The Battle to Defeat Climate Change: The War We Lost Before It Began

Imagine a general rallying his troops after their country has been attacked. He delivers a rousing speech, urging them to rise up and defeat the enemy. But there's a critical flaw: there is no battle plan, no strategy, no coordination, just each soldier left to fight alone improvising as they go. In any real-world military operation, such chaos would spell disaster. No competent general would lead this way. Yet, this is precisely how the fight against climate change began-- and how it continues today. Even worse, there was no general to take command then, and there is still no one now.

No wonder the war on climate change has failed--not because of a lack of concern, research, or passion, but because it was never fought with strategy, coordination, or leadership. From its inception, the battle has unfolded more like a disorganized uprising than a strategic campaign. Yes, there have been recognized leaders--charismatic ones--who persistently, with passionate pleas, calling for action, increased funding, and broader participation. However, there has been no centralized command, no unified plan of attack, and no entity with the authority to direct resources toward the singular goal of victory. Instead, what emerged from Al Gore's urgent and impassioned call to arms in his 2006 film, An Inconvenient Truth, was a decentralized explosion of climate initiatives--well-intentioned, often innovative, but ultimately fragmented and ineffectual.

The proof is stark and undeniable. Carbon dioxide levels have reached unprecedented heights, breaching a red line that scientists warned should not be crossed. Global temperatures are rising year after year, threatening and destroying ecosystems, generating extreme destructive weather, and making regions of the planet uninhabitable. The data does not lie: we are losing.

This colossal failure cannot be attributed to science or advocacy. Around the world, dedicated researchers, entrepreneurs, and climate activists have poured decades of effort and creativity into developing renewable energy technologies, pushing for policy changes, and raising awareness. Yet without a unified command structure, these efforts have been diffuse and often duplicative, lacking the scale and speed necessary to rival the entrenched forces of fossil fuel dependence and climate change denial.

Governments hamstrung by political cycles, special interests, and national economic dependencies have proven incapable of rising to the moment. They make commitments and sign treaties promising to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and achieve net-zero emissions. But their commitments have never been met. And today, most of the fossil fuel-producing nations are increasing their production. The U.S., the second-largest polluting nation after China, calls climate change a hoax and defiantly boasts its policy under the Trump administration of "drill baby drill". Corporations, especially those with extensive carbon footprints, have repeatedly reneged on promises and greenwashed their images while quietly maximizing profits. That is likely to continue with the widespread adoption of energy thirsty AI technologies. And the public, caught in the squeeze of inflation and other daily survival challenges, is unable to prioritize a crisis that, for many, still feels abstract and remote. The cruel irony is that there will be no jobs, no profits, and no eggs on a dead planet.

Yet, despite overwhelming evidence of strategic failure, the response remains the same: more conferences, more treaties, more funding pleas, and more calls to continue with the same piecemeal approaches that have delivered too little, too late. This is not a strategy. It is inertia in the face of a planetary emergency.

The only way forward is to recognize what the battle against climate change has always lacked: an independent entity, completely detached from individual nations, corporations, and electoral politics, that is empowered to develop a science-based battle plan. This body must have the authority to identify and fully fund the most promising technologies with the goal of developing them to full functionality.

This is not fantasy. Independent institutions to address global threats have been successfully established before. The Manhattan Project, which beat Germany and Japan to nuclear fission, is a prime example. The main facility in Los Alamos, New Mexico, operated under the firm and disciplined leadership of General Leslie Groves, whose rigorous oversight earned him a reputation for ruling with an "iron hand". On the scientific front brilliant physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer led a team of world renowned scientists, including Niels Bohr, Edward Teller, Enrique Ferme, Leo Szilard, Richard Feynman, Glenn Seaborg, Leon Woods Marshall Libby, and Hans Bethe. Their collective genius achieved success in just three years (1942-1945), proving that when granted independence, strong leadership, and sufficient resources, science can accomplish "the impossible". Climate change, the existential crisis of our time, deserves no less.

The time of uncoordinated incrementalism must end. The battle must be reclaimed from those who have failed to fight it effectively. Only with centralized authority, clear direction, and unwavering determination can we hope to reverse the hopeless trajectory we are on. While the window for defusing the looming "climate time bomb" is rapidly shrinking, victory is still technically possible--but only if we muster the vision and courage to wage a true and uncompromising war.