Climate change and the necessary American socialist response

Last update: Friday 7/27/18

This note recalls an historic strategy that could be used for coping with climate change. It does not provide statistical estimates of the scale and scope of the required strategy because it's not written for readers who don't accept the reality of climate change. Readers who do accept this inconvenient truth will presumably have their own particular array of statistics on which they base their beliefs. So the note proceeds from there.

Correction: The note also assumes that its readers are disturbed by the increasing number of experts who have expressed despair that -- all other things being equal -- the United States and a sufficiently large number of the world's other biggest contributors to malevolent climate change will not be able to induce a high enough percentage of their populations to dramatically reduce the size of their carbon footprints fast enough so as to enable a reversal of these malevolent trends.

For me, the "other things being equal" is the implicit assumption that we will be able to maintain our current markets and political structures. Having done just enough work as a "community organizer" in my younger years to appreciate how much time and effort are required to persuade groups of people to make modest changes in their daily routines, I dismiss any suggestions that the world's most persuasive climate activists will be able to induce the voluntary, but drastic changes that would be required to reverse climate change within the context of our current markets and political structures.

But unlike some other observers who have come to these same conclusions, I'm still an optimist, not a pessimist. I'm an optimist because of two recent historic achievements: World War II and the nuclear arms race in the 1960s and 70s. 

Nuclear Arms Race
Taking these achievements in reverse order, consider the nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union. Younger readers who have read historical accounts and/or watched TV documentaries about the arms race will know that for a long time most of the nation's politically aware citizens were gripped by a pervasive fear that any given tomorrow might be the last, that mankind was always just a few moments away from oblivion. 

• For example, the Union of Concerned Scientists used to display a "Doomsday Clock" on the cover of its publications that was always set to a few moments before the ultimate midnight. 
• Back then more cautious Bayesians might have said that at any given time there was a substantial probability, say 20 to 30 percent, that the next six months might erupt in a catastrophic nuclear exchange. 

But mankind is still here. The closest we came to nuclear oblivion was the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962. Fortunately, that was close enough to motivate both protagonists to engage in intensive negotiations that quickly reduced the likelihood that a nuclear exchange could be triggered by accident and/or by misinterpretations of the other protagonist's non-hostile activities. Eventually the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. committed to a series of nuclear arms reduction and control treaties. To be sure, these treaties are fragile structures whose violation would bring us back to the brink of oblivion. Nevertheless, they should be recognized as some of the most important achievements in human history and an inspiration for our efforts to address the equally catastrophic consequences of malevolent climate change. We're still here ... :-)


The American Socialist Republic of World War II
During World War II, the federal government suspended large segments of the nation's free markets in order to channel critical resources to the nation's war efforts. 

• Auto manufactures were told to make tanks and trucks for the military and to stop making cars for consumers. Construction of new homes came to a standstill. 
• Citizens were were issued ration books that set precise limits on how much meat, sugar, cooking oil, eggs, and an extensive list of other food products they could buy each month. 

In other words, we became a socialist republic whose economic production was dictated by central planning committees ... "for the duration of the war" -- which is the response that was given to citizens' queries as to how long these draconian restrictions would be imposed. 

Given that no one knew how long it would take to win the war -- assuming that we did win the war -- this response really told citizens to be good patriots, shut up, and endure the restrictions, which is what the vast majority of Americans did. If America had not voluntarily become a socialist republic "for the duration", it's unlikely that we would have won the war. We did what was necessary.


The American Socialist Republic of Climate Change
World War II "only" required America to rise to the threats posed by Germany and Japan. The nuclear arms race required both protagonists to cooperate in the reduction of risks posed by mutual annihilation. Malevolent climate change goes even farther; it requires the world's biggest polluters to engage in multilateral cooperation in the reduction of the risks posed by each other's pollution. 

Can this cooperation be achieved within the context of current markets and political structures? I don't think so. However, I think it will be far easier for China, Russia, and other centralized/dictatorial political structures to impose the kinds of restrictions on their citizens that the major signatories to effective climate control treaties will demand than for the U.S. Britain, Germany, Japan,  India, and the world's other democratic republics. Nevertheless, these restrictions must be imposed.

Question: For how long?
Answer: For the duration ...

We are obviously not ready to impose these kinds of restrictions on ourselves today. Nor do I believe that we will become ready until climate change produces the kinds of undeniable in-your-face tragedies that confronted America before its entry into World War II, i.e., hundreds of thousands of allied soldiers and citizens killed by our German and Japanese adversaries. In other words, we are unlikely to respond until climate change kills thousands by flooding coastal communities and/or kills thousands of inland residents in record setting heat waves. Then and only then am I confident that we will do whatever is required. Unfortunately, the eventual price of our delays will be substantially higher than if we started right now --  millions of dead or injured citizens. Nevertheless, this will probably be a far lower price than the hundreds of millions who may die in other countries. But mankind will survive.

Roy L Beasley, PhD
Neoskeptics Editor

P.S. The American Socialist Republic of World War II invested billions of dollars in the Manhattan Project, its effort to develop atomic weapons before the Germans did. As it turns out the Germans failed, we succeeded, but it is arguable whether it was really necessary to drop two atom bombs on Japanese cities in order to compel Japan's surrender. In my opinion, the American Socialist Republic of Climate Change should make far larger investments in the development of processes that could remove climate changing pollutants from the atmosphere. Perhaps they won't be needed, but we should develop them anyway ... just in case.