Home | About | Donate

Going to War on Climate Change

Going to War on Climate Change

John Halle

With the federal government currently flooring the accelerator on the road toward the climate precipice, it is somewhat comforting to know that a likely majority believes in “avoid(ing) the apocalyptic future” by requiring a shift to renewable energy sources. At least, that is what Kate Aronoff, writing in The Intercept, suggests is the case.

Didn’t read all of this as yet –

but please … NO WAR on Global Warming

Our history shows that it doesn’t have to be that way: fighting Hitler wasn’t a service to private corporations, it served a public united in its revulsion for fascism. Furthermore, doing so required a massive, centrally planned effort. No one raised questions about the cost of protecting ourselves when President Roosevelt appeared before congress on December 8, 1941. The same should apply to the massive investment which fighting climate change requires now.

and just a reminder that THIS IS a war on fascism – against the fascism of Elite-Patriarchy and its
“Christian”/Capitalism which is fascism and its exploitation of Nature which has created Global Warming.

Stamp out the “Christian” myths of “Manifest Destiny” and “Man’s Dominion Over Nature”
which underpin Elite/Patriarchy and Capitalism and which have served as the licenses which have given permission to Elites to exploit Nature, Animal-Life and our nation’s Natural Resources . . .

and other human beings according to various myths of "inferiority."


Jimmy Carter pushed renewables with his “the moral equivalent of war” speech in an appeal to the “good” sense of the American people. The right wingers laughed at this concept then and still ridicule it. Their mantra is Sarah Palin’s “drill baby drill” comment.

We do need a WWII type of effort to avoid catastrophic climate change at this point of time but it obviously is not going to happen and it is probably a waste of time even to mention it. We are making slow incremental steady progress and that is where our efforts should be directed. Politically it is the best we can do and we need to get involved. In many countries the main action is at the federal level but in the US it is at the state and local levels. People who want to contribute need to push things faster at those levels. There is a lot going on and what actions need to be taken seem almost endless. On thing to keep in mind is that transportation is now the biggest source of emissions in the US and in the suburbs in almost any local community transportation will be the biggest source of emissions. In cities it is more likely to be buildings. We can’t wait for a warlike effort that is not going to happen. We must take action now.

There are fairly specific reasons that we can identify that government will not move to correct climate change and other related ecological problems in a big way until the problem has advanced to large-scale and immediate lethality. Any plan that citizens make ought to take these into account:

  • The central reason that ecologies get destroyed is extraction: energy that goes into a given system is not recycled to productive elements, but taken from the system
  • Capitalism and profit-loss ROI calculations are decision-making constructs that maximize extraction and externality (which is almost universally extractive).
  • Western and especially US government policy is now mostly determined by the highest bidder, the only significant counterweight being the need to maintain a cooperative work force among abused populations
  • US policy reflects extractive practice across the board, resulting in something approaching a worst possible ecological practice because the juggernaut is prepared to keep itself alive by swallowing otherwise better-adapted systems. A more immediately destructive system might end itself sooner.
  • Insight among the wealthy accomplishes little because they compete at extraction to maintain their artificial power, and are thereby empowered according to their tendency to destroy
  • In general, such an orientation makes sense to wealthy and militarists because the Hobbesian notion of a human life that is naturally “brutish and short” is flattering to those who extract, for much the same reason that my father insisted that the fish that I left flopping on a bank had felt no discomfort.

To sharpen the point a bit, US policy now involves large energy expenses to maintain a military to command and control at even larger energy expense global energy reserves that are to be extracted and depleted–oil, gas, uranium, and other mineral deposits. The depletion of these goes to continue a hegemony to some presumably bitter end. The largest lobbying groups are financiers and druggists and others more directly related to energy, with the food monopoly and toxicity efforts around Monsanto and Nestle coming just a bit behind.

“Related to energy” includes arms, of course.

The plan, then, as determined by coherent consistency with action–however implicit or explicit it is for any given person, whatever parts individual participants agree with or understand or sign off on, however various groups or individuals view it–has to be to use various populations foreign and domestic while we are useful, and to sacrifice us in one way or another when we are not.

The wealthy will not drop this readily. They see their continued hegemony as proof of the efficacy of their plans, and they see the suffering of others as all the more reason that they cannot vary from course, lest they be treated similarly.

This leaves us with a need for direct action by individuals, churches, NGO’s, and townships that have no immediate military needs.

Heartily agree with article, but for item.

I doubt most people realize that slowing climate change means significant sacrifice. Much more than putting solar panels on buildings will be involved. The middle class will have to forego air travel , car and much long distant commuting .

New homes would be strictly regulated. Food changed. Taxes, carbon and income, imposed to rebuild America to survive drought, flood and possible disruptions in access to world markets…

A real issue is whether in 2018, an alleged democracy can impose national change like America did during the world war.

Doubtful. And likely tragic.

A national effort is absolutely necessary and a major justification to remove the republican party control over Congress this year and lose the White House in 2020. This is a Civil War to free wage-slaves from their cruelly inhuman corporate masters.

Going to war on climate change needs to begin by eliminating the biggest user of fossil fuels: war. Shut down all war factories. Abandon all warships, all warplanes, disband all military units.
The rest will be easier: shut down all coal and other fossil fuel power plants, stop producing cement (sorry no nuclear plants or wind or hydopower. All are big cement users). Stop all civilian use of fossil fuels (Since a lot of that is for agriculture and moving food around, population is going to have to come down which it has to anyway). No more tree cutting also means zero population growth which includes no more people moving around, i.e., no more migrating. A lot of so called “liberal” views are incompatible with science, i.e. nature. Nature bars last but nature always wins the war of not individual skirmishes.

If you want to see the upcoming climate leader just look to China.

A late edit: A national effort is absolutely necessary and a major justification to remove the republican party control over Congress this year and for the democratic party to win the White House in 2020. Third party devotees should align their members with either the two major political parties yet produce a democratic party landslide. This is a Civil War to free wage-slaves from their cruelly inhuman corporate masters.
The South shall fall again and rebuild a better world.

So true because beliefs create behaviours…the fastest way to change anything is to change what you believe about it .

Our old beliefs about what God wants and needs such as having Dominion over the Earth have been interpreted as to mean Domination and to treat nature as the enemy .Ths is the God of yesterday having nothing to do with ultimate reality .
The New Spirituality and Tomorrows God arrives at a different understanding everything is connected …life is prime value the oneness of life will be understood by all. So this creates a new world where it would be impossible to harm or hurt anything .
Our Mother Earth :earth_asia: supports and sustains all life on this planet a living system .

1 Like

Oh Hell, just for the irony: “Amen, Brother.”

1 Like