Understanding Historical Mobilization

In a compelling piece for Rolling Stone, Wade Davis discusses what he terms “the unraveling of America.” While his article covers various topics, one particular anecdote caught my attention. During my high school years, I took advanced history courses including AP World History, AP European History, AP U.S. History, and AP U.S. Government and Politics, all of which addressed the events of World War II. Yet, I was unaware of some critical details shared in Davis's article.

For instance, I had no knowledge that in 1940, after Hitler's invasion of Poland and the onset of World War II, the U.S. military was smaller than those of Portugal and Bulgaria. Remarkably, within four years, the U.S. managed to recruit 18 million service members. This mobilization extended well beyond personnel; the American economy rapidly adjusted to support the war effort.

Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Japanese controlled 90% of the world’s rubber supply. Inspired by President Franklin D. Roosevelt's famous assertion that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” America quickly went to work. Within three years, the nation established a synthetic rubber industry that enabled Allied forces to gain the upper hand against the Nazis.

The scale and speed of American manufacturing during the war were extraordinary. At its height, Henry Ford’s Willow Run Plant produced a B-24 Liberator bomber every two hours, continuously. Shipyards in Long Beach and Sausalito produced Liberty ships at a rate of two per day for four consecutive years, with one ship being completed in just over four days. Chrysler’s Detroit Arsenal alone manufactured more tanks than all of Nazi Germany combined.

In 1939, the United States possessed a mere 1,700 aircraft. By 1945, that number soared to 300,000 military aircraft, including 18,500 B-24 bombers. Although the U.S. was underprepared for another global conflict in 1940, its mobilization efforts—coupled with the sacrifices of countless Soviet soldiers—proved crucial to the Allies' victory.

When the dust settled after World War II, the U.S. emerged as the world's dominant economic power, holding 6% of the global population while accounting for half of the world’s economy and producing 93% of all automobiles.

Confronting Climate Change: A Call to Action

This historical context is particularly relevant as we face a threat far more dire than a world war: climate change. A 2016 research paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) suggests that the U.S. mobilization during World War II provides a useful framework for addressing climate challenges. The authors argue that the U.S.'s ability to manage wartime scarcity without a significant decline in living standards offers hope that we can tackle environmental crises. However, they note that the unique political unity of the war era poses limitations on applying this model today.

Despite the political landscape having changed since the 1940s, I believe we can revive the spirit of consensus that once characterized American politics. Why? That's a complex question that merits further exploration. In short, we must recognize that climate change presents a threat that is as, if not more, existential than those we've previously faced, including a civil war, a great depression, and two world wars.

To adopt a mobilization mindset, we should draw inspiration from President Roosevelt, who focused on two key questions: what is necessary and what is possible. FDR did not limit his vision to what was politically feasible or constrained by budgetary limitations; instead, he considered the productive capacity of the nation.

Roberts elaborates on a model proposed by Saul Griffith, which outlines a path to eliminate 70% to 80% of U.S. carbon emissions by 2035 through the rapid adoption of existing electrification technologies, with minimal reliance on carbon capture and sequestration. For those interested in a deeper dive into how and why this rapid decarbonization is achievable in the United States, I highly recommend reading Roberts's detailed analysis.

Global Commitment to Climate Action

Some countries are already embracing this call to action. In 2020, one of the most promising developments came when the European Union announced a commitment of over $800 billion for a European Green New Deal. Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, stated, “We can turn the crisis of this pandemic into an opportunity to rebuild our economies differently.” As the second-largest economy and third-largest emitter, the EU’s green recovery could inspire a global surge in sustainable investments. Countries such as South Korea, Costa Rica, and Rwanda are also making significant strides in emission reductions and pursuing cleaner futures.

International organizations like the IMF are aligning their lending criteria with climate resilience, pushing nations towards greener policies. Recently, around 50 countries pledged to integrate climate considerations into their COVID-19 recovery strategies. Costa Rican President Carlos Alvarado Quesada remarked, “It’s a great catalyst to think about building a new world,” emphasizing that the decisions made now will shape the future of our planet for the next decade.

The Responsibility of the U.S. in Global Leadership

Following World War II, America reshaped the global economy, fostering a new, prosperous lifestyle characterized by suburban living and automobile dependence. However, this growth was heavily reliant on fossil fuels. The suburbs, enabled by fuel-intensive vehicles, drastically increased fossil fuel consumption, and the federal highway system further fueled this demand.

The Marshall Plan, aimed at supporting Europe’s recovery, had oil as its largest expenditure. Meanwhile, the surge in consumer goods was driven by oil derivatives, including environmentally harmful plastics. The underlying philosophy—that consumption fuels growth, which in turn generates prosperity—has necessitated an unending supply of oil. America's foreign policy has often been shaped by a relentless pursuit of fossil fuels, particularly in the Middle East.

Yet, we now recognize that endless growth is neither feasible nor sustainable in a world with finite resources. True well-being cannot be measured solely by economic growth. A healthy planet is essential to our overall quality of life.

If we can channel the wartime spirit of mobilization while embracing a contemporary ethos of collaboration and balance, we have the potential to address the climate crisis and create a healthier, more sustainable world for future generations. Wouldn’t that be a remarkable achievement?

This video, "War & Climate Change: Twin Tragedies," explores the interconnectedness of war and climate issues, highlighting how both crises can be tackled simultaneously.

"When Great Power Conflict and Climate Action Collide" discusses the challenges and opportunities that arise when global powers confront climate change amidst geopolitical tensions.