In the event that the risks and dangers of global climate change escape you even now, or someone that you know even as we see the impacts the world over, allow me to make a humble suggestion for an activity you can pursue in three months.

It is notoriously difficult to bring the world together to achieve anything as one. If you scoff, consider what singular act the world has taken that brought together every nation on this planet.  By most counts, there are 196 countries.  Those are 196 competing interests.  Those are 196 different leaders, with different world views and different perspectives.  Those are 196 different cultures and governments and geographical locations.  Those are 196 reasons for things to never be achieved as one.

Too many envision the world as one large pie. For anyone to have anything, it must take from others.  This is true, if one conceives of the world as a pie with finite boundaries and limits.  This problem is the underlying issue for international conflicts on the proper response, if any, to climate change.

Consider, for instance, ‘developing nations.’ We, as Americans, are in a very privileged position.  We have had the benefit of centuries and generations of improvements and technological advancements, as have many other countries.  In sixty-six years, the United States went from the first human flight (1903) to landing on the moon (1969).

It’s easy for us to contemplate that period of time in an academic sense, because that’s all we’ve ever known it as. Many of us only know of the Wright Brothers and the moon landing from school lessons.  We didn’t experience it, live it in the moment.  Imagine the awe, the absolute awe of someone who was alive before 1903 and after 1969.  The world changed dramatically and permanently.  It’s something worth pausing and considering.

In any event, while the United States and many other countries have flourished with relative wealth and technological advancement, other countries have not. And, those with larger populations are now pushing themselves to become ‘powers’ in the world, to get their piece of the pie.  They are termed ‘developing nations,’ and in order to reach the level of the United States and other ‘developed’ nations, they necessarily must follow the same path.

It might be uncomfortable to admit, but our advancement was driven by what we would now call ‘dirty’ power. Coal, oil, gas, fossil fuels.  The 1700’s were a vastly different time for the United States, but as technology progressed, especially steam power, energy needs had to adapt.  Whale oil and wood were no longer satisfactory.  To drive industry, to drive manufacturing, to drive electricity production, better sources of energy were needed.  And while those sources darkened the skies, and caked streets and plains with soot, grime, and slicks, we pushed ever forward, on and on.  Even to this day, we deal with the environmental impacts of our push for progress generations ago.  Even to this day, the impact of our advancement lingers in the global environment.

Not just us. Other countries too, but we shoulder a good portion of the blame.

Now other nations, like India and China, want to reach the level of other countries like the United States. However, their path to that advancement is a well-trod path that was forged by us: ‘Dirty’ energy, fossil fuels.  It is cheap, it is freely available, and it is effective.  With the current international mood toward nuclear power and the fear of nuclear weapons, countries with massive populations like India and China cannot yet rely on other ‘clean’ energy options or renewable energy.  They need massive amounts of power, now, quickly.

When the United States and other developed nations point out the dangers of using these fossil fuels, the developing nations, justifiably, point the finger at us. Who are we to say that such sources should not be used?  It is easy for us to say ‘no,’ since we have reached a point where we can feasibly live without those sources, or use them sparingly.  We have taken our piece of the pie, and now we refuse to let them have theirs.  We reaped the benefit, and now keep it from them.

The argument has merit, and is something that the United States government and other developed nations must grapple with whenever trying to bring the world together to combat climate change. This isn’t one small county out of the 196 voicing disagreement.  These are countries of millions and billions of our planet’s citizens voicing disagreement.  It is no easy thing to bring them together.  Concessions will undoubtedly have to be made.  Assistance will have to be provided across the board.  Diplomacy will have to ride high over a tide of competing interests.

The Obama administration achieved some success with the Paris Climate Accord, where 195 nations did come together to agree to fight climate change, and to agree to limit and decrease fossil fuel emissions. This was a huge, unprecedented success.  And even so, it fell short in a number of ways.

However, the most important aspect of the Accord is this: Countries came together and agreed.  One-hundred and ninety-five countries.  Mind boggling.

However, the success of the Accord depends largely on the promises made by the countries involved. The United States made many of those promises, and ever since the dissolution of the USSR, whether they want to or not, much of the world looks to the United States to lead.  The success of the United States will determine the effectiveness of the Accord.  The failure of the United States will likely doom the Accord.

To his credit, President Obama has made great efforts through his administration to combat climate change and limit emissions, almost exclusively though the executive branch of our government and federal agencies. There are a few risks involved with such a strategy.  The first is that a new president, of a different mind, could reject any changes and efforts of President Obama, because those acts were contained almost exclusively within the executive branch.  Another risk is that the Congress could pass laws countermanding the President’s attempts.  The third, and greatest, risk is that a conservative Supreme Court of the United States could strike down any attempt for any reason they deem fit.

Really let this information sink in.

Almost the entire world can come together and agree to do something, an agreement more delicate the a flower petal, and the whole world can look to the United States to hold up their end before they hold their own, and five justices on the Supreme Court could bring it all to ruin. Five human, flawed people could bring ruin not just to the agreement, but to the world.

For if the United States fails to uphold its part of the bargain, what incentive is there for other countries to do the same? This is just like the United States, trying to hold onto their piece of the pie while we must give up ours!  Trust is a precious jewel in diplomacy.  Without trust, there can be no real action.  And if the world cannot trust the United States to keep to their word, who else will keep to theirs?

And, the Accord having been ruined in this way, what will bring all these countries together again? They shall have the bitter memory of the previous attempt washing around in their mouth like horribly aged vinegar.  All that effort, all the promises, all the hopes and wishes, all the trust, was for nothing.

Who can trust in any new agreement?

So we come now to my humble suggestion.

The Senate has now waited 142 days to take up debate on the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court of the United States. By all accounts, Judge Garland is a fair man, with a true appreciation for the law and the ways it should be used.  He is neither wholly conservative, nor wholly liberal.  But indications are that he would likely be favorably disposed to issues of climate change, and executive attempts to curtail the impacts of climate change.

The United States Senate, for an absurd reason that has no basis in history or reason, refuses to even debate his nomination and, with the outlandish claim that President Obama is a ‘lame duck’ President with a year left to his administration, refuse to consider Judge Garland until a new President is elected.

The Supreme Court now stands divided ideologically, 4-4.

Let the weight of those numbers settle on your shoulders like a heavy blanket. 4-4.  A number on one side or the other would not simply impact our government, but the entire world.  How could it not?  Any attempt to combat climate change in the United States government will be challenged by groups with financial and moneyed interests in opposition.  If a challenge is brought, one number is all that stands in the way of ruin.

Put aside all the other internal conflicts within our United States, all the debates about this or that that impacts only us, as citizens. Consider only the impact on the world, for surely and undoubtedly is this an issue for the citizens of the planet, and not just the United States.

One number. 5-4, or 4-5.

And so, three months from now, when it comes time for you to execute your solemn duty as a citizen to select your new executive leader, think on this. To which end shall the balance tilt?  Toward risking the world, or helping it?

The following is no longer a partisan party issue.  It’s become an American issue.

If you’re at all, in the slightest concerned about nuclear weapons and Donald Trump, read the following: http://storify.com/…/john-noonan-on-nuclear-deterrence-and-…

This should give every reasonable person pause.

If recent claims of Trump and nuclear weapons prove true, truly be concerned. Even if they prove false, consider the temperament of the man in relation to all those who came before him.  Allegedly, he asked repeatedly why he could not use nuclear weapons. Call me a madman if you must, but I would think the preferred question should at the very least instead be “Why should I use nuclear weapons?”, not “Why can’t I?”

As of 2014, I believe the largest yield nuclear weapon the USA has is 1.4 megatons. 1 megaton = 1,000,000 tons of TNT. That’s 2,000,000,000, or two billion, pounds of TNT. You could therefore explode a pound of that equivalent TNT every minute for two thousand years and still have about half the yield left over, if not more. You could blow up a modestly sized car every minute back to the time of Jesus Christ with the power of JUST ONE nuclear weapon.

This is the ungodly power we have given ourselves, like a wayward Prometheus.

But since there are no gods to bind us for all eternity as punishment nor a godly voice to chastise us, we must bind ourselves, limit ourselves, in the use of such awesome power. How can we do otherwise?  Through our intellect, we have come to the point in our technological development that we can recreate the conditions of a star on the surface of our planet, all for destructive purposes.  Zeus can retain his lightning bolt, and Thor his hammer.  Even the biblical God needed days of rain to flood the world, and could only focus his destructive might on a small city to raze it to the ground.  Witness what power we now have, and to what use we can put it!

It is unfortunate that these weapons exist. But though we can destroy the world, we still cannot traverse the space between points of time, and so we cannot rid ourselves of the idea of these weapons, nor the technology developed from those first ideas.  However, we must make sure that we do not rain down destruction on ourselves. The power of gods exists at the touch of a phone and a turn of a key. We are the Destroyers of Worlds, and fate just stalks our every step to see if we slip.  And slip, one day, we may.

Now, a candidate for President, who is baited by people left and right, who responds astonishingly strongly to any criticism no matter how slight, who is considering abandoning alliances established to push back against the desires of Strong Men, may be wondering why he cannot use these weapons.

For longer than I can even contemplate, the awesome power of the lightning bolt has struck terror into humans, before the nature of lightning was fully comprehended.  A blast of power from the sky that can destroy, burn, perhaps even explode!  It will strike you dead!  And from whence does it come?  The random destruction wrought by the lightning bolt could most often be laid at the feet of a god with little care for the affairs of men, quick to anger, quicker to destroy.

Now we are armed with a power greater than lightning bolts.  And, instead of a heartless god, we have a presidential candidate who contemplates raining down nuclear weapons on a whim.

No person should ever want to use nuclear weapons so cavalierly. Think about what groups in this world do want to use these weapons so cavalierly, and feel that cold shiver down your spine.  They are not peacemakers.  They are not great lovers of humanity.  They wish only to destroy, to kill, to instill fear the world over.  What other sort of human could, with relish, consider the use of these horrible weapons?

Say what you will about former presidential candidates John McCain and Mitt Romney, former Presidents George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, or current President Barack Obama, or current presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, I never was actually terrified of the idea of them having access to nuclear weapons.  At the very least, they understood that nuclear weapons were neither a privilege nor a gift, but a horrible, horrible responsibility.

The launch of nuclear weapons is largely determined by one person: The President.

Will you entrust the power of gods to the hands of Trump?  Is that what we have come to?

Think on it.

There is a degree of religious belief to the founding of the United States.

We often recall the writings, exploits, successes, failures, and achievements of our American Founding Fathers, with the same degree of affection as the Romans had toward their own founding.  Miraculous.  Ordained.  The singular highest pinnacle of human society.

The truth of our founding is more muddied, in truth.  What began as a protest against a mostly reasonable tax on sugar (which in truth was a tax break; merchants had not been collecting the 6 cent tax because they were taking a 1-2 cent bribe and the crown instituted a new 3 cent tax to replace the 6 cent tax with more enforcement to actually have it collected) grew and grew until conflict was inevitable.  There were as many failures as there were successes.  Our original point of origin, the Articles of Confederation, is an uncomfortable part of our history.  Our United States Constitution takes the place of a near-sacred document, with most of us ignorant of the many compromises underlying it, and the actual intent of those who wrote it.

The risk in believing in a near-miraculous founding is that what is ordained by a higher power, what is established by saint-like human figures, must surely survive any assault upon its existence.  If it was purely of human design, of course it would be a frail, delicate thing with many flaws.  But if it was of a greater design, with a greater purpose?  Well, until that purpose is realized, it cannot break.

This concept or belief is, unfortunately, foolish and misguided.

Our nation is a flawed nation, built by flawed men and women, fostered by flawed men and women, and led today by flawed men and women.  There is no perfection to be found here.  There are no Halcyon days.

Much like the planet we reside upon, which every day finds new ways of trying to eliminate humans with temperature, weather, disease, and the like, every day our flawed nation is at risk of attack and destruction.  By our own hands.

There was a dream of what the United States could be.  We have pushed toward that dream, that ideal, for generations.  Pushing further and further, improving bit by bit, struggle by struggle.  We are a better nation today than we were fifty or a hundred or a hundred-and-fifty years ago.  More people are free.  More people are equal.  More people live better and longer lives.

But like the tale of Achilles in the race with the rabbit, we will always have to fight, to struggle, to improve our country, and even then we will never get there.  Like the muscles of your body, without effort and exertion, our improvements and cultural gains shall whither and disappear, and our long, hard struggle will only become longer, and harder.

So that is why I am here.  We do have a heritage, sacred or not, to uphold.  We must resist what may erode what we have become over the centuries.

We will persevere.