History usually unfolds as surprises. The two World Wars that haunted the 20th century arrived as the tragic culmination of circumstances which we never quite expected to escalate into chaos. At some point in the accumulation of contributing factors, however, the colliding forces seemed to reach a momentum of inevitability. Then a spark ignited a complexity of explosives and the fighting began.

We are close to this ignition point for World War III. And in keeping with history's surprises, this impending conflict will be humanity's struggle with its own intentions, ambitions and character. The planet's deteriorating environmental conditions are just the explosives we have been setting during the past few centuries. Whether or not we have reached the point of inevitability is still moot. But the evidence is overwhelming that we must make radical changes to our behaviour if we are to move into the next century with a modicum of optimism.

In defining just the single explosive of global warming, the International Energy Agency in a report to the United Nations recommended that this is what we must do to reach a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050: build and have operating by 2013 the equivalent of 30 new nuclear power plants, 17,000 wind turbines, 400 biomass power plants, 2 hydro-electric projects the size of China's Three Gorges dam, and 42 natural gas plants with carbon capture (Maclean's Ap.7/08).

And if this isn't daunting enough, we must repeat this feat every year from 2013 to 2030. If we don't meet this challenge, given present rates of emission, carbon dioxide increases from burning fossil fuels will double in 21 years rather than the 53 years as previously predicted by UN studies (Ibid.). And, if this were not enough to bring us to a war footing, many climatologists believe we must achieve an 80-90% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050.

The costs will be huge. But the calculations of economists indicate that just a small carbon tax in developed nations could raise vast sums which could be used for employing and developing non-polluting energy systems The United States could easily raise $80 billion annually. The Manhattan Project that developed the atom bomb to help end World War II and the Apollo Project that got Americans to the moon were accomplished by just such a single-minded focus and effort.

A more dramatic example of such capabilities is provided Lester R. Brown of the Earth Policy Institute. In the last chapter of his revised book, Plan B — Plan A is the environmentally irresponsible way we have been doing things — Brown describes the accomplishments of the United States when it moved its economy and industrial capabilities from peacetime to wartime goals to fight World War II (see Watershed Sentinel, Jan/Feb '08).

On January 6, 1942, a month after the bombing of Pearl Harbour by the Japanese, America's President Roosevelt pledged that his country would produce 45,000 tanks, 60,000 airplanes, 20,000 anti-aircraft guns and 6 million tons of merchant shipping for the war effort. Roosevelt declared the automotive industry would be a key part of this marshalling of production. The sale of new cars was banned, as was driving for pleasure. No new roads would be constructed. Strategic goods would be rationed. And the country's entire industrial might would be focused on military objectives.

In citing from No Ordinary Time by Doris Kearns, Brown describes how a sparkplug factory began making machine guns, a stove manufacturer was fabricating lifeboats, a toy maker was producing compasses, a corset company was sewing grenade belts, and a pinball machine plant was fashioning armour-piercing shells. Between 1942 and 1944, according to Brown, the US war effort met or exceeded all its production goals. Instead of 60,000 airplanes, it built a remarkable 229,600. And 5,000 additional ships were added to its merchant marine fleet of 1,000. The Axis powers of Japan, Germany and Italy were simply overwhelmed by the scale of production and the mobilization of people and energy.

The invasion of Poland and the bombing of Pearl Harbour were the igniting sparks that may not have exact equivalents in today's circumstances. But we can draw troubling parallels between the rise of fascism in the 1930s and the plethora of bad environmental news that keeps coming at us from so many sources. Rising sea levels, extreme weather, water shortages, species loss, food production problems, desertification, population stresses, and millions of environmental refugees are all harbingers of trouble that could become far more serious and persistent than any world war.

A war against the pervasive and implacable forces of nature, if made hostile by our abuses and provocations, will keep us in combat for centuries — if it's a struggle we can even win. Should our narrow and self-centred interests incite a generous and bountiful ecosystem to become a disturbed and belligerent enemy, then we will have created an opponent that will be formidable and pitiless.

History's surprise is that we have been pushing nature to the edge of its tolerance. Before its forces respond with the explosions of open hostility, we must negotiate a peace. And we do this by summoning all the resources of war against our own behaviour. Until we change our individual selves, our collective character and our predilection for excesses, we will never be able to comply with nature's laws of limits.