If the stretch from global warming to involuntary servitude seems too far, I apologize. But, I've just always been resistant to threats as a motivator of good behavior. At least the threat of hellfire that many religions rely on was able to be dismissed as a fiction--until the U.S. Air Force started lobbing hellfire missiles at dissidents, that is.
The problem is the strategy. The atmospheric heating problem ("global warming" is a misnomer and the first sign that the argument is not straight) is being put forward as a threat to enforce behavior that should be promoted on its own.
It isn’t just when you rely on environmental threats to influence people, who don’t give a fig for anyone other than themselves, that the effort to do something positive is bound to fail. Even empathetic people might respond by throwing up their hands at the prospect of disaster and just not doing anything at all. The threat of a negative consequence does not promote positive behavior–much as conservatives would like to think it does.
How do you get people to do what you want and think they should? Not even by eliminating all other possible actions, if you could even identify them all. No, when we want something done, we say what it is and we pay someone, who's able, to do it. That's how the world works best--give orders and reward those who carry them out.
Conservatives, you see, are authoritarians who think it's their right to give orders and to expect them to be carried out by whoever's subordinate to them. The progressive recognizes that all men have an equal right not to do what someone else wants and to be compensated when he does.
Paying for work is the signal sign of a commitment to equality. Threatening the survival of those who refuse to take orders is the predicate for servitude. We can pretend that voluntary servitude is very different from the involuntary kind, but it's just a matter of substituting psychological coercion for the physical version. If psychological coercion has the appearance of being more successful, that's simply because physical coercion is ultimately self-defeating when an excess of force results in death. You see, dead people can't carry out orders. So, tricking people into believing that they want to do what's being ordered seems to work better--until the deceived put an end to their torture and resort to physical violence themselves.
If that's what seems to account for the increasing rate of troop and veteran suicides, I'd say you're on the right track. The American military, since the draft was ended, has been an organization that relies on voluntary servitude. Which those who sign up didn't fully realize until "stop loss" transformed it back into the involuntary kind. Man was not created to be a slave.