Skip to main content

View Diary: CO2 Emissions Rate Grew 3.1%/yr for 2000-2012: Catastrophic Exponential Growth (134 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  When is there a case for war? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nulwee, divineorder, Creosote

    There was much talk of how nations engaging in actions that will destroy another, the victim nation may attack preemptively.

    Does this give the Maldives legal provision to send commandos to blow up Chinese and American coal plants?  

    I wonder what the reaction would be if they asked the Security Council for permisssion to attack China and the US for their actions to destroy their country

    Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

    by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 06:53:51 PM PST

    •  Mindful Nature - no, it doesn't (0+ / 0-)

      The impact of climate change isn't legally recognized as a legitimate reason to take offensive military actions against another sovereign nation. Emissions will never have the same legal status as invasion, because all nations emit to some degree. If nations at risk like the Maldives do decide to start covert actions against coal plants I would encourage them to not start with the US. We react very violently and are the only country with a true blue water navy who can project massive force anywhere in the world.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 07:50:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It would be novel (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FishOutofWater

        but it wouldn't seem to matter what the mechanism of imminent threat is, so far as I can remember.  (The point abotu all countries being responsible is a good one).

        I suspect rather than actually attacking, the request for a UN SC resolution authorizing the use of military force against the US and China by the Maldives would certainly be an interesting approach to raising the issue

        I suppose also, the could ask for some other SC resolution to prevent the destruction causing activities.

        This is of course more of a brainstorm session.

        Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

        by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 08:36:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  MN - the UN? (0+ / 0-)

          The UN would pass a resolution authorizing military force against the US and China? What nations would sign up for that? Without the US the UN couldn't stop a cookie fight at a Brownie Scouts meeting. Never mind the fact that the US and China could veto any such lunacy.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 08:46:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It isn't that they'd pass it (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            radical simplicity

            it's that Maldives petition would have to have a hearing.  Maybe a request for GA support.  It would make for good television and some good press reports.  At minimum, it would be a way to raise the issue once again to say in a public forum "America, j'accuse!"

            I guess on they other hand, I guess they can just slink away and die so we can drive SUVs.

            Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

            by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 08:51:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  well, then you could invade pretty much any (0+ / 0-)

      overproducing/overconsuming nation on those grounds...

    •  war wouldn't help the problem (0+ / 0-)

      but I've wondered why low lying countries aren't getting together to attempt some geo-engineering - yes, it might screw weather patterns and agriculture globally, and doesn't solve ocean-acidification, but it would at least buy some time with sea level rise.

      Essentially, why wouldn't they go ahead with unilaterally stopping the sea level rise, because no big emitting countries are doing enough to keep the low-lying countries from an underwater oblivion?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site