Home | About | Donate

Fighitng Climate Change Means Ending War

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/07/18/fighitng-climate-change-means-ending-war

2 Likes

A very important article that should be on the front page of every newspaper world wide.

5 Likes

“Can we afford it?”
How much positive legislation has been defeated using this question? When will we say enough?
This country can afford almost anything we want, just dramatically reduce the bloated military budget, rescind the excessive tax cuts for the wealthy, and make them and corporations pay their fair share in taxes. If you want a real windfall, go after, and tax heavily hidden wealth of the rich.
Just common sense as I see it, and I expect most of the 99% do too.

2 Likes

This article only begins to touch on the magnitude of the problem. For ending war and dismantiling the world wide military industrial complex is not even an objective with any short or long term, political plausibility. Not to mention the complete overhaul of human values necessary to stop our climate apocalypse, and it’s easy to conclude that things are now well out of hand. And what, if anything, it might take to stop our species accelerating down the slippery slope towards our own self made hell, will have to be so profound and radical that I doubt it has even been imagined! More at http://www.energon.org.uk

2 Likes

Impossible, War is the very essence of America. The NYT has pushed for wars since the U.S.S. Maine was false flagged.

1 Like

It is safe to say we’ve been lied into EVERY war since 1898. What we need now is cooperation not endless competition for profit…speaking of profit, ain’t survival profitable?

Wow, heavy Milton quote.

It’s a day of thinking [I’m off], but thinking tires one too. So, I’ll block/paste something I already wrote today! It was a reply to Sukan on DiEM25’s fb page. In this below
“fog” = money, owing to a prior commenter’s astute allusion.

There’s sort of a deadline ahead. It’s reasonable to want to preserve the West’s production capability. But for what’s needed. The “fog” that’s sitting out there in hedge funds/derivatives is doing what? Even that amount couldn’t make the production competitive, though, in terms of latest-craze-demand-items (ok, maybe to enable more production of some high priced German cars, but basically what I mean is craze items versus WHAT’S NEEDED in, say, sort of a Cuban “special period”). So what do you do with it? You try to create what the folks at Maidan “thought” they’d get with closer ties to the West (a good bit more frugal, but everyone knows it’s necessary in connection with the biosphere). What the folks at Maidan knew about the West they knew about through example (I’m talk’n the pro West contingent). But what happens when that example turns to an “energy dominance” approach (grab it first)? There’s only one hope. You convert the hard stuff and the cash (fog) to a better societal example, and you hope for converts amongst small activist people across the planet. Otherwise the biggest money makers remaining will be McKinsey and Erik Prince. It’s basically PR. Just like this platform we’re writing on is basically one-half PR for consumer items. But it’s also increased security through better lives.

Regarding that deadline, Nature is closing in. Consider China’s fishing industry. It’s OK to be conservative, but BE CONSERVATIVE in regard to this deadline.

at this time this link is cutting off the top paragraph; more each time I check it https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/democracy-versus-climate/#comment-4546877428

One impediment to even examining the issue of how we slow down is a misconception. That misconception is: In no way is the ISIL danger and the Russia danger and the Iran danger and the Venezuela danger…blowback. No, these threats are givens. And actually one is only obliged to cite them briefly and inarticulately to excuse oneself from examining the hard issue of slowing down. For the slow-downers are invaribly identified with idealistic non-interventionists. So, while the interventions pose tangible blowback on the ground, IMO the enduring threats/dangers misconception poses danger in the “mental” sphere of dialogue/reporting/debate/conversation. Coupled with this misconception is one about not enough money for green conversion, and not enough time to convince voters to spend the money that isn’t there. Here’s something germane to the latter from Benjamin Erd…under the same fb share I mentioned to kla2 above.

Benjamin Erd…

Ah…the bad debts that you are afraid to pay for other people…you still seem to be clinging on to a very much “blaming” narrative that is responsible for turning the nations against each other. Just as planned… . It is not that the debtor is the bad guy and the creditor is the good guy in this game. Especially this is not the case in a globalized economy that drives on debt. There is no growth without debt and if you were able to save money during growth it is because someone else took the debts onto his shoulders. And in the end money is just a thick layer of fog put out over the consciousness of people to tell them what is NOT possible, because it cannot be “financed”. All this to keep them in their small thought-prisons. Ridiculous…if any it must be about resources, not money. Everything else is just neoclassic economics’ shenanigans. But hey…they are working perfectly, obviously.

I think he meant “thrives” on debt.

Was Russia involved in the Montenegrin coup plot, or was there such a thing [planned for 2016]? I don’t know (would have to read more about it…not a whole lot of bearing on us anyway). But I don’t believe they were involved in the '16 election here to any significant degree. The rest on that list of whom they tell us to fear (Iran and Venezuela) I believe posed us no danger. I mean, in terms of Iran, before the false flags (probably) in the Strait of Hormuz and the Grace 1 incident…and really at the present moment up until Bolton gets his golden dream. If Venezuela can swing more credit from China and Russia, and few out there end up desperately needing Trump’s fracked oil, that’ll be the result of a bunch of sanctions imposed on Venezuela 1) to get them in our orbit, and 2) possibly at the very beginning of a successful coup…to dampen their production so that buyers would purchase Trump’s fracked product.

The US and other militaries, are by far the largest polluters in the world. World wide the norm is that military vehicles are not held to any emission standards what so ever and that the burning of garbage, discarded materials and human waste is rampant and unregulated. Add the fact that the US military is the largest user of petroleum based product, gasoline, solvents and more, and it is clear that decreasing the size of armed forces worldwide and the pollution and toxic stuff they contribute would be a step in the right direction.

“So much for hope. So much for any possibility of a sane, nuke-free, united planet. The “world’s greatest democracy” has morphed, over the course of my lifetime, into a money-driven military-industrial monstrosity, waging pointless wars, selling arms to the world, expanding its prison archipelago and generating endless wealth for the powerful — all the while insulated from public scrutiny by the mainstream propaganda industry, which shrugs and calls it all self-defense and situation normal as it serves up endless distractions to Spectator Nation."
That paragraph pretty much says what I’ve thought about the PTB for years.