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.

Why don’t countries adopt the MN approach to a dispute.
Go NC.
That would solve everything.
😉😁😁

The capitalist system itself is the problem. Run by and for people to enrich themselves, without giving a stuff for others. It has succeeded in turning us all from people to “consumers”, in economies that must endlessly grow and where the value of everything is expressed in money.

To change, we’d need completely different leaders with the will to introduce regulation to make change at a much higher level, but by controlling the media, they’ve ensured that anything that’s good for people is deemed as “woke” and therefore somehow bad.

As a child of the 80s, I’m astonished that it has been possible to completely erode the consensus around climate change that existed back in the early 90s. It’s depressing to think about, and wars add to it, yes, but are actually a symptom of the underlying problem of rampant, unchecked greed and the pursuit of wealth at any cost.

If they aren’t going to stop wars for the simple reason it’s results in people being blown up then they aren’t going to stop wars for climate change.

Perversely, war can actually have effects upon the environment that are different - reduced populations, less demand for consumer goods (because people are just concentrating upon staying alive), lack of safe housing or medical care results in a lower birth rate in terms of maternal and infant mortality, disease outbreaks, huge areas left to go fallow/regenerate without the poor people who have suffered being there.

If there is no war, people continue having children, consuming, growing, polluting. When the population reduces, the demand and impact reduces.

This doesn't mean it's a good thing, war is never a good thing - but it's far more complex than somebody in a safe, prosperous country saying 'isn't it bad for the planet when planes fly overhead? They should stop doing that when told to by pensioners supergluing themselves to the x embassy front steps'

Overpopulation is the problem no one talks about. There are too many humans, using too many resources and destroying the planet to get more. There's a finite supply and other species, who usually live in harmony with their environment, are being wiped out because of us.

If we wipe ourselves out through war, we'd be doing the planet a favour.

You kind of did, weapons testing, logistics, manufacture. Surely there are statistics about the carbon footprint of arms manufacturing.

Since wars often don't spare industrial infrastructure, and poor dictatorships are probably rather climate friendly despite increased fossil fuel consumption in the general population, there may be some sort of balancing out going on I guess?

As for wars taking the focus away, yes, diversion is often the point.

But as long as enough money can enable enough people to lead a lifestyle with gigantic carbon footprints, this will go on, and it will be very hard to justify to the "little people" why they should stop driving cars to work when China is building more coal power plants than the rest of the world combined.

On the over population front - they think world wide it will peak earlier and at lower level then once feared- and we are likely at peak child already - we already at 2.3 fertility rate and projected to reach 2.1 replacement level by 2050 if not before. Then we get aging populations to content with.

On energy front - https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/oct/09/worlds-largest-offshore-windfarm-project-starts-powering-uk-grid

We've reduced our Co2 output 38% since 1990, faster than any other major developed country.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-the-uks-co2-emissions-have-fallen-38-since-1990/

There' more to do but we have made and are making progress despite doom and gloom posts on green topics on here.

Our cities at least have public transport and walkable distances - Americans seems oblivious to climate problems and their infrastructure is poorly laid out and they have cheap petrol prices compare to rest of the world.

https://thehustle.co/why-gas-is-actually-cheap-in-america/

The also had a lot of very cold weather and seemed shocked their electric car batteries wouldn't charge - which been very bad PR for electric cars over there.

I hear you, and admire the sentiment, but it's futile.

If it doesn’t worry you then you don’t know enough about it. I’m not going to spell it out because it’s petrifying. But I actually think war is going to be more likely because of the climate emergency.

Says who?

Problem with political uncertainly and more wars - is there will inventible be more military investment - so contribution of wars and military towards global warming will likely increase.

I can't see any of the countries engaged in bombing right know giving a toss about climate change.
Actually, even countries not engaged in bombing give a toss. Taking measures now would cost money and possible a politician's career so they project their ambition in the future.

I agree completely. Unfettered capitalism and letting ‘the market’ dictate change is the issue. As consumers we do hold some power though. As voters we do. Not much. But some and we should use it.

Are you a pacifist @NeptunaOfTheMermaidBattleSquadron ?

I don't know what you think would happen if the world gave in to dictators like Putin.

What's your alternative?

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

You are misguided.

You actually think politicians create or perpetuate war because of the money is makes?

Where is the data or evidence to support this view?

I see this often but surely we can all feel the economic impact of various wars right now

No one gives a shit about climate change, they'd rather get a dog, drive a huge SUV and buy loads of crap off Shein and Temu

Gosh @NeptunaOfTheMermaidBattleSquadron I hadn't thought of it like that at all and you are so right.

Or this is what the arms manufacturers want you to think...

Posted too soon.
You are right re us killing ourselves to halt climate change (the Green party are the Junior partners in the Irish government at the moment and are the tail wagging the dog ) and yet warmongering causes sooo much damage.

Humans are destroying our world through overpopulation. We are all responsible for that.
If we all had no more babies (and that wouldn't be popular on MN) then in 100 years the world would be human free and nature could rule again.
Last person standing, please turn the light off 😉

Pretty much every scientist. They all state the required reductions, and meeting those standards needs more than just the UK. Russia alone can screw it, as could China, or India, or the US (although they are making some noises in the right direction).

I studied history and indeed money has always been a factor. One of the most powerful families in the world made their first fortune during the US war of independence. Read the recent studies over why DLloydGeorge didn't want to negotiate with germany in 1917 - financial impact a factor. A prominent EU politician has recently said publicly that his country should appreciate how profitable sending arms to Ukraine is/will be.

@NeptunaOfTheMermaidBattleSquadron I think your opening post is very thoughtful. But to sort out climate change, it is the wealthiest money men who would need to have an epiphany, stop putting excessive profit ahead of people, stop creating short life items, stop dredging sea beds to pruduce tins of fish, stop the dominance of oil. And exactly the same wealthiest money men are those who profit from arms manufacture.

What about the 11 year cycle sun spots?