Can we talk about the elephant in the room?

[NeptunaOfTheMermaidBattleSquadron]

I feel like as a society we need to start talking about the elephant in the room when it comes to climate change.

All these green measures being put on individuals are surely being wiped out because of all the bombing. Everywhere. All this war and conflict. No one is looking at the impact on the climate. Everything we're doing seems so trivial and pointless because in the same breath we're sending weapons (often called international aid) thousands of miles.

Then there's the manufacturing for it. The weapons testing. All the jet fuel to send the RAF USAF etc all around the world on bombing sprees. The supplies we're sending all over the place, weapons, medicine, rations... it's mind-boggling to think of the sheer scale of this.

And while we're acknowledging and working on fast fashion, home heating, electricity generation, over use of plastics, overpopulation, traceability etc, we're not even talking about or questioning all these bombs exploding everywhere!

We typically think of MAD as nuclear apocalypse, but surely people refusing to actually engage with each other to the point of forcing the world into something with the carbon footprint of a war (never mind several of them) is the climate change version of MAD. We can't reverse it.

I feel like politicians and diplomats just aren't trying hard enough with this because war is so profitable.

Why aren't just stop oil and all those other activists out there trying to protest the most avoidable thing we're doing with the biggest carbon footprint and pressuring governments to go back to diplomacy instead of treating their people as expendable?

IDK what the answer is but we seriously need to get a handle on this and stop using bombs to make points (they're not very good at it anyway) because of this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68110310

Sorry I just needed a bit of a rant. AIBU that they need to try harder to avoid armed conflicts and solve things like adults for the sake of the planet because the stakes are so much higher than one territory or issue? I haven't had much sleep this week so please explain why IABU if you think I am.

@Poppysmom22 Yes I 100% agree with that.

If you want to help the planet the best thing you can do is go vegan. Everything else doesn't come anywhere near as close when it comes to your carbon footprint.

https://theconversation.com/how-to-assess-the-carbon-footprint-of-a-war-215575#:~:text=Direct%20and%20indirect%20emissions&text=Then%20there%20is%20the%20havoc,massive%20%E2%80%9Ccarbon%20war%20bootprint%E2%80%9D.
Colleagues and I have estimated that the US military alone contributes more greenhouse gas emissions than over 150 countries,

This article has quite a few figures in - but yes war is bad for climate change.

Actually when you look there quite a bit on this and yet I would have said it wasn't a topic much covered.

https://ceobs.org/how-does-war-contribute-to-climate-change/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/09/emission-from-war-military-gaza-ukraine-climate-change
More than 5% of global emissions are linked to conflict or militaries but countries continue to hide the true scale

https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/worlds-war-greenhouse-gas-emissions-has-military-blind-spot-2023-07-10/

https://time.com/6257491/russia-ukraine-war-climate-impact/

On China, yes they are still building coal fired plants but they are building wind and solar at the same rate: they are predicted to hit peak emissions soon (2035 or something) and then drop thereafter, like the EU did. They are driving the change in technology hard, faster than in the West.
Im no fan of China’s politics - haven’t forgotten the Uighurs - but I can’t stand the whataboutery that people use to absolve themselves of any personal responsibility or national lobbying.
All countries need to make this switch.

Or watch your carbon footprint but let's import a million people every year.

Not to mention all the displaced people heading west to flee all these bullshit wars.

First of all, stop stressing about "Climate Change". That is a narrative being pushed by Western political dogma, and while there are some points we shold take note of, saving the planet isn't the reason we are supposed to be "net zero" by 2050.

Have you ever stopped to think about why EVERY single "solution" to the "climate crisis" involves YOU paying money?

For example, the air quality in London is apparently so bad, that the only "solution" is to charge people £12.50 a day to drive there! Money cleans the air! Who knew!

You can end global warming by paying lots of money to buy a new EV, because yeah, you guessed it, money cleans the air! (We will ignore the carbon footprint of the EV and gloss over the fact it has a useful lifespan of less than 10 years)

You can help the Polar Bears by spending thousands on a "heat" pump. Again, spending money saves the day!

The government drive to get rid of private vehicle ownership is nothing to do with saving penguins. It's about putting control measures in place so revenue streams can be manipulated to generate the most profit. If there is only "public" transport, you can charge companies to get a licence to operate, and they must do EXACTLY as they're told or you can pull their licence. Fares paid upfront, dynamic pricing, all in the name of the great god of Climate Change.

And if the people don't like being told what to do, we'll tough, because if they ever try to protest you can just shut the transport system down and prevent them travelling anywhere they might wave some flags around.

Cashless society ensures a perfect record of every individuals purchase history.

Carless society ensures a perfect record of every individuals travel history.

If the government really cared about the climate, they would be calling for a huge reduction in the number of children being born. WE create the pollution. There are simply too many people alive on this planet, less people equals less pollution, but politicians don't have the guts to say that.

It hurts to say this, but, if you cared about the planet, actually cared, not just pretend outrage, you would not have children.

All this faux outrage about SUV's killing the planet is a little pathetic. The irony of 30 school kids telling drivers to switch off their engines outside the school, when those kids mere existence will cause immesurably more damage to the planet than a little petrol engine will ever do.

Don't stress about "Climate Change" OP, because if you do then you are falling for the rhetoric.

Regarding war, don't worry, unless it's nuclear, the planet will.survive just fine, its survived much worse things that we have ever done to it, and even if we wipe ourselves out in a Nuclear conflict, the planet will recover, and move on without us.

I mean, even Just Stop Oil don't bother coming out during the winter, it's far too cold to play planet warriors this time of year. Saving the Polar Bears can wait until at least the end of May 🙄

That's how much they care about the planet.

Really interesting thread OP, and yes I agree with you. War is all about greed, and there are always profits to be made from war, and I suspect the damage done to our world by war doesn’t worry the profit makers too much!

And yes I’m furious with the current war mongering going on, and I include our politicians in that!

I agree that economic dependence on growth is part of the problem because it means everyone is motivated to increase the amount of "stuff" sold so that we can have growth and therefore healthy economies.

We are constantly being sold more gadgets to do stuff for us, but each gadget is made of physical resources that must be mined, processed, shipped (many miles, using trucks or ships etc), and then after they are used (and used up) will end up in a landfill somewhere. How many broken laptops are thrown away each year. All those plastic cases and now-useless little circuits made of metal and all sorts. Clothing is discarded because it is stained or frayed. Washing machines "wear out" and it's more expensive to fix them than replace them.

It also bothers me to hear I must do this and that to reduce my dependence on climate-destroying energy when a wealthy person can wipe out all the benefits of my efforts and sacrifices with one short flight on their private jet.

Also, the claims that we must all eat less meat or no meat, to save the planet, bother me because I have a dietary restriction that means I depend on meat to survive.

Berthold Brecht wrote that war is trade carried out by other means.
As for climate change, removing the internet would make an enormous saving in CO2 emissions, but nobody ever wants to talk about data centres etc.

If there is only "public" transport, you can charge companies to get a licence to operate, and they must do EXACTLY as they're told or you can pull their licence. Fares paid upfront, dynamic pricing, all in the name of the great god of Climate Change.

As someone who doesn't drive and lives outside London I'd really like someone anyone to invest in public transport - public transport in many part of the UK are so bad and unreliable after decades of underinvestment getting worse many people are increasingly forced into private car travel even if they'd rather use public transport.

We are so far from having half decent public transport than idea of only having public transport is unbelievable.

We keep talking about manufacturing and fast fashion and landills

Mmmm. A huge amount of this discourse is simply marketing. It's noise and PR, pushed by brands and manufacturers, as a way to differentiate themselves, appear virtuous/high status and sell more shit. For politicians, similar.

Yeah, it seems like 'we're all talking about it'. But it's just noise. Are companies actually refraining from pollution and exploitation? Are people actually choosing not to take flights, buy loads of shit and stop driving? No and no.

Who is 'we' and how are 'we' doing that?

Yeah. My job is seriously at risk from AI, but the vast resources AI and data centres will require are apparently no problem.

A lot of us roll our eyes and stop listening when it comes to climate change, as 95% of it – the entire conversation – seems to be bullshit. I don't deny that humans are polluting and endangering natural resources, but I'm also not willing to believe most of the talk around it.

Sorry to derail - what’s MAD?

I agree with the points you make, a war is always going to be a climate disaster. We shouldn’t be involving ourselves in international conflict, no country should. If we all minded our business and acted like we didn’t have the coping skills of a 5 year old when unpleasantness did occur the world would be a hell of a lot better place to live.

Bombing isn't happening 'everywhere'.

I’d love to stop all wars with immediate effect but how? Waving flags and banners isn’t working. The world could be a much better place for everyone if people laid down their grenades, rocket launchers, guns etc. Ditto if we all worked together to feed everyone instead of diverting food aid, making farmers into enemies etc. There are so many things we could do but like I said, no matter how many flags I’ve waved (and I’ve waved a few) nothing has ever changed, in fact it’s worsened considerably over my lifetime.

Voting for politicians at the ballot box isn’t the answer either. I’m not politically affiliated with any party because I think every one of them is full of self serving liars and we only realistically get a choice of right or left wing useless tosspots anyway. I’d vote for anyone who could actually make a better world for us all but they are conspicuous by their absence.

Sorry to derail - what’s MAD?

Mutually Assured destruction - policy of cold war nuclear arms race era.

But very few people actually want these wars to be happening. It's not an elephant - we're already opposed!

A big war with a huge number of casualties could actually be very good for the planet. Say Russia, the whole of Africa and whole of Asia had their populations wiped out, there would be enough of a population to keep the human race going, cheap land going begging and a drastically reduced population clamouring for the planet's resources. India and China account for between a fifth and a quarter of the global population alone.

Clearly in a big war it wouldn't happen like that, casualties would unfortunately be spread amongst the participants and collateral damage to anyone else. But war in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing in terms of climate change - it could be the short (in terms of a few years) sharp shock that sends humanity on a different course.

I would like to see the XR/IB type activists target their efforts against Russia, China, Iran and so on, if only to see how differently they would be dealt with compared to here.

This, without doubt.

Hey Russia, do you think you could pull out of Ukraine because it's bad for the environment?

Or do you want:

Ukraine, just let Russia take over you because fighting back is bad for the environment?

Don't think either's listening.

Nothing but the complete elimination of the human race will stop climate change. Any adjustments we make are probably too little, too late and nobody is going to forego a lifestyle that has been evolving since the industrial revolution.

As long as we have people in charge of countries we will have wars. Never going to change.

People should be looking at the likes of China, who produce more greenhouse gasses than the entire developed world combined

All the bombing in the world isn’t as bad for the planet as fossil fuel energy generation, food & agriculture, travel etc.

Have you ever read about the Kuwaiti oil fires- and the rest? Setting oil wells on fire IS a military tactic so actually, all the bombing in the world is as bad for the planet and is a major contributor to our climate crisis and shouldn't be minimised.