So climate crisis, we need to mobilize for World War II.

New Green Course [Greek New Deal] voters say there is a great urgency to deal with climate change and stress the scale of the field we need to fight it. They're right. They use the term “ (New Course” to avoid the response President Franklin D. Roosevelt after the Great Depression. An even better analogy to mobilise the country would be the answer to World War II.

Critics ask, “Can we afford it? ” and complain that New Green Course proponents mixed the war to preserve the planet with a more controversial agenda for social transformation. Critics are mistaken.

Yes, we can afford it, with fair fiscal policies and collective will. But most importantly, we have to deal with it. Climate change is our Third World War. Our lives and our civilization as we know it are in danger, just as they were in World War II.

When the United States was attacked during World War II, no one asked “can we afford the war? It was a matter of existence. We couldn't afford to sit back and not fight. The same goes for climate change. Here, we are already directly experiencing the costs of ignoring this issue in recent years the country has lost nearly 2 percent of GDP in weather-related disasters, including food, hurricanes and forest fires. The costs for our health from climate - related diseases are being erased, but they will cost us tens of billions of dollars without mentioning the uncountable number of lives lost. We're going to pay for climate change in one way or another, so it makes sense to spend now in order to reduce emissions and not expect to pay much more later consequences, not only from weather but also from rising sea level.

Fighting climate change would even be good for the economy as was the second world war that made America prosper, with the greatest growth in its history. The New Green Course would increase demand, ensuring that any potential resources would be used; and the transition to green economies would most likely bring another economic boom. Trump's focus on past industries, such as coal, is overwhelming opportunities to spend on solar and wind powers. Much more work would be created with renewable energy than coal.

The biggest challenge will be to ensure resources for the Green New Course. Despite news headlines on the low unemployment rate, the United States has many unused and inefficient resources. The employment rate of people who have reached work age in the United States continues to be small, even smaller than in the past, less than in many other countries, and small especially among women and minorities. With family support policies and more flexible time on our labour market, we would employ more women and more citizens for over 65 years. Because of our long legacy of discrimination, many of human resources are not used with efficiency as needed. Along with a better education and health policies and investment in infrastructure and technology, the production capacity of the economy would increase, providing some of the resources the economy needs to fight and adapt to climate change.

While most economists agree that there is still room for expansion to sustain the economy, even in the short term there is still controversy over how much production would increase without falling into short-term obstacles. However, there must be a resource re-commission to combat this war as it did World War II, when women's deployment to the workforce expanded production capacity.

Furilative efforts during World War II transformed our society. We moved from an agricultural economy and from a very rural society to a manufacturing economy and to a very urban society.

There is absolutely no reason why the 21st century's innovative green economy follows the economic and social patterns of the 20th century, as there was no reason for that economy to follow the economic and social patterns of agricultural and rural economies of past centuries. /Periscope, Translate and adapt from The Guardian