You can see from Robinson Meyer’s photo here that he is a profoundly unserious person; the Left’s opinion-makers are idiot children who cling to their ideological shibboleths to a point way beyond absurdity, as Meyer’s article here demonstrates. The worst thing is that people who think exactly the same way as Robinson Meyer constitute today’s political elites and are firmly in charge in most Western countries.
“On Top of Everything Else, Nuclear War Would Be a Climate Problem,” by Robinson Meyer, The Atlantic, March 9, 2022:
When we talk about what causes climate change, we usually talk about oil and gas, coal and cars, and—just generally—energy policy. There’s a good reason for this. Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide, which enters the atmosphere, warms the climate, and … you know the drill. The more fossil fuels you burn, the worse climate change gets. That’s why, a couple of years ago, I spent a lot of time covering the Trump administration’s attempt to weaken the country’s fuel-economy standards. It was an awful policy, one that would have led to more oil consumption for decades to come. If pressed, I would have said that it had a single-digit-percentage chance of creating an uninhabitable climate system.
But energy is not the only domain that has a direct bearing on whether we have a livable climate or not. So does foreign policy—specifically, nuclear war.
Since Russia invaded Ukraine two weeks ago, that threat has become a lot more real: Many Americans, including artists, climate-concerned progressives, and even a few lawmakers, have come out in support of a “no-fly zone.” But despite its euphemistic name, a no-fly zone means that NATO and the United States issue a credible threat that they will shoot down any enemy plane in Ukrainian territory. This would require U.S. bombing runs into Russian territory to eliminate air defenses, bringing the U.S. and Russia into open war, and it would have a reasonable chance of prompting a nuclear exchange. And it would be worse for the climate than any energy policy that Donald Trump ever proposed.
I mean this quite literally. If you are worried about rapid, catastrophic changes to the planet’s climate, then you must be worried about nuclear war. That is because, on top of killing tens of millions of people, even a relatively “minor” exchange of nuclear weapons would wreck the planet’s climate in enormous and long-lasting ways….
Richard says
Really ?? and how? remember all the tests in Nevada and remote southern Islands – did they change the weather? If so, by what “mechanism” ? I believe that there is no major release of CO2 by nuclear detonation.
gravenimage says
Spot on, Richard.
Daniel Triplett says
You’re correct. Climatological catastrophes and portends of “nuclear winter” in the wake of nuke weapon use are dramatically overstated.
Nuclear Weapon Numbers:
Trinity (the first test) = 18–20kt [kiloton]
Little Boy (Hiroshima) = 12–18kt
Fat Man (Nagasaki) = 18–23kt
Total Number of Above Ground Nuke Weapon Tests (all countries) = 521
Largest Nuke Weapon ever tested Above Ground = Tsar Bomba 50,000kt
Although most of our weapons are adjustable yield [Dial-a-Death], 200kt is usually enough to achieve the objective. Nuclear ordnance is primarily a psychological weapon. Higher yield weapons don’t necessarily cause proportionally greater fear.
Hundreds of nuke weapon tests have been performed above ground. The Earth remains unimpaired.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were quickly rebuilt. Today they’re thriving metropolises.
A total of 100 atmospheric (922 underground) nuclear weapon devices have been detonated at the Nevada Test Site, just 30 miles from the nearest town, and 65 miles from Las Vegas.
So far, a total of 479,103kt of nuclear ordnance has been detonated above ground.
bill says
Well I have always thought that all those tests both in USA, USSR and Australia (UK) probably started to affect the upper atmosphere. How could it not? At no previous time in human history have such vast amounts of energy been released into the atmosphere. As for the CO2 created, what do you think happened to all the organic matter incinerated by the explosions?
I know it is difficult for some of you but try to think scientifically.
Westman says
Did this sustained adolescent just suggest that the death of say, 100 Million people and the remainder fighting over medicine, fuel, and supplies due to nuclear bombardment, doesn’t mean much when considering the climate change effects? Can we give him the John Kerry, “Wrong Priority Award”?
gravenimage says
Yep.
gravenimage says
The Atlantic: Nuclear war would accelerate climate change
…………….
Mass death and destruction? Pffffft! Nuclear war would accelerate climate change…
(Never mind that this did not happen with Hiroshima or Nagasaki nor all of those nuke tests–who needs logic?
More:
…bringing the U.S. and Russia into open war, and it would have a reasonable chance of prompting a nuclear exchange. And it would be worse for the climate than any energy policy that Donald Trump ever proposed.
I mean this quite literally.
…………….
Nuclear war is *literally worse than Trump*? Say it ain’t so!
Good grief…
bill says
Read again d*mm,y he did not say that. He said nuclear war would be worse that what DT.s energy proposals were. You should go work for CNN etc. that is the kind of twist in which they specialise…
Wellington says
Leftism is a mental disorder and fossil fuels as used by America are the cleanest way of using fossil fuels. Fossil fuels have also made life on Earth far more beneficial to mankind minus them. And the fact that life expectancy in the most advanced countries continues to rise puts the lie to fossil fuels being deleterious overall.
Also, and with respect to others here at JW, correlations between fossil fuels and cancer are just that—correlations. And correlations prove nothing scientifically in the long run. Man simply living longer because of modern medicine, courtesy of the West almost exclusively, and modern nutrition, again courtesy principally of the West, means that something has to kill us eventually—like cancer. Interesting that life-long distance runners like myself actually have a greater risk of cancer. Why? Because runners like yours truly are far less likely to die from something like heart or lung disease—so something has to “get us” in the end. Thus is the way of life.
I rest my case. For now. But long live the cleanest use of fossil fuels which add to life and not subtract from it in the final analysis.
Westman says
Amen, Wellington.
All of human society is leveraged on cheap energy. We cannot change as quickly as the Left demands without destroying society’s gains.
Wellington says
With you again, Westman. Thanks for your reply.
James Lincoln says
Wellington,
To your points:
The United States has made fantastic strides since the 1960s regarding unleaded gasoline and tailpipe emissions.
According to the EPA website:
“New passenger vehicles are 98-99% cleaner for most tailpipe pollutants compared to the 1960s.”
https://www.epa.gov/transportation-air-pollution-and-climate-change/accomplishments-and-success-air-pollution-transportation
If measures *hadn’t* been put in place since the 1960s, the air quality – particularly in major cities in the United States – would now be beyond horrific.
Yes, respiratory illnesses are still exacerbated during high smog days, but it is much harder to pin down specific “cause and effect” cancers related to the oil and gas industries. I’m not saying that it doesn’t happen, it’s just very difficult to quantify without *controlled* studies.
The United States should maintain a robust mixture of power options including nuclear, renewables, and – yes – fossil fuels. Then, as nuclear and renewables become more prominent, the use of fossil fuels can be minimized – and petroleum products can be better used for certain types of manufacturing.
Wellington says
Thanks for that link, James. When, in a previous post on a different thread I asserted that fossil fuel use and any cancer connection was highly suspicious, if not entirely bogus, I should have clarified my comment by extending it to fossil fuel use in the USA, which is by far the cleanest fossil fuel use, easily so, and with virtually no cancer connection that I am aware of.
gravenimage says
By the way, Robinson Meyer also blames inflation on “climate change”. He doesn’t say why this exactly cooincided with Biden taking office.
“The Rise of Greenflation”
Extreme weather and energy uncertainty are already sending prices soaring.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/02/greenflation-prices-inflation-climate-change-coffee-lumber/621456/
Even more absurd, he is one of those flogging the idea that Jihad terror is actually caused by “climate change”. Bernie Sanders took up this claim as well. These tools and those like them claimed that this was the cause of the Jihad in Syria.
“Does Climate Change Cause More War?”
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/does-climate-change-cause-more-war/553040/
Wellington says
Proving again, gravenimage, that there is no limit to Leftist idiocy (and not to be confused with traditional liberalism a la Truman, JFK and LBJ).
When the Left is confronted by facts, what do they do? Why, they double down and then double down again. Biden, AOC and Pelosi come to mind, among so many others on the Left (e.g., Omar, that wretched human being).
Malicious and ignorant fools all. Trouble is many of these fools have a great deal of power in the West at present, including, as I know you know per their stupid zeitgeist, that criminals in general and “devout” Muslims (read a high probability of carnage here) are, poor dears, victims of a phantom oppression put forth by Western Civilization even though this is the very civilization that these parasites and hypocrites want to move to or remain in.
Tim says
Speaking of “doubling down; in the 8th & 9th centuries the Mu’tazilites attempted an Islamic Reformation as they suspected the Greeks may have been on to something with “cause and effect”. The hard line Ash’arites disagreed. The Ash’arites, taking their cue from Q-8/17, proceeded to “double down”. The Ash’arites allowed that the rain did not allow grass to grow but it was Allah that did this. You don’t blink your eyes, Allah blinks your eyes and everyone’s eyes (busy guy). Lift your arm off the table, you didn’t do that, Allah does. The Ash’arites won the debate……could it be the Progressives have contracted this same mental illness? ……..by the way, isn’t syphilis Progressive?
shoehorn says
I was wondering what the problem was with nuclear war …head-smack.
gregbeetham says
A nuclear war would produce a climate change alright, a nuclear winter, the only thing they don’t know is the severity of it. It depends on the severity of the nuclear war to be able to forecast the amount of global cooling and the loss of photosynthesis and food production. One thing is for sure we don’t want to go there.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-winter.htm?msclkid=985e92d0a33611eca9c3e1a8bed5870b
Eleanor says
The only thing which is causing climate change are the 10,000 aircraft which are in the air at any one time worldwide. 2.52kg of carbon dioxide is emitted for every litre of aviation turbine fuel burned. So, on average, one flight would produce 5.9 tonnes of CO2. Flights will not stop, therefore there is nothing we can do toward reducing climate change. Just have to live with it.
So-Sad says
Currently, atmospheric CO2 is about 400ppm (0.04% of the atmosphere)
Plants produce the greatest biomass (thus, oxygen) between 800 – 1500 ppm.
Plants begin dying when CO2 drops to 200 ppm
Plant life is non-existent when CO2 drops below 180ppm.
When someone says they want to reduce atmospheric CO2, they are trying to kill you – RETURN THE FAVOR,
“Climate Change” is the least of your worries following nuclear war.
OLD GUY says
Who cares what this idiot thinks, as usual they or he can’t back his words up with facts he just wants to be heard on the media. The more FACEBOOK followers he has the more important he thinks he is.
OLD GUY says
From the looks of this idiotI’am not sure he-she-it knows what HIM? is either.