Global war against a common enemy: a paradigm for unifying against climate change–The path to a just sustainable future avoids claims of historical climate injustice

Claims are heard that because the developed world has created the global warming problem through their invention and profiting from emissions-producing technologies, they have a moral duty to sacrifice for the developing world and if reluctant to volunteer reparations, their duty should be enforced by supranational tribunals. We argue that the developed world can deny guilt for creating the climate change problem because, not only has their technological progress greatly improved standards of living for humanity since the 1700 s, such progress has given us tools needed to defeat global warming and other catastrophic threats to humanity. We contend that the citizens of the developed world will be their own jury and find themselves not guilty of claims that their technological progress has been unjustly harming developing nations. Applying affirmative wartime motivational psychology, not divisive claims of injustice, provides a unifying answer. Characterizing defense against climate change as analogous to war against a common enemy that threatens humanity with catastrophe, protection motivation theory and real-life wartime experience instruct how leaders of the strongest nations should tap visceral protectiveness towards all humankind to rally their constituencies to regard all nations as allies and to accept sacrifices to protect the world’s more climate-vulnerable. • Given extreme uncertainty, prudence demands nations plan their fight against climate change by backcasting from an imagined worst plausible fate. • Given a worst case where all nations face catastrophe, it would be in their self-interests to ally against climate change as their common enemy. • Developed nations must lead the fight against climate change which requires persuading their citizens to sacrifice for the world’s more vulnerable. • Instead of rhetoric to redress injustice, wartime reasoning and rhetoric is needed to rally developed-nation citizens to sacrifice for all humanity. • Rallying nations to unify against a common enemy offers the prospect of avoiding climate catastrophe and attaining a just sustainable future.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Futures
Published
2025-03-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2025.103583
Primary Topic
Climate Change and Geoengineering
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Global war against a common enemy: a paradigm for unifying against climate change–The path to a just sustainable future avoids claims of historical climate injustice

Gregory J. Morgan, Leonard A. Miller
Futures
Climate Change and Geoengineering
article

Global war against a common enemy: a paradigm for unifying against climate change–The path to a just sustainable future avoids claims of historical climate injustice

Gregory J. Morgan, Leonard A. Miller
article en

Abstract

Claims are heard that because the developed world has created the global warming problem through their invention and profiting from emissions-producing technologies, they have a moral duty to sacrifice for the developing world and if reluctant to volunteer reparations, their duty should be enforced by supranational tribunals. We argue that the developed world can deny guilt for creating the climate change problem because, not only has their technological progress greatly improved standards of living for humanity since the 1700 s, such progress has given us tools needed to defeat global warming and other catastrophic threats to humanity. We contend that the citizens of the developed world will be their own jury and find themselves not guilty of claims that their technological progress has been unjustly harming developing nations. Applying affirmative wartime motivational psychology, not divisive claims of injustice, provides a unifying answer. Characterizing defense against climate change as analogous to war against a common enemy that threatens humanity with catastrophe, protection motivation theory and real-life wartime experience instruct how leaders of the strongest nations should tap visceral protectiveness towards all humankind to rally their constituencies to regard all nations as allies and to accept sacrifices to protect the world’s more climate-vulnerable. • Given extreme uncertainty, prudence demands nations plan their fight against climate change by backcasting from an imagined worst plausible fate. • Given a worst case where all nations face catastrophe, it would be in their self-interests to ally against climate change as their common enemy. • Developed nations must lead the fight against climate change which requires persuading their citizens to sacrifice for the world’s more vulnerable. • Instead of rhetoric to redress injustice, wartime reasoning and rhetoric is needed to rally developed-nation citizens to sacrifice for all humanity. • Rallying nations to unify against a common enemy offers the prospect of avoiding climate catastrophe and attaining a just sustainable future.

FuturesVol. 169
Stevens Institute of Technology (US)
Climate action
Openalex Percentile: Top 97%
Climate Change and Geoengineering
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.