Aug 16, 2016

War Has Already Begun - Will We Fight Back?



We must elect Hillary Clinton in the first battle against Climate Change — and we must demand that she does these things ASAP:  READ McKIBBEN’S ARTICLE IN FULL HERE 
The next president doesn’t have to wait for a climate equivalent of Pearl Harbor to galvanize Congress. Much of what we need to do can—and must—be accomplished immediately, through the same use of executive action that FDR relied on to lay the groundwork for a wider mobilization. The president could immediately put a halt to drilling and mining on public lands and waters, which contain at least half of all the untapped carbon left in America. She could slow the build-out of the natural gas system simply by correcting the outmoded way the EPA calculates the warming effect of methane, just as Obama reined in coal-fired power plants. She could tell her various commissioners to put a stop to the federal practice of rubber-stamping new fossil fuel projects, rejecting those that would “significantly exacerbate” global warming. She could instruct every federal agency to buy all their power from green sources and rely exclusively on plug-in cars, creating new markets overnight. She could set a price on carbon for her agencies to follow internally, even without the congressional action that probably won’t be forthcoming. And just as FDR brought in experts from the private sector to plan for the defense build-out, she could get the blueprints for a full-scale climate mobilization in place even as she rallies the political will to make them plausible. Without the same urgency and foresight displayed by FDR—without immediate executive action—we will lose this war.
Bill McKibben lays down the gauntlet — WWIII has already begun and we must heed the call to arms before it is too late. We may not be able to stop the carbon assault short of losing our coastal cities much as the Allies were unable to stop Hitler until after he absorbed continental Europe and bombed London into rubble. 
For years, our leaders chose to ignore the warnings of our best scientists and top military strategists. Global warming, they told us, was beginning a stealth campaign that would lay waste to vast stretches of the planet, uprooting and killing millions of innocent civilians. But instead of paying heed and taking obvious precautions, we chose to strengthen the enemy with our endless combustion; a billion explosions of a billion pistons inside a billion cylinders have fueled a global threat as lethal as the mushroom-shaped nuclear explosions we long feared. Carbon and methane now represent the deadliest enemy of all time, the first force fully capable of harrying, scattering, and impoverishing our entire civilization.
CONTINUED BELOW


It's not that global warming is like a world war. It is a world war. And we are losing. Our Climate Change aware leaders are not unlike Neville Chamberlain attempting to piecemeal appease the world’s largest weapon supplier to the carbon warming enemy — The Fossil Fuel Industry. Make no mistake these War Criminals and their owned sycophants in Congress are traitors to humanity.  Their greed is unimpeded by all the considerable evidence of science outlined in my previous: SLEEPWALKING TOWARD OBLIVION diary this week 

We're used to war as metaphor: the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on cancer. Usually this is just a rhetorical device, a way of saying, "We need to focus our attention and marshal our forces to fix something we don't like." But this is no metaphor. By most of the ways we measure wars, climate change is the real deal: Carbon and methane are seizing physical territory, sowing havoc and panic, racking up casualties, and even destabilizing governments. (Over the past few years, record-setting droughts have helped undermine the brutal strongman of Syria and fuel the rise of Boko Haram in Nigeria.) It's not that global warming is like a world war. It is a world war. Its first victims, ironically, are those who have done the least to cause the crisis. But it's a world war aimed at us all. And if we lose, we will be as decimated and helpless as the losers in every conflict--except that this time, there will be no winners, and no end to the planetwide occupation that follows.
The mobilization required to defeat the enemy in the war on carbon emissions would be great for Americans on many fronts including better job creation: 
For starters, it’s important to remember that a truly global mobilization to defeat climate change wouldn’t wreck our economy or throw coal miners out of work. Quite the contrary: Gearing up to stop global warming would provide a host of social and economic benefits, just as World War II did. It would save lives. (A worldwide switch to renewable energy would cut air pollution deaths by 4 to 7 million a year, according to the Stanford data.) It would produce an awful lot of jobs. (An estimated net gain of roughly two million in the United States alone.) It would provide safer, better-paying employment to energy workers. (A new study by Michigan Technological University found that we could retrain everyone in the coal fields to work in solar power for as little as $181 million, and the guy installing solar panels on a roof averages about $4,000 more a year than the guy risking his life down in the hole.)
and on a global level the economic benefits are staggering taking into account the economic impacts if we continue to allow the Fossil Fuel industry to win: 
It would rescue the world’s struggling economies. (British economist Nicholas Stern calculates that the economic impacts of unchecked global warming could far exceed those of the world wars or the Great Depression.) And fighting this war would be socially transformative. (Just as World War II sped up the push for racial and gender equality, a climate campaign should focus its first efforts on the frontline communities most poisoned by the fossil fuel era. It would help ease income inequality with higher employment, revive our hollowed-out rural states with wind farms, and transform our decaying suburbs with real investments in public transit.)
For those of you who hate War metaphor what should we call it? The greenhouse gas emissions are killing our marine life and driving millions of species to extinction — is that not war? The displacement of millions of people from coastal areas where they have lived for generations is rapidly on the way. Is this displacement not war?  
I urge everyone to read this Bill McKibben article in full — the case he makes is flawless and we have no time to waste. It’s is pertinent to this election and to what we must do with our Clinton support to ensure she does what must be done. 
Post a Comment