Is anyone else disturbed on using our military, and those of the other NATO members, to “combat” the climate emergency (scam)? What, exactly, would this look like? Where would they be fighting it? How would they be fighting it? What kinds of restrictions will be placed on citizen’s lives? Will they be using firearms to enforce mandates? Will they be invading and taking over countries that don’t Comply?
Climate change is a unifying threat — NATO should enact Article 5 to combat it
The North Atlantic Treaty Alliance (NATO) recently joined the group of nations, cities, central bank and companies pledging to eliminate net CO2 emissions by 2050. We should certainly applaud them. NATO’s purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of all its members by political and military means.
But despite a plethora of pledges made by many entities to reduce carbon emissions, the CO2 level is now 409ppm (higher than at any point in at least the past 800,000 years) and climbing. In that context, can NATO’s plan be anything more than a decent gesture that will have little impact on climate change and CO2 levels. Given climate change is one of the greatest threats to global populations — and has increased conflicts and suffering — is this enough from NATO? I argue no. NATO has the power to do more.
What if NATO was to consider climate change as a full-fledged assault on our communities, nations and planet? And instead of a voluntary pledge NATO attacked climate change under its existing charter to create a secure world, and support allies. In other words: What if NATO invoked Article 5?
Article 5 (The Collective Defense Clause) of the North Atlantic Treaty that created NATO is at the heart of the alliance. The clause states that if a NATO ally is the victim of an armed attack, every other member of the alliance will consider this act of violence as an attack against all members. NATO will then take the actions deemed necessary to assist. At what point does climate change become that unifying threat?
The notion that Article 5 was invoked after September 11th is mentioned, and how it was used to fight Islamist (well, a good liberal never mentions who, exactly, attacked the U.S.) terrorism.
First, NATO nations can agree that climate change is a threat to peace and security, requiring an Article 5-level collective action. The organization touts its consulting and cooperation on defense and security-related issues to prevent conflict ultimately.
As it did after 9/11, nations can share data to develop proactive, responsive strategies for climate change. NATO can use the shared information to analyze scenarios, hypothesize outcomes and find ways to reduce or improve the crises.
Interesting, but, not particularly in depth. Nor does this piece go in depth. There’s some yammering about responding to “climate disasters’, otherwise what used to be known as “weather” prior to the rise of the climate cult. Deborah Brosnan, Ph.D., who is an environmental scientist and a marine resilience specialist, talks a bit about responding, but, what about the proactive strategies? That’s concerning. But, not unusual, because climate cultists really do not want to mention what they really believe should happen.
The military are, as Rush Limbaugh used to put it, for killing people and breaking their stuff. So, how do you use the military to fight
global warmingclimatechangeemergency? Send in the artillery to shell and destroy coal burning power plants? Send the Army Rangers into our cities to blow up fossil-fueled automobiles and shoot the counter-revolutionaries driving them? Use anti-aircraft fire to bring down fossil-fueled jetliners? (Private jets carrying Our Betters would be exempt, of course.)The military in this case would be used to enforce compliance with the NATO and UN mandates by the poor and working class of every nation. Elites exempt, of course. Just like Nazi Pelosi wants “Capitol Police” in several cities other than DC to enforce her fascist demands so will our own forces be used against us by the Media/industry and government elites. For our own good and safety, mind you.
The Capos among us ( like our own Three Blind Mice) will gladly point out those who need “reeducation” as well as execution for their sins against The Virtuous Left. After all we are just insurrectionists, bitter clingers, morons, white supremacists, bigots, homophobes, racists, and worst of all Trump supporters. We cannot be tolerated let alone be heard or allowed to vote.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/07/it_cant_happen_here_it_emisem_happening_here.html
The Article 5 argument has been used before for a lot of things. It isn’t what people think it is. Member states are all still free to decide for themselves what the right level of “fighting” is to combat this “threat”. France may decide to switch all the municipal vehicles in Paris to EVs and call it a day. Germany may decide to tell Americans they can no longer use Ramstein AFB for any airplanes that use jet fuel, but can’t fire any German national employees there.
It doesn’t really mean every country in NATO goes to war or goes to war with everything they have.
Most likely, all this results in is a strongly worded policy statement from NATO HQ denouncing America (signed by an American general) for harming climate and demanding reparations.
Professor Hale, you’re telling us what Article 5 USED to mean before the Wuhan Panic, the inculcation of AGW into public policy as an “emergency” and the faux Junta in charge of America. Fact is we don’t know what new powers the interpretation of Article 5 will mean under our current Junta. Hell, they just redefined a protest as an insurrection and a one-sided Congressional inquisition as a legitimate investigation.
Article 5 means exactly what the elitists like Soros and Bezos and Schumer and Pelosi etc. say it means. No more and no less. And it could change tomorrow. After all, we were always at war with Eurasia, right?
Kye,
I agree completely. That has always been what Art 5 means. Each country decides for itself how much is enough to satisfy honor. Ours could very well sail off the edge of the world. The same is true of every national treaty ever signed. So… Clinton “guarantees” the security of the Ukraine against Russian invasion and later when Russia invades the Ukraine, Obama sends a weak letter of assurances and frowning.