By 
Here we go again. Citizens of the world are being recruited to join a war against climate change. Like a war on terror, a war on climate change can never be won. Why? Because our energy is being diverted into creating and attacking enemies instead of resolving the causes of climate change. I wish people would stop feeding fear.
The climate “war”
Here’s an interesting activity. If you google “war against climate change” you’ll find almost one million hits. If you search for “peace on climate change” you’ll find about 2000. Climate warmongers outweigh peacemakers 500:1. Am I being unkind calling people like Al Gore “climate warmongers” for urging us to war? Actually I’m just being provocative. I support and admire many of these people. I just won’t support any campaign that tries to whip people into action via a battle mentality. I’m sympathetic to why people are going into combat mode. As far as I can tell:
- They can see the huge threat that climate change poses. Fair enough.
- They’re re-imagining moments in history when people powerfully united behind a cause and prevailed in the face of seemingly impossible odds. All good.
- They are desperate for people to mobilise into action. Totally understandable.
- The shining examples that they can think of come from wars, like Al Gore's World War Two analogy. This is where we diverge.
The main reason why I’m a conscientious objector to the metaphor of war is that warfare (or "war-fear") is based on fear. People can’t be stirred into combat without scaring them. Some may argue that we have every right to fear climate change. I agree. It’s terrifying. But there’s a difference between feeling fear and feeding it. Like anger, fear needs to be redirected to empower people into action.
Understanding this is crucial for personal and social change. Most people aren’t actually against change. They just feel threatened by it. Trying to scare people into climate action won’t remove any threat that they feel. It will only reinforce their resistance. Unpicking this more, here’s my understanding of what a war involves:
- It’s a battle among two or more opposing groups.
- It requires enemies to be personified as bad/evil, to strengthen group solidarity with an “us” versus “them” mentality.
- It ends when an enemy is defeated, or when peace is reached.
Applying this to our climate:
- In a “war against climate change”, who is the battle between? It can’t be against the climate, as that’s what we’re trying to protect. It can’t be against “your climate” and “my climate” as there’s only one atmosphere. This war can only be fought against the people causing climate change, but...
- Who are the enemies in climate change? Are they the people who use fossil fuels? Are they the businesses who sell us these fossil fuels? Are they people who cut down trees? Are they the cows that belch methane? If we continue this line of questioning we all look like enemies to some extent. We’re all part of a system that is currently geared towards dangerous global warming. Some people are contributing more harm and benefiting from this system financially much more than others, but a war against climate change is ultimately a war against humanity/ourselves.
- By this basic reasoning, the war on climate change will end when humanity defeats itself, or when it triumphs by reaching peace with itself.
Many people who are adopting the language of war may also be projecting their own fears and anger on to the problems that they see. It’s very valid to feel despondent or angry at the lack of progress on climate action. But people will get battle weary if they're constantly fighting. We don’t need to be like this.
A coalition for living
What prompted me to write this post is a recent video from the “Coalition of the Willing”.
This film is beautifully crafted but it’s littered with the language of war. Government and industry are both targeted as nasty characters. But public enemy number one is our consumer society: “a war on global warming needs to be a war on consumerism.”
I agree that consumerism feeds global warming. I even wrote a chapter of a report related to this in 2004. But we can’t overcome a “consumer daze” by attacking people for what they treasure. Consumerism will simply lose its power when people find their heart in experiences beyond consumption and when they are attracted to more fulfilling alternatives.
What I do really like about this film is that it highlights the potential of creative people across the world to collaborate in the form of a “swarm.” It recognises the power of citizens to create their own solutions and connect through social media. This is very powerful indeed.
I'm curious why videos like this are adopting the theme of war so strongly. Are people deliberately using this motif to shock and awe? Or are they reflecting how a "war against climate change" has crept into public consciousness? Even the United Nations was urging us to "combat climate change" for World Environment Day last year. What stories can we tell to inspire people more strongly than resorting to war? How can we build a coalition for living, instead of just a coalition of people willing to battle?
