Not many things in life come with guarantees. But, if the US government declares a war on something inanimate, we can guarantee it will be a failure (war on communism, war on drugs, war on poverty, war on terror). Because the past/present wars on inanimate concepts were not daunting enough, our government chose planetary climate change as the next low hanging fruit in the “war on” game. The earth is quaking in her boots.
It is never the cause that presents the challenge for our reality challenged political representatives. It is clearly reality that befuddles them the most. For the sake of argument let’s assume that carbon dioxide production is causing the climate to change (not warm – somehow that is not right any more). What percentage of CO2 production decrease do we need to make everything hunky dory again? What are the chances that all the governments of the world can get together and meet that goal…in a million years? Maybe a better question is – What are the chances that any amount of the population of the world can and will change CO2 production enough to make even the slightest difference in climate change? I could create an oxygen scrubber for around $200 that would eliminate more CO2 in a year than the US government will in the entire war on climate change. That is because, in the history of this effort, CO2 production is steadily rising with population regardless of government efforts.
We have never changed any global anything as a world population. And, we have never won a “war on” in the history of this country. We have won a few hot wars. We even won a cold war. I think it would be easier to stamp out terror as an emotion (war on terror), then change global climate.
Am I the only one who thinks that the word that comes after “war on” is never the goal of the war on…