Climate Change: A Little Hope

#262: Climate Timeline 2020-2030
...............
Kevin Drum, in Mother Jones magazine, makes the case for massive spending on research and development to find new and improved technologies that will be no-brainers to adopt--as opposed to the 'take-your-medicine' approach: persuading Republicans to tax carbon, for example.

Starting next year I may promote my own 'easier' solution: a worldwide reduction in military spending, redirected to fighting Climate Change (the logic here is that both sides to a conflict can come out ahead if they both spend less on their military; and everybody wins if that extra is redirected to fighting Climate Change).

If I do, here's the worldwide military-reduction solution in brief, that I can then link to:

1. Focused Protests.  In addition to aiming for small, local victories, we should harness global protests to address a specific, comprehensive process.  For each year in the 2020s, divert first 1%, then 2%, etc., of each nation's military spending to fighting Climate Change.  So, referring to the first year's 1%, 'One for Climate' could be a handy slogan.  Given that 2018 global military spending was $1.8 trillion, this would mean $18 billion the first year, and a total of roughly a trillion by 2030--a start, with much more from other sources as the process gets underway.

2. Initial Leadership.  With a focus on individual nation-states making the minimum 1% commitment, diplomacy and leadership are at a premium.  European and East Asian countries would be expected to lead the way, initially, and to assist developing nations.

3. The US.  Because we account for nearly half of all military spending, the US joining the 'One for Climate' process would likely be the clincher, allowing hope to bloom, and accelerating the process.  While this is unlikely to occur before the next US election, the broad authority given the US president on foreign policy makes this diplomacy-based approach possible, given the constraints of the US political system.  As for the US Senate, where legislation to implement 'One for Climate' would normally need a steep 60-vote majority, if we assume a Democratic majority, then senators could adopt a 50+1 majority policy for any legislation based on overwhelming scientific evidence (existing scientific advisory panels could confirm the science on any legislation being considered).  This would allow the next president to successfully shepherd One for Climate legislation through Congress.