Compartmentalized thinking is when one thinks war and/or military operations are not climate change.
They're more than mere weather change.
What the quasi-incoherent seem to mean, by "climate change", is something about global average temperature and ocean sea level. The "biosphere" on the other hand, goes neglected, as that's the messy theater of viruses and wars, whereas "the climate" is more important.
As if there's a difference between economy and ecosystem, human health and planet health.
We may stipulate that there is, i.e. that humans are at war with their own habitat. Certainly they're at war with themselves, which makes for an unfriendly habitat in many regions.
Were humans to be less warlike, the biosphere would change for the better.
Short of that, why should it?
Nuclear winter is climate change.
The ash of cities, blown around the planet, obscures the sun, most likely ushering in an ice age as industry won't be available to warm us up again with those greenhouse gases, not to that high a level. Was this the plan then, to save the planet from further "civilization"?
When we're facing climate change in the form of returning to coal or before, maybe that has something to do with the price of rice? Are those "fighting climate change" content with their own views on war? They insist war must end, right? But it's not like they're the ones giving orders.
No comments:
Post a Comment