This archive report was first published on 18 September 2019.
Published on September 18, 2019, a commentary on climate change highlighted the difficulties in mobilizing against this existential threat. Unlike World War II, where national mobilization led to a surge in government spending that benefited the economy, climate change mobilization would have real economic losers.
Major players in industry, tech, energy, and government have little incentive to support climate mobilization, as it would undermine their profits and power. This is a stark contrast to World War II, where the United States was unified against foreign enemies.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt's experience during World War II serves as a cautionary tale. He spent years building political support and waited for a foreign attack before mobilizing the country. What kind of effort would be required to unify and mobilize the entire industrialized world against itself?
Climate change is just one of several progressive concerns, and Democrats lack unity on prioritizing it over economic justice, racial justice, and other issues. Real legislation requires real priorities, compromises, and sacrifices, as Roosevelt demonstrated when he left Jim Crow segregation untouched in his efforts to mobilize for war.
National climate mobilization would have unforeseen consequences, potentially contradicting its original goals. The experience of World War II serves as a reminder that the ramifications of such a sweeping agenda are difficult to predict.
Despite these challenges, total mobilization may be our only hope. Ecological collapse is happening all around us, and piecemeal solutions are tantamount to global suicide. According to leading scientists, the changes needed to stabilize the earth's climate require a fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions.
