I reprint here the Forward to Climate Mobilization's Victory Plan
By Paul Gilding
For many years, a small number of scientists, scholars and activists have called for a
WWII-scale mobilization to save civilization from climate catastrophe — an all-out effort
far beyond anything proposed in today’s polite debates. This year, the idea has started to
build serious momentum, with new advocates like Bill McKibben and Bernie Sanders
and the adoption by the Democratic Party in the U.S. of the call for an emergency climate
mobilization.
As mobilization starts to break into the mainstream, it is imperative that we discuss the
specifics of this effort. In 2009, I co-authored, with Professor Jorgen Randers, the “One
Degree War Plan” — a global and less comprehensive overview of the concept described
herein. The One Degree War Plan showed we can realistically slash global greenhouse gas
emissions to net zero in 20 years and then restore a safe climate through a carbon dioxide
drawdown effort.
While it’s very positive that people are now signing on to the concept, it is critical that
such a response be based on what the science demands. The hard truth is the climate
has deteriorated significantly since 2009 and this appears to be now accelerating. There is
no time left for multi-decade transition scenarios. At this late hour targets based around
2050, or calls for only zero emissions (without drawdown and cooling), are clearly not
sufficient. They risk an unthinkable defeat by putting off the very concrete steps we need
today. That is why I am so pleased that The Climate Mobilization has written this Victory
Plan. It tangibly demonstrates how the U.S. could eliminate net greenhouse gas emissions
by 2025, contribute to a global effort to restore a safe climate and reverse ecological
overshoot through a massive WWII-scale mobilization.
It’s important to understand what this means. WWII-scale climate mobilization is
not just “a big effort.” It is not a major project or a key policy initiative like the Apollo
Program or even the New Deal. It is a comprehensive, economy-wide approach that, if
done correctly, represents the only realistic way we can overcome the climate emergency.
The mobilization called for in the “Victory Plan” is powerful and sweeping enough to
provide effective protection in the face of civilization-threatening climate disruption. It is
firmly based in the most advanced climate science, and offers an extensive overview of
the policies necessary to be implemented in every sector. It may not have every measure
right and it will further evolve as society researches and develops the plan, but it provides
a clear and practical sense of what such an approach would really look and feel like. It
shows us how we can win the war to save civilization.
When I published the “One Degree War Plan” in 2009, the very notion of action on
this scale and in this style was dismissed. It was considered an interesting — almost
entertaining — thought experiment. In the years since, people are slowly coming around
to the idea. Whether motivated by the European refugee crisis, extreme weather events,
global temperature records being smashed or just the mounting total weight of the
evidence, they are coming to accept that not only is such a response necessary, it is also
now conceivable.
Nevertheless, while you’re reading this plan many thoughts will occur to you, as your
mind tries to reconcile the huge gap between what you read is needed and today’s reality.
You will consider how “unrealistic” it is, how you “can’t imagine” political leaders acting
in this way or how the incumbent business community “will never accept” this level of
economic transformation. Before that process begins, I’d like to establish one idea very
clearly in your thinking:
A mobilization on this scale is the only rational response to the level of economic,
security and social risks posed by climate change. Anyone who looks at the evidence
objectively would conclude that — and historians will look back and wonder why it took
us so long to accept it. So be clear — a mobilization on this scale is simply inevitable, with
the only question being when we get started.
Hard to imagine? Yes, it is.
But before you go there, you have to imagine the alternative. Without this response, we
will see a descent through cascading climate change induced crises with military conflict,
accelerating costs, massive refugee flows, nations collapsing and global food crises as
the world spirals down into economic and social collapse. This would inevitably require
heavy government intervention and quite probably authoritarian rule to manage.
With that prospect unfolding, do you really think we will stand by and do nothing but
observe and talk about the difficulty of acting? Now that is “unrealistic” and that I really
“can’t imagine.”
As people come to accept this is the binary choice we face, we are getting closer to
mobilization each day. I’ve seen the climate change response evolve steadily since the late
1980’s — first from the vantage point of Executive Director of Greenpeace International
and since then travelling the world as an author and speaker, alongside my work with
the leaders of large global corporations on their strategic approach to sustainability. The
response has never evolved faster than in the past few years.
Two recent developments illustrate the growing momentum:
In late July, the Democratic Party voted overwhelmingly to adopt mobilization language
in its official platform. The platform declares a “global climate emergency,” and commits
to “a national mobilization, and to leading a global effort to mobilize nations to address
this threat on a scale not seen since World War II.” This is an important moment —
not because this guarantees that the next Democratic President will launch such a
mobilization — but because it brings the idea into the mainstream debate and creates a
foundation for future advocacy of the approach.
Then Bill McKibben, the leading voice of the American climate movement, published a
full-throated call for WWII-scale climate mobilization, in which he states: “We’re under
attack from climate change—and our only hope is to mobilize like we did in WWII.”
With the concept gaining acceptance, many ask, what will be the trigger for action? Some
believe we must wait for a “Climate Pearl Harbour” moment to initiate a WWII-scale
mobilization. My study of history challenges this. The lessons of issues like civil rights,
emancipation of woman and the end of slavery remind us that shifts of this scale don’t
happen overnight. They evolve, unsteadily — pushed forward by a growing movement of
dedicated supporters — before they achieve a symbolic moment that creates change. But
those moments, like the bombing of Pearl Harbour or the march in Selma, Alabama —
are just that, symbolic events creating political moments that allow society to shift. They
are not the cause of the response but rather a spike in an ongoing and evolving process.
That’s why I am a big supporter of the work of the Climate Mobilization (TCM) and was
so pleased to contribute to this document. It is always on the edges of the mainstream
that such big ideas begin. While people like me write papers and books putting ideas
into society, it takes an active movement, like the one TCM is working to build, to bring
ideas to reality. In its two short years of existence, The Climate Mobilization has achieved
impressive progress in bringing the need for WWII-scale climate mobilization into the
mainstream.
Of course we still have a huge amount to accomplish before we really get to work. So
I’d like to close by discussing how The Climate Mobilization, and the broader climate
emergency movement can build the support necessary to make this mobilization a
reality.
Those deeply concerned about climate risk should naturally be supportive of the dramatic
approach outlined in this paper. After all, if you believe as I do, that climate change poses
an existential threat to civilization, then the potential for a response like that described
here comes as a great relief. We can still fix this! And here is a roadmap for how. However,
there is a different reason to support the approach, and a different audience for the
argument. And this is the key idea I want to leave you with.
A full-scale economic transformation driven by the urgency of climate change is very
different from WWII in a profound way — one that means we can build allies for this
cause in new and important places.
The WWII mobilization was launched in the face of tragedy and required enormous
sacrifices in human life, economic cost and quality of life to respond. It was a deliberate
but necessary tragedy to avoid a far worse tragedy.
A climate mobilization, by contrast, could result in enormous reductions in the loss of
life, huge economic benefits including innovation, technology and massive job creation
and all while leaving us with a much better quality of life. And it will do so with exciting
new technologies like electric cars and batteries that engage and enthuse people. It will
leave our energy costs lower and supplies more secure, our cities cleaner, more people
employed, our health improved and our world more united by common purpose.
Common purpose is key. People who lived through WWII on the home front — so
weren’t at the front line facing the human tragedy — speak almost fondly of the time. The
sense of unifying purpose, the community working together to face down and overcome
a frightening external threat, the shift in culture from self-focus and consumerism to
collective focus and purpose, left them feeling their lives were better, happier and more
worthwhile.
This crucial difference can significantly impact the arguments used — and the potential
allies for — a full-scale climate mobilization.
The global economy is in deep and serious trouble. Growth in the current model is
grinding to a halt. Inequality and the lack of progress of the Western middle class has laid
the foundation for political extremism, xenophobia and isolationism. It has thus brought
us phenomena like Trump, Brexit and other political movements that further threaten
the global economy. Policies to address this sluggish growth have led to both increased
financial system risks and an enormous debt load — one there is no realistic way to
pay back, just because growth is so sluggish. The resulting instability forms the shaky
foundation on which the impacts of uncontrolled climate change will land — creating an
economic and social crisis that will likely tip the system over the edge.
The elites and policy makers are wringing their hands in despair. They broadly agree on
the problems but have no serious solutions to propose, except more of the same failed
trickle-down economics. In this context, a climate mobilization along the lines outlined in
this paper provides a far smarter way forward and the basis for building a serious alliance
between those concerned about economic and political stability, those who are inspired
by the technology and business opportunities and those concerned about climate change.
So as you read this paper, recognise that the scientific and economic evidence of the risks
posed by climate change demands nothing less than what is proposed here. It is, by itself,
well justified. But also recognise that the approach could quite reasonably be seen as a
mobilization to save the economy — and frankly it’s the best idea we have to do so.
I commend Ezra and The Climate Mobilization for their courage in taking up this cause
and I hope all who read this will join us to help make that cause a reality.
Paul Gilding is the author of “The Great Disruption: How the Climate Crisis will Bring
On the End of Shopping and the Birth of a New World” (2011), co-author of “The
One Degree War Plan” (2009) with Jorgen Randers, and former executive director of
Greenpeace International. Paul is a Fellow at the University of Cambridge’s Institute for
Sustainability Leadership. See Paul’s recent writing at www.paulgilding.com.
