. Internally displaced populations, not in the Third World but in our own.

Burning the candle at the other end we're told to expect ever more population growth to 9 billion by 2030 and possibly 12 billion by 2050. Meanwhile, by 2030, barely a dozen years from now, it's claimed our "consumer class" will more than double from two billion to five billion.  Imagine five billion people wanting everything you've got - bigger and fancier houses, fine cars, consumer goods of every description, better food and more of it, travel and all the trappings of modern middle class life.

There you have it. Climate change compounded by overpopulation times over-consumption - cc X op X oc = ?  The only possible answer is a question mark. We are already, today, you and me, in uncharted waters. We can guess what's coming, what will give first but it's all speculation until it happens. And then what?

The fact is we're already being betrayed, sold down the river, and that's especially true for our grandchildren and theirs.  We know who's doing it. Sure, we all bear part of the blame but there's a world of difference between a myopic, disinterested and confused public and those who, for short-term gain, are knowingly engineering a dystopian future for our heirs and successors.

Criminal law is based on intent. With a few exceptions, "strict liability" offences, you can't be convicted without proof of the wrongful act plus proof of culpability, the "guilty mind."  Intent can be the tough part. You have to get into the accused's mind. Chances are he'll say, "I never meant to kill him, it was an accident." To deal with that there's the principle of deemed intent. You are deemed to intend the logical and foreseeable consequences of your wrongful act.

We're fast approaching a point of clarity where the consequences of climate change compounded by overpopulation and over-consumption are becoming both logical and foreseeable. That's when man-made climate change enters the criminal realm. It's when "natural catastrophe" morphs into man-made or man-triggered natural catastrophe. Yes, you didn't put that keg of gunpowder under the campfire but you knew it was there when you lit the firewood. You knew what the logical and foreseeable consequence of that would be when the kids gathered round to toast their marshmallows.

I don't think the future is very bright from those who today ruin the future of generations to come. They might find themselves standing trial for crimes against humanity as some now suggest. Maybe, possibly. They might have more to fear from uprisings of the same people they so irresponsibly exploit today.

When our circumstances become sufficiently dire we will likely see these people, those who have thwarted effective action against climate change, for what they are, enemies. That goes beyond the Barons of Big Oil, Gas and Coal.  At some point you may just see the politician you support today in a much different light.

I'll wrap this up with mention of a few interesting pieces from The Guardian:

John Gibbons explores how those who drive climate denial often seek to preserve the status quo that made them rich.

Graham Readfern discusses how Australian climate deniers are overwhelming their Bureau of Meteorology.

AC Grayling writes that we need to make democracy work if we're to have any hope of dealing with climate change.