The Public and its Problems

Climate: A Moral Equivalent to War

It is hard to have a “War” when there is no obvious enemy. At the same time, climate change is an emergency and threat on the scale of a war. Because of this, some have called for a war on climate change.[1] While others have pointed out the vast differences between a traditional war and the diverse and dispersed causes of climate change.[2]

For obvious reasons, the debate and call for war focuses on World War II. The scale of this conflict makes it the closest equivalent to the climate emergency we face today. It spanned the globe. Nearly everyone was affected. And most importantly, it evokes a clear moral line between good and bad.

The problem, as critics rightly point out, is that there is no easy way to identify the enemy in this war. There is no single country, flag, or uniform to attack. It is easy to name the highest polluting countries or industries.[3][4] But in our intertwined capitalist economic system, responsibility is dispersed.[5] In some ways, we are all the enemy; we are all partly responsible, especially in the industrialized world.

But one part of the argument for a war on climate change is still useful, maybe even powerful. Once we understood the atrocities of the holocaust, a clear moral line was drawn. It became impossible to equivocate; good and bad were clear. We have reached this point with climate change. We might not be able to clearly define an enemy to attack. But we know that decreasing the temperature of the earth (by any means) is better than the alternative.

The morality of the issue is quite clear, even if the details and potential policies are unbearably complex. Nearly everyone (maybe everyone) is affected by climate change. Some small island nations are in serious trouble today.[6] Cities and towns here in the United States are already affected.[7] We all have a personal stake; And what we choose or do not choose to do carries a strong moral connection. We can make the world better or worse with our choices today. There might not be an obvious enemy; but there is an obvious moral choice. We do not need a war; we need the moral equivalent of a war.[8]

Let me give two specific examples of this moral equivalent to war that we can use today. They are drawn, once again, from World War II. And in the absence of a specific, easily identifiable enemy, I have chosen to use the contributions asked of citizens in the United States or Great Britain to draw this equivalence.

While many participated directly in the war, everyday citizens were also expected to contribute or help out as well. This is the first moral equivalence we should draw. In such a large-scale conflict there was no room for apathy. There was no non-moral space. There were ration cards, victory gardens, scrap collection, war bonds, and may other citizen-based contributions. Famous and important examples like “Rosie the Riveter” still grab the imagination.[9]

And there was a strong moral component to this participation. One famous wartime poster shows a solitary driver riding with an image of Hitler.[10] Everyone was expected to contribute to the war effort. And those who ignored this moral argument were close to traitorous.

Although there is no easy similarity between Hitler and the environment, the moral equivalence carries forward in a lesser form. Riding alone is worse for the environment than riding in a “car-share.” Therefore, riding alone is less moral than riding with another; and it is certainly less moral than riding a bicycle or walking.

Our modern moral equivalence to war should mirror the citizen participation of World War II. It needs to carry to food, to purchases, and to many other aspects of our lives. If almost all choices have an impact positively or negatively on the climate, then all choices have a moral component.

It should come as no surprise that not everyone believed in or helped the war effort. And this leads into my second moral equivalence to war inspired by World War II. Those who profit from destroying the climate should be seen as deeply immoral.[11] Then as now, some people tried to profit from the suffering of others. In the eyes of the governments, war profiteering, black markets, and other actions were sometimes equated to treason. And even making money in otherwise legal ways was often seen as suspicious.

The wartime president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt said of these profiteering corporations, “I don’t want to see a single war millionaire created in the United States as a result of this world disaster.”[12] And another wartime president said of this profiteering that it was simply “Treason.”[13] We should not be naïve. Many corporations and connected politicians profited from the war. But that does not take away from the moral description of these actions.

And as the black-market poster suggests, only we can prevent corporations and other businesses from profiting from and contributing to climate change. We should begin to draw a moral equivalence between this anti-climate profiteering and treason. If anything, this treason is on a larger scale as it goes far beyond the betrayal of a single country.

There is no non-moral space in this argument. Nearly all of our personal choices and individual purchases have at least some small effect on the climate. And some of our political choices have an almost unbelievably outsized effect. It is not an absolute scale; a single questionable purchase does not make us a moral monster. But we need to begin taking our choices and purchases more seriously. We need to begin making our businesses and corporations understand the stakes. We need to see all of these choices as a moral equivalent to war.

[1] A good example, Stephen Nash: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/local-opinions/climate-change-is-the-next-world-war-give-it-the-coverage-it-deserves/2019/08/23/5ec66fe8-c383-11e9-b5e4-54aa56d5b7ce_story.html

[2] A good example, Roy Scranton: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/opinion/climate-change-mobilization.html

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/21/countries-responsible-climate-change

[4] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

[5] I will address this specific issue in the next post. “Climate: A Case for Self Defense.

[6] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/17/climate/islands-climate-change-un-bonn.html

[7] https://www.citylab.com/environment/2018/01/how-to-save-a-town-from-rising-waters/547646/

[8] I have proudly stolen the title (not the content) of this essay from William James’ essay on war “The Moral Equivalent to War,” (1906): http://gutenberg.us/eBooks/WPLBN0002953738-Moral-Equivalent-of-War-The-by-James-William.aspx?&Words=Illustration

[9] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/22/obituaries/naomi-parker-fraley-the-real-rosie-the-riveter-dies-at-96.html

[10] https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/powers_of_persuasion/use_it_up/images_html/ride_with_hitler.html

[11] https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc813/

[12] May 1940: http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/archives/collections/franklin/?p=collections/findingaid&id=508