When it came to dealing with an existential threat and killing humankind
in the 20th Century,
governments were willing and able to rapidly and effectively roll out tanks
and harness the destructive power of the atom.
When it comes to dealing with an existential threat and saving humankind
in the 21st Century,
governments are unwilling and unable to rapidly and effectively roll out electric vehicles and harness the creative power of the sun.
A matter of capability?
Or simply a matter of violent priority?
Jonathan Hyde, 25, MA Student of Climate Change and Culture
ºclimo 
I like the contrast you’ve made between the tank and the electric car, and atom and the sun. As you’re probably aware, the villains are much less tangible than during the 20th century, but I think we can do more to highlight who the victims are.
LikeLike
It’s interesting to think about America in the context of climate change vs wold war 2
Because there was a strong movement urging them to say out of that, which you can perhaps parallel with climate-change deniers
One difference (of many) being they had an effective president, FDR, tactily trying to garner support for the war.
Which makes me think about the idea of making climate change bonds seem patriotic
LikeLike
Two very good points, thank you.
Linking your two points together, in WW2 FDR was very effective at mobilising the US in support of the more abstract ‘victim’ of freedom and democracy – how do you think this could be done for climate change? And how could this be done by the rest of the world to get Trump on board…?
Richard could you also expand on the climate change bonds idea?
LikeLike