Let us consider working with this 'Climate change is terrorism' thing.

polar-bear-facepalmLike most of you, I of course consider the upcoming climate change ‘conference’ in Paris to be a form of what our great-grandparents (well, mine) euphemistically called ‘self-abuse.’ To wit: it is admittedly highly entertaining to the person doing it, but nothing lasting will result, and doing it in public like this is simultaneously offensive and tacky. Let me give you a spoiler warning: India and China have no intention of gutting their economies so that a bunch of smug, white, Western liberals can have a religious experience. Here’s another spoiler warning: when it comes right down to it, neither does the United States. Leon Wolf is quite right: Barack Obama is simply punching the clock until January of 2017.


But let us talk about what unites us.  Not what divides us.  It occurs to me that there is a possibility for compromise in this issue, and it has its unlikely genesis in Bernie Sanders’ rather fascinating claim that climate change causes terrorism.  …OK. Let us take – solely for the purpose of this discussion – the position that this is not the babbling of a man who has to be checked for clean underwear several times a day. If climate change causes terrorism, it follows, then, that terrorism is a subset of climate change.  Therefore, techniques used to fight terrorism can be legitimately seen as methods for fighting ‘climate change.’ Even if those methods are not immediately intuitive: after all, if you told somebody unfamiliar with modern forestry that sometimes the best way to stop a forest fire is to start another one, he or she would look at you oddly.  But it’s true!

So the solution is amazingly obvious.  I will cheerfully – cheerfully, happily, without a murmur of protest – allow the Left to call the intersection of high explosive and/or high-velocity depleted uranium rounds with every terrorist we can find ‘combating climate change.’  Shoot, I’ll call it that myself.  The possibilities in this new and exciting field of guerrilla semantics are in fact endless.  For example: we could call leaving terrorist grease smears on the ground ‘high-efficiency carbon banking.’ Disrupting Islamic State’s supply lines and sacrificial altar schedule? ‘Encouraging a light footprint.’ Making these guys crawl back under the rocks they were hiding under from 2003 to 2009? Well, that’s just us reminding them to ‘think globally.’


See where I’m going with this?  I feel that this solution divides things up so that everybody gets what they want.  The Right gets to kill those lousy so-and-sos that like to rape little girls and set people on fire, and the Left gets to tell itself that it participated. Win-win all around.

Besides, it’s not like we’re not going to start up again with the killing radical Islamist terrorists in about a year and a half anyway. The Left should be grateful that I’m willing to make them this deal. Especially if it turns out that we’re going to be hitting an extended cooling period after all…

Moe Lane


Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos