5 ms·

Why? The Allies fought and won WW2 without fascism. The UK had a coalition government of the two major parties for most of the war. We need a WW2 scale respons

Why? The Allies fought and won WW2 without fascism. The UK had a coalition government of the two major parties for most of the war. We need a WW2 scale response, perhaps with similar restrictions like rationing - only this time of carbon or flights etc. Once some nations are active, others will join. Perhaps we need to see carbon and environmental impacts baked into import tariffs to "encourage" reluctant others to join.

creaghpatr 7y ago
If Climate Change bombs Pearl Harbour or another military target, we will probably go to war with it.
Reason077 7y ago
”The UK had a coalition government of the two major parties for most of the war.” This was itself a suspension of normal democratic procedures and conventions. No elections were held in the UK between 1935 and the conclusion of the war in 1945.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Rather unavoidable don't you think? Mass mobilisation then cities being bombed and millions overseas makes a normal democratic election a tad difficult. Hence the continuation of National Government. The thirties had a succession of mostly weak coalitions in response to the Great Depression.
bryanlarsen 7y ago
We don't need a WW2 scale response, dedicating our entire economy to the effort. We need an Iraq war scale response: a small multiple trillions of dollars. And just like the Iraq war, the main impact to the American consumer will be in a big jump at the gas pumps and a significant chunk of their taxes going towards the effort.
tomjen3 7y ago
The restrictions on freedom of speech, etc in the UK during WWII would easily be called facists today, and they are entirely incompatible with the US constitution. I would also argue that rationing in general is incompatible with a free country. If necessary add a fair tax that is ear-marked to deal with global warming and which ofsets the damage. No reason to add more bureaucracy.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Depends - All countries restrict speech, including the US, it's only the degree. US Supreme court felt restricting speech against the draft in WW1 was constitutional, and only overridden half a century later. Limiting freedom of speech somewhat is miles away from becoming fascist. I don't see how rationing impacts a free country one way or another as it's merely a method of achieving a fair distribution of a limited resource. The US also had rationing in WW2, introduced after Pearl Harbor. Was the US still a free country?
  - tomjen3 7y ago
    I would argue that it was less free. But more to the point: rationing is stupid, since you are strictly better of taxing the good you want to limit, and if necessary spend some of the tax in direct payments to those with the least income. The free market will take care of pricing the use of the taxed commodity correctly and the poor will be better of.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      Rationing isn't stupid, nor taxing necessarily better. If there's time it's no doubt better to start with taxation and see how far that gets us. Quite possibly not far enough: In the case of wartime fuel rationing, and perhaps if we were to end up with a carbon ration, it achieves a fair distribution, without the wealthy simply being able to pay extra not to participate. With enough wealth someone may not care that something carries a punitive tax rate, and they can continue being part of the problem. In times of crisis, such as wartime or a failing ecosystem, we may find that ability to pay your way out of it unacceptable. Reasonably so in my opinion.

creaghpatr 7y ago

If Climate Change bombs Pearl Harbour or another military target, we will probably go to war with it.

Reason077 7y ago

”The UK had a coalition government of the two major parties for most of the war.” This was itself a suspension of normal democratic procedures and conventions. No elections were held in the UK between 1935 and the conclusion of the war in 1945.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Rather unavoidable don't you think? Mass mobilisation then cities being bombed and millions overseas makes a normal democratic election a tad difficult. Hence the continuation of National Government. The thirties had a succession of mostly weak coalitions in response to the Great Depression.

bryanlarsen 7y ago

We don't need a WW2 scale response, dedicating our entire economy to the effort. We need an Iraq war scale response: a small multiple trillions of dollars. And just like the Iraq war, the main impact to the American consumer will be in a big jump at the gas pumps and a significant chunk of their taxes going towards the effort.

tomjen3 7y ago

The restrictions on freedom of speech, etc in the UK during WWII would easily be called facists today, and they are entirely incompatible with the US constitution. I would also argue that rationing in general is incompatible with a free country. If necessary add a fair tax that is ear-marked to deal with global warming and which ofsets the damage. No reason to add more bureaucracy.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Depends - All countries restrict speech, including the US, it's only the degree. US Supreme court felt restricting speech against the draft in WW1 was constitutional, and only overridden half a century later. Limiting freedom of speech somewhat is miles away from becoming fascist. I don't see how rationing impacts a free country one way or another as it's merely a method of achieving a fair distribution of a limited resource. The US also had rationing in WW2, introduced after Pearl Harbor. Was the US still a free country?
- tomjen3 7y ago
  I would argue that it was less free. But more to the point: rationing is stupid, since you are strictly better of taxing the good you want to limit, and if necessary spend some of the tax in direct payments to those with the least income. The free market will take care of pricing the use of the taxed commodity correctly and the poor will be better of.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Rationing isn't stupid, nor taxing necessarily better. If there's time it's no doubt better to start with taxation and see how far that gets us. Quite possibly not far enough: In the case of wartime fuel rationing, and perhaps if we were to end up with a carbon ration, it achieves a fair distribution, without the wealthy simply being able to pay extra not to participate. With enough wealth someone may not care that something carries a punitive tax rate, and they can continue being part of the problem. In times of crisis, such as wartime or a failing ecosystem, we may find that ability to pay your way out of it unacceptable. Reasonably so in my opinion.