This won’t stop the Earth from getting hotter! It’s barely a drop in the bucket.
Meanwhile, the billions spent on war will directly result in massive carbon emissions from jet fuel, tank fuel, bombs, and the energy spent building all that equipment and shipping it halfway across the world.
You sure about that? How much carbon is emitted from the war, and how much is reduced worldwide due to Israeli innovations?
Now, if you had argued that a genocidal regime doesn’t justify their contributions against climate change, that’s different. But that’s not where you went in this thread.
Well as I linked to elsewhere in the thread, in the first 120 days of the war there have been emissions equivalent to 36 countries and territories. I don’t have the numbers, but I’m skeptical that Israel has reduced carbon emissions by that equivalent.
What’s your point anyway? Mine is that we should be spending money on climate change instead of Israel.
My point is that you argued it poorly with “None of Israel’s innovations make up for the climate catastrophe they are creating.” Because, yup, they probably do. CO2 is simply a numbers game. Saying “equivalent to 36 countries” doesn’t really mean anything, because there are lots of small, global south countries with trivial CO2 output.
From the actual study: “Our upper estimate on all pre-/post-war activities are comparable to the burning of 31,000 kilo tonnes of coal– the amount of which can power about 15.8 coal-fired power plants in one year.” That’s a much more solid number. 16 coal fired plants is . . . not nothing, but not a lot. If this was all that mattered, then Israel’s energy innovations elsewhere could easily cover it when those innovations are being shipped worldwide. Consider that China is looking towards 300 new coal plants in the not too distant future. 16 is very little.
The moral case against Israel is much stronger than the climate case, but that’s not what you’re writing here.
It won’t improve anything. Any progress that could be made will be undone by the massive carbon emissions from war. At best it might slow climate change slightly.
We should demand more, not be grateful for the scraps we get.
I’d like you to provide evidence for your claim that it would be entirely undone.
Also, even if you’re right, you do understand that less carbon emissions are better than more carbon emissions, right?
Reducing the additional carbon emissions from the war is a good thing and I’m not sure why you don’t think it is. I guess because you can’t accept anything good happens while a bad thing is happening.
Sorry, I can’t. Studies are ongoing, the most recent artcle I can find says that the first 120 days of the conflict alone were greater than the annual emissions of 26 individual countries and territories. When factoring in war infrastructure built by both Israel and Hamas, the total emissions increase to more than those of 36 countries and territories.
Again, that’s just from the first 120 days. I’m sure I can’t just multiply by three to get the past year, and the data isn’t available.
Also that doesn’t even factor in the carbon emissions that will come from rebuilding all of Gaza, because the whole strip is demolished.
And it doesn’t factor in Israel dragging us to WW3. What do you think the climate impacts of that will be?
I only said we should demand more and highlighted the Biden-Harris administration’s fucked up priorities. I’m not asking for a pony, I’m asking that we stop burning fossil fuels to support a genocidal apartheid state. It’s not an unreasonable expectation!
It won’t improve anything. Any progress that could be made will be undone by the massive carbon emissions from war. At best it might slow climate change slightly.
My guess is you said it because you either do not understand or do not accept the concept of mitigation and why mitigation is a good thing.
And slowing climate change gives us more time to fight it.
This won’t stop the Earth from getting hotter! It’s barely a drop in the bucket.
Meanwhile, the billions spent on war will directly result in massive carbon emissions from jet fuel, tank fuel, bombs, and the energy spent building all that equipment and shipping it halfway across the world.
Israel is an ongoing climate disaster.
Perhaps you’re not familiar with Israel’s incredible contributions to environmental technology innovation. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2022/12/01/the-world-wants-israels-energy-and-environmental-innovations/ https://startupnationcentral.org/blog/climatetech/climate-change-israeli-innovation/
https://www.greenpac.ca/post/solar-innovation-in-israel-making-use-of-the-desert-sun
Oh so it’s okay that they’re burning gigantic amounts of fuel for their war machine. We can afford WW3 because Israel made some solar panels.
None of Israel’s innovations make up for the climate catastrophe they are creating.
You sure about that? How much carbon is emitted from the war, and how much is reduced worldwide due to Israeli innovations?
Now, if you had argued that a genocidal regime doesn’t justify their contributions against climate change, that’s different. But that’s not where you went in this thread.
Well as I linked to elsewhere in the thread, in the first 120 days of the war there have been emissions equivalent to 36 countries and territories. I don’t have the numbers, but I’m skeptical that Israel has reduced carbon emissions by that equivalent.
What’s your point anyway? Mine is that we should be spending money on climate change instead of Israel.
My point is that you argued it poorly with “None of Israel’s innovations make up for the climate catastrophe they are creating.” Because, yup, they probably do. CO2 is simply a numbers game. Saying “equivalent to 36 countries” doesn’t really mean anything, because there are lots of small, global south countries with trivial CO2 output.
From the actual study: “Our upper estimate on all pre-/post-war activities are comparable to the burning of 31,000 kilo tonnes of coal– the amount of which can power about 15.8 coal-fired power plants in one year.” That’s a much more solid number. 16 coal fired plants is . . . not nothing, but not a lot. If this was all that mattered, then Israel’s energy innovations elsewhere could easily cover it when those innovations are being shipped worldwide. Consider that China is looking towards 300 new coal plants in the not too distant future. 16 is very little.
The moral case against Israel is much stronger than the climate case, but that’s not what you’re writing here.
You’re right. It will only improve things.
And imagine if we did anything to make things even a little better for the wrong reason!
It won’t improve anything. Any progress that could be made will be undone by the massive carbon emissions from war. At best it might slow climate change slightly.
We should demand more, not be grateful for the scraps we get.
I’d like you to provide evidence for your claim that it would be entirely undone.
Also, even if you’re right, you do understand that less carbon emissions are better than more carbon emissions, right?
Reducing the additional carbon emissions from the war is a good thing and I’m not sure why you don’t think it is. I guess because you can’t accept anything good happens while a bad thing is happening.
Sorry, I can’t. Studies are ongoing, the most recent artcle I can find says that the first 120 days of the conflict alone were greater than the annual emissions of 26 individual countries and territories. When factoring in war infrastructure built by both Israel and Hamas, the total emissions increase to more than those of 36 countries and territories.
Again, that’s just from the first 120 days. I’m sure I can’t just multiply by three to get the past year, and the data isn’t available.
Also that doesn’t even factor in the carbon emissions that will come from rebuilding all of Gaza, because the whole strip is demolished.
And it doesn’t factor in Israel dragging us to WW3. What do you think the climate impacts of that will be?
I can’t accept that this is the best we can do.
No one said it was the best we can do.
I’m guessing you have heard the phrase, “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” That’s what you’re doing. You’re not going to get your pony.
I only said we should demand more and highlighted the Biden-Harris administration’s fucked up priorities. I’m not asking for a pony, I’m asking that we stop burning fossil fuels to support a genocidal apartheid state. It’s not an unreasonable expectation!
Nope. That is not what you only said.
You also said this:
My guess is you said it because you either do not understand or do not accept the concept of mitigation and why mitigation is a good thing.
And slowing climate change gives us more time to fight it.
I stand by that. Mitigation doesn’t improve anything, it only makes things bad at a slower rate. Nothing actually gets better.