Let's Gamify The Fight Against Climate Change

...And Snap, The Job's A Game

...................
The IPCC's report on what it would take to limit a rise in average global temperatures to under 1.5 degrees C is sobering, to say the least, since our present trajectory has us heading for more than double that, followed by a likely escalation from then on, as permafrost melts, releasing unimaginable amounts of methane.

But there's hope.  If we commit 2.5% of annual global GDP to the problem, we'll avoid most of the horrifying consequences, and have stimulated ourselves, economically, in the process.  Otherwise, we'll hit that 1.5C rise in a mere dozen years.  And, yes, we can do it; this is all possible, using existing technology, if we act fast.

And where's all that money going to come from?  I vote for a worldwide cut in military spending, since there may simply be no other source of $$ that's big enough.  Taxes, the other possibility, are difficult to enact, and often require a lead-in time before implementation.

Realistically, what's required is something like a 10% cut from present military spending levels.  Since poorer nations will need a greater technological boost, we'd likely need a partial redirection of some of those resources to the neediest nations.  So, let's aim for a target 9%, with an additional 1% redirected, and the country redirecting the most, percentage-wise, being the winner.  All hail our heroes!

Since almost all countries would theoretically be participating, the thinking is that all sides to a given conflict would feel the same redirection of military spending, so no country would need worry about another gaining an advantage.  Thus the beauty of using military spending to defend against a common enemy.

There are several potential roadblocks to this idea that should be addressed:
 * How is military spending counted?  As a raw total for each country?  As a per capita figure?  As a percentage of GDP?  Perhaps: allow a winner to claim leadership in each such category.
 * Would a country be required to redirect some revenues to other, needier nations?  This would likely make the plan harder to implement.  Perhaps: allow a fourth leader (the percentage donated to the needy), but 'suggest' 1%, while not actually 'requiring' such donations.
 * Who determines whether cuts, and spending on our fight, have actually been made?  If this becomes a problem, perhaps: nations could be required to route their cuts through a world body like the UN, which would verify monies received/disbursed.

While the best design for our 'game' would be for experts to identify the most likely uses for collected monies, it is probably more important to get buy-in from participating nations, quickly, which likely points to each government spending its own resources (9%) and diverting a minor amount (1%) for redistribution.  Once underway, a change to a smarter structure would be much easier to implement than would haggling over the perfect design.

In any case, a 10% cut in global spending on militaries would generate approximately $173 billion (10% of $1.739 trillion spent in 2017).  This isn't quite enough to reach the 2.5% of $78 trillion in world GDP, ($195 billion), identified by the IPCC, but there'd likely be a minimum of private-sector investment to make up for the difference (even enough for any back-sliding on the part of nations unwilling to meet their 10% cut).  There'd also likely be a knock-on effect, as resources spent on R&D in one country mean cheaper technologies adopted by the entire world.

A 10% cut for some countries will amount to relatively little: Liberia and Bhutan committing to a mere $1 million each.  Meanwhile, for the US, China, Saudi Arabia and Russia, that 10% will mean $61, $23, $7 and $6 billion, respectively.  A heavy lift, but certainly possible, especially for governments looking for excuses to extricate themselves from foreign wars.  For some countries, especially those like Afghanistan ($11 billion military spending--mostly aid received from the US), that are fighting insurgent terrorists, a 10% commitment is simply impossible--which is another reason why that 1% in redirected funds will be needed.

And the beauty of using military cuts to pay for our fight is that military spending is inherently non-productive: instead of building a tool used to produce wealth, one is building a tool used only reluctantly, and to destroy the wealth and intent of others.  Which is why redirecting such spending is stimulative, economically speaking.

What would it take to get a plan like this up and running?  Probably, a coalition of states like the EU adopting such a blueprint for themselves, and gradually adding other countries; this, rather than the world waiting to get everyone on board all at once.  The US, for example, will almost certainly need a change at the top for reason to prevail.  Once major players are signed up, perhaps by 2021, everyone else'll find it much easier to do their part.