• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: World Politics

MindzEye said:
Click to expand...

Solve one problem, create another.
”
Each F-35 burns 22 gallons of jet fuel per minute, 1,340 gallons an hour. Altogether, the F-35A training flights from the runway in South Burlington Vermont burn between 4.7 and 9.4 million gallons of jet fuel and emit between 100 million and 200 million pounds of CO2 per year. That is the equivalent of the annual emissions of 10,000 to 20,000 passenger cars. Scroll down to the footnote to see details of the calculation.

1



The Pentagon admits that global warming is a national security threat. Yet, the US military is the single largest user of fossil fuels on the planet, as described in the Brown University, Watson Institute study, “Pentagon Fuel Use, Climate Change, and the Costs of War.” The study reports that the US military is also the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases and that the Department of Defense burns 80% of all US government energy consumption. It also reports that jet fuel—the fuel used by the F-35—is, by far, the single largest category of energy consumed by the US government and by the Defense Department.”
 
For Europeans, the somewhat more immediate problem is Russian violence though.

Would he lovely to live in a world where F35's weren't a thing though, absolutely.
 
War, what is it good for?
aside from population control, absolutely nothin’
“Deforestation often increases during conflicts. Much of the time this is due to overharvesting by communities who are suddenly reliant on wood and charcoal for fuel and heating. But it can also be as a result of armed or criminal gangs taking advantage of the collapse of management systems. Civilian coping strategies can also lead to the overharvesting of other natural resources or to environmentally damaging practices such as artisanal oil refining. And in some cases, community systems of sustainable resource management may be disrupted.

Environmental damage and degradation can also stem from resource extraction used to finance conflicts. In many conflicts, armed groups vie for control over oil, mineral resources or timber. Processing methods, such as the use of mercury in gold mining, can pollute water bodies. In addition to armed groups and artisanal workers, private companies may also be active in areas affected by conflict, often operating with minimal environmental oversight.

Human displacement is common to many conflicts. Camps for refugees and internally displaced peoples can have large environmental footprints, particularly where they are unplanned or lack essential services, like water, sanitation and waste management. Their location is also important, as camp residents may be compelled to use local resources such as firewood, which can place local resources under pressure. People displaced by conflict may also move internally to urban areas, swelling the population and placing local environmental services under strain. “
ceobs.org

How does war damage the environment? - CEOBS

Ever wondered what the environmental impacts of war are? Read our guide to the many different ways through which armed conflicts and militarism can damage the environment.
ceobs.org ceobs.org
 
I get being anti-war, but Ukrainians didn’t really have much of a choice on this one did they, especially as Russia continues to launch missiles at their civilians.
 
grabovsky_mikhail_pineapple.jpg
 
Part of Russian resentment and paranoia is due to the Paris Accord. Does anyone here find or striking that Russia, Saudi and UAE, all dependent on hydrocarbon exports for their military budget and ability to pay for soft power, were all pro-Trump and he withdrew the US from Paris.

And then these’s Patrushev, Putin’s #1 advisor, who called climate activism are a form of “Western Nazism”.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top