In my previous posting on how Vatican policies cause Global Warming, I touched on a problem with the efforts to fight climate change so far. The only ones getting any traction so far are politically safe, market-oriented ones that don't threaten established interests and ideologies. With all sorts of bizarre and dangerous weather all over the world, it is becoming obvious that we will have to change the way our societies do business in far more controversial and uncomfortable ways (at least for the wealthy and the right wing).

Peak Oil people often mention that we won't be able to economically ship items long distances if we run low on petroleum, and then they point out the differences in economic practices that would result.

There is a pressing question that all of us should be asking. Can we afford to wait until petroleum starts running out before we stop relying so heavily on long-distance trade?

Corporate-controlled trade deals are bad for the environment in lots of ways because they are written to let corporations despoil the environment. But, there is a more pressing issue. Shipping goods over oceans and over long distances on land puts a lot of unnecessary CO2 in the air at a time when we need to cut back drastically.

If politicians are really serious about fighting Global Warming, they will need to work to repeal corporate trade deals such as NAFTA, withdraw from the World Trade Organization, and put huge tariffs on products from the old world. "Made in China" will end up flooding much of China at the rate we are going.

However, that is only the first step. In addition to emissions caps, there need to be local manufacturing targets so that the average shipping distance of products consumers purchase is limited and gradually decreased.

"Free trade" has a quasi-religious following among so many on the right, but the planet just cannot sustain the damage and sustain decent lives for the people who live on it. Reality, at some point, needs to triumph over ideology.