Guest post: As long as Raytheon stands to profit

Originally a comment by Mike Haubrich on All the rivers.

Quite honestly, the most frightening aspect is that the heating is affecting access to resources, especially water. Flooding does have its benefits when it’s part of a natural cycle, as in the Red River Valley of the North, or the Nile Delta, where the floods leave behind nutrients on agricultural land that would otherwise be overused and end up not being arable. But the floods, such as in Italy, in Pakistan last year, and in England before that, do not do much to restore the natural water table as the water rushes down towards the sea. And the water that’s flooding there is not falling in places that also need it, such as Syria and Jordan and other areas of the Levant that are arable.

War is fundamentally a struggle over resources. And the conflicts over resources are going to escalate. The Russian invasion of the Ukraine is just one of the wars that will be sending missiles and rockets into the cities and towns. And war manufacturing feeds the economic cycle, so all the Net Zero goals of the governments trying to comply (or pretending to comply) with the IPCC goals will be obliterated by conflict. This will further exacerbate the movement of people seeking a safe place, where they can work and feed themselves. And the movements to restrict refugees are based on resource conflict as well. What we see at the US Southern border and on the shores of Dover is a trickle of the flood of people that will be seeking some sort of promised land that doesn’t exist, or won’t for long.

So, yes, James, we can try to greenify as much as we want. But as long as Raytheon stands to profit from the resource conflicts, you may as well drive that big diesel truck you’ve been eyeing with the lifts and the bull balls on the trailer hitch.

I listen to a lot of music to avoid having to think about this all the time. I can recommend some tunes if you’d like.

5 Responses to “Guest post: As long as Raytheon stands to profit”