It is no exaggeration to say that we are facing the largest human crisis since at least the nuclear arms race. Of course, instead of building up nuclear warheads, we are building up carbon dioxide.

But because global warming is a slow, drawn out affair, we are the proverbial sedentary frog in the warming pot. We are programmed to respond to immediate, physical needs and threats. Future-planning, race issues aside, is not our strong point (as Jared Diamond warned us in Collapse).

But the global warming crisis is linked with another that will influence solutions: resource depletion on a small planet. How we react to such crises will determine whether the Earth will be able to support large numbers of our species.

These crises won't be solved by any particular strategy or agreements between nations. They won't be solved by moderate lifestyle changes among the peoples of the wealthy nations. They won't be solved by changes in human consciousness that prioritize conflict resolution over militarism. They won't even be solved by new cooperative economic arrangements that minimize greed and over-consumption.

If we are to survive in anything like the current numbers we will need all of these things to happen and more.

The chances of even one or two of these partial solutions happening is small. But for all of them to happen is surely utopian thinking of the most deluded kind. Yet the biggest utopian illusion of all is that there is no real problem at all, that the market and the status quo will solve everything. It's much easier to bury our heads in the sand than to contemplate the challenges that lie ahead.

But things will have to change, and change relatively soon. In a matter of decades.

First, according to James Hansen, probably the most respected scientist on global climate change, we have 10 years to come up with and start enacting a comprehensive plan to cut carbon emissions by substantial amounts, say 70 percent. Given the power and reach of Big Oil and Coal, how likely is this to happen? Yes, the new Congress will pass some cosmetic legislation. But given what happened to Jimmy Carter in the '70s, what president would dare tell the American people the cheap-oil American Dream is going to end?

Secondly, resource depletion is raising its ugly head in terms of Peak Oil and Gas. The exact dates of the half-way points of extraction don't matter. (Conventional oil, the easy-to-get stuff, could already have peaked.) What matters more is their inevitability and the lack of feasible alternatives. Once those peaks hit, decline rates will start at (conservatively) two percent per year.

If we try to replace the oil and gas with coal we will fry the planet. The lag time to build new nuclear plants is over a decade (even if they could be financed). Wind and solar currently make up less than one percent of our energy budget. Only a war-time effort could double that percentage each year when the shortfall starts to appear.

That energy gap will be felt in escalating fuel prices and electricity blackouts. That in turn threatens the whole global economic system which traditionally goes into recession after an oil spike. Only an international agreement, such as an Oil Depletion Protocol, could distribute the remaining oil equitably.

This new post-Cold-War period is dubbed the Post-Abundance era by respected political scientist Michael Klare. It is a time of heightened international tensions with increasing probabilities of more resource wars, the two Gulf Wars perhaps being preludes to larger conflicts. What do you think the American people will demand of Venezuela or Nigeria or Iran once the lights go out, given the venal exploitation of xenophobia by politicians?

Finally, let's say by some miracle "green capitalism" saves us. A new renewable energy bonanza staves off the worst of global warming and peak oil. The global economy rebounds. A new international order brokers agreements that divide up the remaining energy and mineral resources of the planet equitably. Well, that economic system is still driven by growth that churns natural resources into objects that are made desirable by advertising and marketing forces.

Does anyone think that such a system is sustainable given that the peaks in oil and gas will be followed (or preceded) by peaks in metals like copper and uranium, agricultural water, fertilizer and grains, and so on? How much topsoil or rainforest do you think will be left in a century? How about commercial fisheries, which were recently projected to collapse by mid-century?

Only about 20 percent of the world lives at first-world material levels. Don't those other five billion people want our lifestyles? What about the three billion more people projected by mid-century? Yet free market fundamentalism and neo-liberalism are apparently the only options open to both Democrats and Republicans, given the overseas profit demands of the major corporations who finance the campaigns of both parties.

Anyone could argue over the above analysis. There may be unexpected innovations. A way to sequester carbon dioxide from coal plants not located next to stable geological sinks could give us decades of secure electricity. Nuclear fusion (still at least 30 years off) could radically challenge the expectation of an energy-poor future. But to build our future around hopes and wishes alone is surely foolhardy.

Simply put, the overall outlook is not good. I don't think there are any "unitary" solutions or strategies that will save us. They are beyond any new political party or leaders or ideology. But I don't despair either. History is on our side. There is always the hope that people will rise to the challenges, not wholly or without losses, but with enough creativity to make life endurable, indeed more meaningful. I'm actually fairly optimistic that people will respond appropriately if the situation is made clear to them and solutions co-constructed. We must deepen our notion of what democracy is--an idea that Alberto Gonzales might find as quaint as preserving human rights. Most of us, myself included, are not yet even trying with anything like the required effort.

Here are three crucial, interlinked areas where individuals could make a big difference by researching and organizing around: global warming, resource depletion, and sustainable economics.

We are at the beginning of fashioning a new paradigm in organizing human affairs, and laying the groundwork for the movements that must follow. Can we convert our military-industrial complex to a renewable-energy-industrial complex? How do we design and push for a real sustainable global economy?

If we don't, it's possibly goodbye to millions, even billions of people. Save the whales? Yes! But save the humans, too!