You could replace the title with just about any other armed conflict.
Exactly. And the bests way to end this one is a prompt surrender by Hamas; that, combined with removing Netanyahu's coalition from power during their next election, would go a long ways creating a situation where people can live together.
Bold of you to think a Hamas surrender could stop a genocide. Even more bold of you to think the problem is just Netanyahu and his coalition.
To be fair they are not really helping either. Remember how the israeli were on the street against the government when this shit happened?
"Elections" lol you think Israel is a democracy? That's cute.
yup. came to type that to,
Surely driving oil prices higher is a positive effect from a climate prospective, as it makes oil even less competitive with renewable sources?
It does both - there will be an increase in both fracking and renewable energy if oil prices go up.
It's a bit of a weird infographic. I'd imagine a huge negative side effect is that of production and consumption - producing the war machine and bombing things to the ground is, perhaps not surprisingly, not exactly what one would call sustainable.
Then again, if climate is all one cares about one could argue mankind cannot exterminate itself fast enough.
I appreciate what they're trying to do, but in the end the Gaza genocide is mostly bad because murdering civilians is bad. If you don't take issue with mass murder I don't think you'll be convinced by any environmental arguments one might make either.
Ya, I feel like the infographic is reaching some to try and connect two rather distant, and not just because it doesn’t really provide any info. Surely the important problem is the western backed ethnic cleansing, mass murder of innocent people, and continuing a cycle of violence that only one side has the power to end, not the incidental impact on oil prices?
It also incentivises more production, if you believe the supply & demand story.
Surely, by that logic low prices would also drive demand and increased useage?
They do. What you actually want is high prices for consumers and low prices for those doing extraction. That's the idea behind a carbon tax or sabotage aimed at the oil and gas midstream.
So you’re saying high prices lead to increased useage over low prices and low prices lead to increased useage over high prices at the same time? Does this mean average prices lead to decreased oil useage?
Usage has increased no matter the price for decades. Using pure price mechanisms to globally cut fossil fuel use means splitting consumer prices from wellhead prices.
Useage has increased, but for your first comment to make any sense the war’s effect on prices must have caused an increase over and beyond a world in which it didn’t happen.
I don't think the war has any impact on fossil fuel consumption. It changes who turns a profit and where we are in the industry boom and bust cycle, with modest consumption increases happening whether or not it happens
It is a capitalism issue
https://socialistworker.co.uk/socialist-review-archive/why-does-capitalism-lead-war/
I honestly do not think that is relevant. Yes warfare is polluting but honestly, it's a degree of magnitude less directly awful than massacre.
DDDD
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
