World War II-scale climate mobilization

A climate mobilization is a policy approach to the climate emergency that takes inspiration from policies utilized during the World War 2 (WW2) home front economic and social mobilizations of Allied forces, particularly from Western anglophone countries, to rapidly restructure economies and align consumption around the societal goal of defeating fascism.

Calls for climate mobilization approaches came in response to the perceived inability of conventional climate policy approaches to draw down emissions at the speed and scale necessary to limit the risks of locking in the worst impacts of climate change. Proponents argue that the level of mobilization and policy action required to face the climate crisis is on a scale not seen since WW2.

Several plans have been developed using the WW2 home front experience as a model, and while there are differences between each plan, some of the major commonalities most have with the wartime experience are:

The mobilization approach calls for national governments break from business-as-usual approaches to the climate crisis and to begin treating it like an emergency. The Breakthrough - National Center for Climate Restoration developed a guide to help distinguish between business-as-usual policy approaches to crises and emergency approaches, the following table is adapted from the guide with a focus on mindset:

Advocates of a climate mobilization approach argue that mass public information campaigns on the scale seen during World War 2 are an essential element of effectively addressing the climate emergency, and that government communication efforts up to present have been small in scale, and have not been tied to meeting economic and social objectives. They point to the WW2 examples of the United States and Canada, where both governments created central government agencies, the United States Office of War Information and the Wartime Information Board, respectively. These agencies were mandated to produce and distribute war time information through newspapers, radio broadcasts, posters, photographs, films and other forms of media, both at home and abroad with the objective of mobilizing the public to work in key economic sectors and change their consumption patters, as well as keeping public morale high and informing Allies about their efforts. These agencies worked in concert with the high-level government departments responsible for war time economic planning, and ensured public information was created to meet the needs of these departments. A climate mobilization would see the creation of similar information agencies.

Climate mobilization approach proposes comprehensive government-led economic planning to rapidly transition to low-carbon systems, as oppose to relying on market-based mechanisms. This approach mirrors WWII's successful coordination of industrial production through centralized decision-making and resource allocation.

Some climate mobilization plans call for governments to resort to rationing as a way to align consumption with climate and ecological limits. During WW2, rationing was implemented in many countries to divert resources for civilian consumption to the needs of soldiers abroad as well as of these of Allied forces who might be suffering of shortages. It applied to wide range of consumer goods from meat to fuel to shoes to sugar. Rationing was justified by the failure of conventional market mechanisms to adequately and fairly distribute resources. Perceived fairness was deemed necessary to ensure public buy-in for the policy. and advocates of rationing argue that it is a better option than a carbon tax as it treats everyone equally regardless of income and imposes strict limits on total production.

Mobilization plans typically call for large-scale public financing of climate solutions, similar to WWII's massive government investments in industrial capacity and technological innovation. Increases in corporate taxes and on the highest income earners like was seen during WW2 is also a common characteristic.

Calls for a WW2-scale mobilization in Western anglophone countries by prominent public figures and environmentalists date back to at least 2008. However, the first documented call for such an approach in the English-language was by Canadian historian Dennis Bartels in his 2001 academic article Wartime Mobilization to Counter Severe Global Climate Change published in Human Ecology.

In 2010, Professor Jorgen Randers of the Norwegian School of Management BI and former Greenpeace International executive director Paul Gilding published an paper titled "The one degree war plan" which was the first English-language academic paper to elaborate a draft of what a wartime-like plan for a globally coordinated mobilization to address to climate crisis would look like. The paper proposed the draft plan as starting point for a discussion about what a wartime-like approach to climate policy would look like. Their draft proposed a series of actions to reduce global heat trapping pollution by 50% over a five-year period, improve adaptation, organize and finance the mobilization, and slow global heating through geoengineering or other means. Some of the actions took direct inspiration from WW2, such as the rationing of energy and fuel combustion vehicle use, public education campaigns to encourage thrift and changes in consumption behavior, and the establishment of a "climate war command." The authors argued that such a mobilization would require a change in mindset to how the climate crisis is approached, which they say is exemplified in the WW2 Winston Churchill quote:

Gilding expanded on the plan and the rational for a mobilization approach in his book The Great Disruption published a year later.

One of the first English-language civil society calls for a wartime-scale mobilization was in 2011 during Chinese President Hu Jintao's visit to the United States. A group of environmental organizations, including Sierra Club, Greenpeace, 350.org, Rainforest Action Network, and prominent environmentalist such as the author Paul Hawken and actor Daryl Hannah, published an open letter calling for the leaders to launch a climate mobilization stating "[c]entral to the solution is a wartime-like mobilization by the governments of the United States and China to cut carbon emissions 80 percent (based on 2006 levels) by 2020." However, specific reference to World War 2 was not made in the letter. The groups did not campaign around a climate mobilization framework after the publication of the letter, neither did they elaborate on what a wartime-like mobilization approach to climate policy would look it.

In 2016, Laurence Delina's book Strategies for Rapid Climate Mitigation Wartime mobilisation as a model for action? was the first academic book published on using lessons from the WW2 home front mobilization and applying them to rapid climate mitigation. Lessons were taken from the U.S., Canadian, and Australian mobilizations.

The first prominent English-language campaign advocating specifically for a WW2-scale climate mobilization was in 2014. That year, the group The Climate Mobilization (TMC) was founded in the United States and advocated for the adoption of the approach by the federal government. The group initiated a pledge that could be signed by anyone that called on the United States government to launch a 10 year WW2-scale mobilization to reach net zero emissions by 2025. Signers of the "Pledge to Mobilize" also pledge to vote for political candidates who signed it over those who didn't. TMC released in 2016 a policy position paper, The Climate Mobilization Victory Plan, which elaborated on what a 10-year wartime-like mobilization to reach net zero emissions would look it, taking inspiration from specific policies implemented during the U.S. WW2 home front mobilization.

In 2018, campaigns for a rapid mobilization to reach net zero emission by 2025 grew when Extinction Rebellion including it as one of their main demands.

In 2019, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry launched World War Zero, a campaign endorsed by celebrities and a bi-partisan group of politicians. Unlike other groups calling for a climate mobilization framework, the campaign called for net-zero by 2050 and, while it utilized the language and analogy of the wartime effort, did not prescribe specific policies inspired by WW2 home front mobilizations. The website is no longer active.

A number of concerns and criticisms of the climate mobilization approach to climate policy has been pointed out by commentators, academics, and the authors of the proposals themselves. Some of there are:

In their comparative review of climate mobilization plans, Karvinen and Korhonan point out that published plans are heavily reliant on the North American WW2 home front experience leaving experiences in other countries. Furthermore, these often neglect how the Global South would experience the consequences of climate mobilizations in the Global North.

Critiques have been levied that the World War II mobilization analogy is flawed because the nature of the climate crisis differs fundamentally from wartime threats. During WWII, the enemy was clearly defined (Axis powers), the threat was immediate (e.g., Pearl Harbor), and public support was near-unanimous due to patriotism and survival instincts. In contrast, climate change is a slow-moving, systemic crisis with diffuse causes and delayed consequences, making it harder to sustain a similar sense of urgency.

Advocates would argue that this is why mass communication campaigns are required to impress on the population the urgency of the planetary situation. Seth Klein points out that in the Canadian example, public support for Canadian participation in the war was low and that the government had work to persuade the public of the threat posed by fascism through public information campaigns.

A key concern is that framing climate action as a "war" could justify suspending democratic norms in the name of emergency measures. WWII mobilization involved centralized state control, censorship, and labor restrictions—practices that, if applied to climate policy, might lead to authoritarian governance. Critics warn that securitizing climate change (declaring it an existential threat requiring wartime powers) could bypass public debate, suppress dissent, and entrench executive overreach, even after the crisis abates. This risks undermining the very democratic institutions needed for just and inclusive climate solutions. Advocates address these criticisms and emphasize the need for cooperation, shared prosperity, accountability, and democratic engagement.

The climate mobilization approach can be seen as promoting a top-down, technocratic approach that prioritizes rapid industrial-scale solutions (e.g., massive renewable energy deployment, carbon dioxide removal) above justice and equity. Without mechanisms in place to ensure sacrifices are shared equally, a climate mobilization approach could exacerbate inequalities if policies favor corporate interests and the wealthy, or impose burdens on marginalized communities.

Critics have pointed out that public opinion remains fractured along ideological lines, and the absence of a visible, immediate "enemy" makes sustained mobilization difficult. Critics argue that wartime rhetoric may backfire by alienating moderates or fueling backlash, particularly if policies are perceived as coercive or unfair. In a piece in Vox, journalist David Roberts points out that a climate mobilization would require bi-partisan consent in the United States which is currently non-existent.

The WWII analogy often focuses on large-scale industrial and technological mobilization (e.g., Manhattan Project-style innovation) while underestimating the need for behavioral and cultural shifts. Additionally, wartime mobilization relied on industrial retooling (e.g., car factories producing tanks), whereas decarbonization requires long-term structural changes in energy, agriculture, and consumption—not just temporary industrial shifts. Decarbonization requires not just technological fixes but also reduced consumption, land-use reforms, and systemic economic changes to stay within planetary limits—measures that wartime models rarely address. Critics contend that an over reliance on the WWII framework may lead to an unbalanced policy approach that prioritizes supply-side solutions (e.g., renewables, carbon capture) over demand-side reductions (e.g., degrowth, post-growth, circular economies).

Adapted from A Comparative Review of Climate Mobilization Plans.

United States home front during World War II

Rationing in the United Kingdom

Rationing in the United States