Off the Bench: Let’s hope it won’t be too late when we ask ‘to what end?’ on climate crisis

In the course of dealing with disputes as a lawyer and judge, I observed people getting lost in the weeds of controversies to the point where they lost sight of the purpose or consequences of their actions. Objectives are eclipsed in a struggle, which itself becomes the purpose. A cost-benefits analysis is overlooked as means obscure objectives. To focus attention on goals and consequences, I often found myself asking: “To what end?”

On a large scale, take for example the Vietnam War and our military involvement in the Mideast. The purpose behind the Vietnam War was to prevent the spread of communism; the so-called “domino theory.” As the war progressed, we became so involved in the war effort that we failed to reassess the validity of our engagement. Purpose and consequence gave way to military calculations of our progress as the war created its own reality.

The result was a colossal disaster: 58,000 American soldiers and over a million Vietnamese were killed. We destroyed the country, lost the war, and none of the dreaded consequences of the “domino theory” occurred. We had intervened in a revolutionary war in which the Vietnamese sought the independence they had been denied under French and Japanese occupation.

The Iraq War was based on the false assumption that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Despite our losses in blood and treasure over 19 years, we remain bogged down in a conflict without end. The Mideast remains in turmoil, thousands have been killed, and tens of thousands made refugees.

Both wars were fought to protect our national security. When you consider the consequences in blood and treasure and all that could have been done with the trillions spent, was it worth it? By any rational cost-benefit analysis the answer would be no. “To what end” was an early casualty in both conflicts.

Now the world faces a problem that transcends national security. Global security in the form of climate change is at risk in this century. Protecting the planet will require a cooperative effort by all the nations of the earth – a Marshall Plan on a global scale – to preserve this blue speck in the vastness of space that is our home.

Instead, it seems that humanity is so far incapable of acknowledging the threat or unwilling to set aside “national security” to meet the larger objective of self-preservation.

Instead of leading the effort, the United States is now an outlier, having withdrawn from the Paris Climate Treaty. Unwilling even to acknowledge the crisis, President Trump refuses to initiate the steps necessary to reduce the risk. Such policies will require regulations and expenditures that run counter to his populist agenda. Better to deny the threat than to risk alienating his base. After all, the threat is not so imminent as to demand immediate attention. Leave it for the next generation.

At some point the danger will become so apparent it will have to be faced. Let us hope it will not be too late. “To what end” is a question often asked when the time for a critical earlier response has elapsed. By then, it may be too late.

James W. Dolan is a retired Dorchester District Court judge who now practices law.


Subscribe to the Dorchester Reporter