Militarized climate planning: what is left?

Some academics and commentators argue that societies should engage in centralized planning to avoid climate change impacts, similar to war-time economic planning from the past. This paper critiques militarized climate planning in its comprehensive and noncomprehensive forms. We argue that a “war footing” would severely exacerbate epistemic limitations, perverse incentives, and political power problems, reducing the capacities to discover effective means of climate mitigation in localized contexts. We alternatively argue that polycentric governance systems promote diverse and nuanced mitigation approaches. Polycentric institutional configurations tend to improve learning processes, provide stronger incentives for socially productive behavior, facilitate coproduction, and foster legitimacy for climate action. Societies do not need to engage in militarized planning—either comprehensively or noncomprehensively—to address climate change problems effectively.