Many conservatives (and a few leftists) continue to languish in Denial over man-made global warming. Denial is, of course, the first step in the "Five Stages of Receiving Catastrophic News," a psychological model developed by Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, often applied to death and dying.

I now wonder if, as a society, we aren't moving into the second phase: anger. As evidence, I look at the global warming finger- pointing that seems to have begun.

The Bush Administration blames China, now the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. China blames the United States, which emits over four times China's emissions per capita. Greenpeace blames Exxon, which in turn blames Kyoto. Al Gore is fingering the world's scientists for failure to speak out decisively during the nineties. (Meanwhile Gore himself presided over the largest growth ever in U.S. emissions.) The scientists blame the politicians for failing to take action. Right wingers blame environmentalists for opposing nuclear power in the seventies. Socialists blame capitalism. Libertarians blame government regulations and the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration ... calls for more study. You get the point.

Now imagine the blame game (and the law suits) that will begin when the economic and human costs can no longer be ignored. Imagine the blame game if we pass the threshold of runaway climate change, the point at which nothing we can do will save the habitability of the planet.

The blame game is not a worthless endeavor, (I blame first the Bush- Cheney-Rove triumvirate), but the blame is not equally shared. The rich nations have produced most--by far the most carbon dioxide cumulatively. Further, those decision-makers with their hands on the levers of power are surely more culpable than the children of the poor. We can't convincingly blame the "faceless humanity" of developing nations when many poor people produce emissions well within the planet's carbon budget.

As individuals in industrialized nations, we have a small share in the blame. We all need to reduce our carbon tire- and footprints, yet I think it is more important to analyze our socio-economic system and decide how we can best make a difference politically. Are we doing all we can during what Gore calls our "planetary emergency" to get governments to act? We only have a short window of opportunity, roughly 10 years (the gap between societal awareness and effective government action), to set in motion a process that would hopefully reduce carbon emissions by approximately 90% mid-century.

As we angrily point fingers at each other, new evidence has emerged: the effects of global warming may be much worse than the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports suggested. In a new study of the geological record, James Hansen asserts that the polar ice caps do not melt at a continuous rate, but flip suddenly to a new state. Rather than a sea level rise measured in centimeters by century's end, he says it will more likely be somewhere on the order of 25 meters, as the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets flow into the oceans and melt.

No wonder that Al Gore says we need a new global treaty by the end of 2009. Each passing year of inaction brings us closer to the probability of passing the tipping point (estimated at 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide) of unstoppable warming increases. (One hopes Gore may be setting himself up as the Global Warming Czar to negotiate such a treaty).

Nationally, all eyes are on the Democrats to see what sort of climate change legislation they will pass. If they fail us like they have failed us so far on an Iraq pull-out, then we are in deep trouble. Now is the time to contact Congress to pressure them to bold action.

If they don't act, new strategies will be called for. These could range from reform efforts, such as calling for public financing of elections (e.g. www.just6dollars.org) through direct action. Activist Ted Glick and others at ClimateEmergency.org are calling for a fast on September 4 if the Democrats do no pull through. Another group, NoWarNoWarming.org, is calling for nonviolent civil disobedience in DC on October 21.

The situation we are in unprecedented in human history. (The closest comparison may be the nuclear build up of the 1980s.) It's not just our community or our nation that is in danger, but the whole species.

Fully seven in ten Americans want Federal action on global warming, but people are reluctant to open their pocketbooks. (Understandably so, since wages have stagnated for three decades). The corporations that favor Cap-and-Trade regulations are likely to pass on increased costs to the consumer. This will make such policies unpopular with the public, and a right-wing populist backlash could easily derail these sorts of regulations. Writing in the American Prospect, (prospect.org), Peter Teague and Jeff Navin argue that, instead, we need to shift the debate from regulation to investment.

For the price of the Iraq War, a couple of trillion dollars, we could build a nationwide renewable energy grid based on wind, solar, geothermal and water power. For more, we could convert our city and town infrastructures to be people - rather than auto - oriented. We could link our cities with high-speed rail. We could largely rid ourselves of fossil fuels in a few decades--if we could only develop the political will. What will we tell our children we did during these years, if we don't?

Incidentally, the final stages in the Kubler-Ross model of grieving over catastrophic loss are bargaining, depression and acceptance. Let's hope we reach the bargaining stage soon. And finally, let's work together to ensure that we end up grieving only the loss of our fossil fuel lifestyles and not the death of our civilization.