Yesterday I posted a link to Bill McKibben’s tremendous article in the New Republic, A World at War. The Facebook link shared had been titled “We Need to Literally Declare War on Climate Change”. In it he says “It’s not that global warming is like a world war. It is a world war.”
“The question is not, are we in a world war? The question is, will we fight back? And if we do, can we actually defeat an enemy as powerful and inexorable as the laws of physics?”
He then proceeds to lay out, in great detail, how to do this, primarily by a massive industrial expansion to build the number of solar panels and wind turbines necessary to get off of fossil fuels.
If we do not abruptly stop burning fossil fuel almost immediately, human extinction is assured. McKibben’s detailed plan is the only way I see to avoid this.
He uses the example of the massive mobilization of industry to build arms during World War II to illustrate that a similar mobilization to build solar panels and wind turbines is possible if we have the will to do so.
I guess I am getting to the age where I don’t have much patience for b. s. anymore. This is not an attack on those who did the following, because I’m sure many others had similar reactions. What I’m talking about is Quakers reacting negatively to the word WAR. I have had a life long commitment against war. I was a draft resister during the Vietnam War.
Another reason I’m reacting so strongly to this is that it is yet another example of many where people are so concerned with the “letter of the law” that they miss the “spirit of the law”. It happens over and over and over again.
One of the primary reasons to oppose war is because of the death and destruction that occurs. How ironic is it that objection to the word WAR might prevent people from doing what is necessary to avoid the death of every single person on the planet earth?