BREAKING: simultaneous freakish heat in the Arctic and Antarctic described as 'impossible' and 'unthinkable' by scientists as abrupt climate change accelerates wildly 🧵 pic.twitter.com/jGwovCRLeT— Ben See (@ClimateBen) March 19, 2022
How bad do things have to get before China starts militarizing it's climate response to protect forests and reduce pollution? That is, invading countries that are not doing their part in working towards a global benefit.
edit: protecting the climate is a national security issue
God, not long at all I hope. Not to cheer on even more conflict but I'm 100000000000% convinced global north nations won't lift a damn finger to abet climate change unless China and co. force them to.
That said China is pretty committedly non-interventionist so who knows if they'd ever take a drastic step like that.
I think its going to take the coordinated action of many third world nations to actually change anything about climate change. They're the places with the most to lose and whose exploitation is necessary to create hyper-profits driving climate change. I've been thinking a lot about the futures sketched out in Wainwright and Mann's Climate Leviathan. They're very skeptical of what they call "Climate Mao" because of authoritarianism and achieving Climate Mao would require a reorientation of the PRC, but I'm thinking more and more that it is the best hope .
I'm kinda optimistic on India too, not really because of CPIM or the Naxalites or whatever but because the reality of India, its place in the imperialist pecking order, and the needs of its people continually place it at odds with the West despite it being governed by a reactionary government.
Global powers may try not empowering extractive companies and comprador elites if they wish tô protect forests instead of invading countries
Global powers are the extractive companies. At least in the imperial core, they're all but one and the same. I don't want anyone anywhere to get hurt, at all. But the global south is suffering right now from climate change, on top of all the other legacies of imperialism and colonialism. If it takes them arming themselves and forcing global north governments to comply in order to protect their own people, so be it.
Yes, I left the foe vague because it is fucking everyone that aligns with and is under the thumb of American capital.
Ecofascism is allowing the poor to die while the rich are comfortable. This is what the status quo is doing. I am suggesting that someone might see intervention (there are many types) as the only viable option to make a change and disrupt the current trajectory and actually make a difference to cut extraction and environmental ruin in a timescale that is meaningful.
I think you misinterpreted me a little, I am not suggesting that China carpet bomb Rio de Janeiro.
What I do mean though, is that capitalist nations, through neoliberal imperialism, are the most extractive countries, and direct this extraction with global companies and supported through the local governments.
Other than complete destruction of a liveable earth, there is no motivation by these actors to change the status quo. It's serves them well.
China is in a unique position, as a powerhouse country that has a political will that is unburdened at least some extent from capitalist interference. They also are one of the few countries that sees long term. If they see a threat to their people, or sovereignty, or food supplies, or water, because of the deforestation or pollution from another country (sure, Brazil is a great example), do they mount action to overthrow a government and replace with a more environmentally friendly option?
I don't necessarily mean military conflict. but sanctions are war, supporting an internal revolt is suitable, cutting off trade routes -- if there is a need to protect the people in china (and also everywhere....) From total global food system collapse -- is violence justified?
I'm not suggesting eco fascism -- like, they're not demonizing a race or something, it would literally be going after capitalists and polluters.
China is the example because of the powerful position they are currently in.
Climate change will lead to wars for sure. The people who are questioning the Ukraine war are going to be even more desperate to understand how and why countries are going to war to protect vital resources that millions or even billions of people depend upon. This isn't a parallel to US wars for oil either, since that supply was never in actual danger, oil is a question of capitalist greed, we can live without oil but not without fresh water or food.
It wont be pretty and a lot of innocent people will suffer without having much of say over things.
Yet it seems absolutely unavoidable with the way things are going.
How bad do things have to get before China starts militarizing it's climate response to protect forests and reduce pollution? That is, invading countries that are not doing their part in working towards a global benefit.
edit: protecting the climate is a national security issue
China will be the first country to be flooded, so not long at all.
Eastern China is in massive trouble. 93 million people there could be affected by sea level rise, according to this:
https://www.caixinglobal.com/2019-10-31/rising-sea-level-could-threaten-93-million-in-china-by-mid-century-study-101477575.html
They'll need to do some Netherlands engineering shit and more
God, not long at all I hope. Not to cheer on even more conflict but I'm 100000000000% convinced global north nations won't lift a damn finger to abet climate change unless China and co. force them to.
That said China is pretty committedly non-interventionist so who knows if they'd ever take a drastic step like that.
How close is continuing climate destruction to an attack on Chinese sovereignty?
Question of the century.
I think its going to take the coordinated action of many third world nations to actually change anything about climate change. They're the places with the most to lose and whose exploitation is necessary to create hyper-profits driving climate change. I've been thinking a lot about the futures sketched out in Wainwright and Mann's Climate Leviathan. They're very skeptical of what they call "Climate Mao" because of authoritarianism and achieving Climate Mao would require a reorientation of the PRC, but I'm thinking more and more that it is the best hope .
I'm kinda optimistic on India too, not really because of CPIM or the Naxalites or whatever but because the reality of India, its place in the imperialist pecking order, and the needs of its people continually place it at odds with the West despite it being governed by a reactionary government.
deleted by creator
Global powers are the extractive companies. At least in the imperial core, they're all but one and the same. I don't want anyone anywhere to get hurt, at all. But the global south is suffering right now from climate change, on top of all the other legacies of imperialism and colonialism. If it takes them arming themselves and forcing global north governments to comply in order to protect their own people, so be it.
deleted by creator
Yes, I left the foe vague because it is fucking everyone that aligns with and is under the thumb of American capital.
Ecofascism is allowing the poor to die while the rich are comfortable. This is what the status quo is doing. I am suggesting that someone might see intervention (there are many types) as the only viable option to make a change and disrupt the current trajectory and actually make a difference to cut extraction and environmental ruin in a timescale that is meaningful.
deleted by creator
Yeah, you are correct
I think you misinterpreted me a little, I am not suggesting that China carpet bomb Rio de Janeiro.
What I do mean though, is that capitalist nations, through neoliberal imperialism, are the most extractive countries, and direct this extraction with global companies and supported through the local governments.
Other than complete destruction of a liveable earth, there is no motivation by these actors to change the status quo. It's serves them well.
China is in a unique position, as a powerhouse country that has a political will that is unburdened at least some extent from capitalist interference. They also are one of the few countries that sees long term. If they see a threat to their people, or sovereignty, or food supplies, or water, because of the deforestation or pollution from another country (sure, Brazil is a great example), do they mount action to overthrow a government and replace with a more environmentally friendly option?
I don't necessarily mean military conflict. but sanctions are war, supporting an internal revolt is suitable, cutting off trade routes -- if there is a need to protect the people in china (and also everywhere....) From total global food system collapse -- is violence justified?
I'm not suggesting eco fascism -- like, they're not demonizing a race or something, it would literally be going after capitalists and polluters.
China is the example because of the powerful position they are currently in.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Climate change will lead to wars for sure. The people who are questioning the Ukraine war are going to be even more desperate to understand how and why countries are going to war to protect vital resources that millions or even billions of people depend upon. This isn't a parallel to US wars for oil either, since that supply was never in actual danger, oil is a question of capitalist greed, we can live without oil but not without fresh water or food.
It wont be pretty and a lot of innocent people will suffer without having much of say over things.
Yet it seems absolutely unavoidable with the way things are going.