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.
“We were viciously attacked by the terror proxy of a genocidal regime that wants to destroy us, but we shouldn’t respond because it’s bad for the environment.”
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.
Remember that was only the first 120 days.
It’s been over three times that long, now. Is it 48 coal plants by now? Probably not, but it’s a very significant amount of carbon!
We can’t meet our climate goals and find Israel at the same time, that’s all I wanted to say. We need better properties.
“We were viciously attacked by the terror proxy of a genocidal regime that wants to destroy us, but we shouldn’t respond because it’s bad for the environment.”
What color is the sky in your dream world?