Our planet's global warming crisis has become a center-stage issue in the public debate over the last year or so. Every day brings a new manner in which we can reduce our individual "carbon footprint," from hybrid cars to halogen light bulbs and so on. While effective on a small scale, these simple steps can't bring about the reversal of climate change needed to cure the situation quickly enough. Far more drastic measures need to be taken.
The primary reason that the solutions offered so far fail is that they don't work on a large enough scale. While I can drive a hybrid car and feel like I'm saving the environment, in the lanes next to me will be a guy driving a '65 Mustang with lousy emissions, a soccer mom in a Hummer, and a tractor trailer spewing filth into the air. Any one of us can do our part, but until the masses all work toward the same goal, nothing will change. However, the majority of the population has little desire to change their ways, even to save the planet. Clearly, then, the masses are the problem. They must be eliminated.
However, in removing the masses from the planet, we can't use our conventional military methods. Our current military complex uses the very vehicles, chemicals, and fuels that have caused the problem. No, we need to exterminate large numbers of people with a method that has the smallest "carbon footprint." The solution is clear: nuclear war.
Nuclear war not only rids the planet of massive amounts of people with minimal effort, but it has a side benefit that will further help our crisis. Scientists have theorized that even a small-scale nuclear war would result in a "nuclear winter" during which the sun would be blocked from the Earth by massive amounts of soot, smoke, ash, and dust. This would rapidly cool the planet, essentially resetting the thermometer back to a safe level.
We could help the situation even further by choosing the best targets, areas with the biggest "carbon footprints." Even a cursory amount of research clearly shows that the states of California and Texas have the largest overall carbon footprint (even though California has only the 46th highest per capita carbon footprint). So for the U.S., we should destroy these states. The loss would be insignificant compared to what we have to gain. Besides, we already have the 48-state flag ready to go.
Each of the countries that fall within the top five in overall "carbon footprint" should likewise have to decide on an offensive territory or two that need to be removed. Were we all to cooperate on this, the climate change we've caused would be reversed in no time. In the words of Wilford Brimley, "It's the right thing to do."