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.
Read: Hotcold Take: NATO Should Invoke Article 5 To Fight Climate Crisis (scam) »