Dear Ms. Schwartz,
I've exposed the war framing in print for more than 10 years. So while I really appreciate you doing likewise, and suggesting a more nurturing relationship with the great Mother Nature, I would have to challenge your frame here:
"The vocabulary of war pervades in part since it reflects how we see the world. We learn it’s a dog-eat-dog world, a zero-sum game in which only the strongest survive—so it’s imperative to “destroy” enemies and “vanquish” rivals. Darwin’s take-home message has been that competition drives evolution. However, recent research suggests that symbiosis—shared beneficial relationships—is even more important in providing the opportunity and impetus to evolve."
This idea that WE see the world through a war frame is not accurate. What it does is reflect the world as seen through the Mars Rules prism.
It's a frame that has been IMPOSED by the dominant culture in its wish to dominate everything.
This dominator mode, explained at length with wisdom and depth by Riane Eisler (in "The Chalice and the Blade") is the cornerstone of patriarchy.
There are some writers who explain the intersection between how women are treated in most nations and how (mother) nature is treated.
The reason why Mr. McKibben for all his significant good intentions fell into the War frame--as means to fight climate change is due to the prevalence of the Mars Rules mindset.. It is imposed and taught in academic fields and pushed throughout the MSM. It is also that which is preferred by the capitalists who have essentially declared war on nature and all Native peoples by financial means and the MIC, itself which reverts to that old habit of brute force.