3 ms·

Declaring "War on X" is a terrible idea, unless you are literally marching off to war. It's used to justify all sorts of stupid things. War on Poverty anyone?

Declaring "War on X" is a terrible idea, unless you are literally marching off to war. It's used to justify all sorts of stupid things. War on Poverty anyone? War on Drugs? War on Terror? The list goes on. It is clear to me that we are not going to prevent climate change. It requires too much cooperation and sacrifice to deal with a problem that is too abstract. Things will have to get much worse before we will be willing to take dramatic measures. I'm expecting we'll lose a city to rising sea levels, and then maybe things will happen. Meanwhile, we'll simply have to deal with the symptoms as they come.

exodust 10y ago
Agreed, and I would add that too many of us wrap the world's problems under one label: "climate change" which is not useful. Discussion and action should be continually focused on cleaning up our act across multiple areas for the purpose of being responsible and innovative custodians of this planet. Waterways, deforestation, soil contamination, wildlife, air quality, energy efficiency, agriculture, resource management... with the aim of "improving living standards and health, creating a better world for next gen"; rather than just "stop climate change". We are too obsessed with "climate change" and debating whether it's natural or man-made or a mix of both, and whether it can be stopped or slowed. Who cares? We know climate can change all by itself anyway, so cleaning our act up to "stop climate change" is to me a rather pointless agenda designed for convenience rather than accuracy and depth of information. The scope of the world's problems deserves more than a two word umbrella caption.
_0ffh 10y ago
Upvote, because your first two paragraphs perfectly reflect my initial reaction to the title. Why do USians always need to declare war on something? (With the exception, of course, of their actual wars. You know, the ones with guns and bombs and stuff!)

exodust 10y ago

Agreed, and I would add that too many of us wrap the world's problems under one label: "climate change" which is not useful. Discussion and action should be continually focused on cleaning up our act across multiple areas for the purpose of being responsible and innovative custodians of this planet. Waterways, deforestation, soil contamination, wildlife, air quality, energy efficiency, agriculture, resource management... with the aim of "improving living standards and health, creating a better world for next gen"; rather than just "stop climate change". We are too obsessed with "climate change" and debating whether it's natural or man-made or a mix of both, and whether it can be stopped or slowed. Who cares? We know climate can change all by itself anyway, so cleaning our act up to "stop climate change" is to me a rather pointless agenda designed for convenience rather than accuracy and depth of information. The scope of the world's problems deserves more than a two word umbrella caption.

_0ffh 10y ago

Upvote, because your first two paragraphs perfectly reflect my initial reaction to the title. Why do USians always need to declare war on something? (With the exception, of course, of their actual wars. You know, the ones with guns and bombs and stuff!)