2 ms·

"Revealed": If they just used a lot of sarin gas it would have saved the environment. Less humans always helps too. I mean seriously, there might be some topic

"Revealed": If they just used a lot of sarin gas it would have saved the environment. Less humans always helps too. I mean seriously, there might be some topics that need differentiation. The Guardian once had quite a few smart articles.

smt88 2y ago
I don't understand what your point is. The article is highlighting the environmental cost of war, specifically this war. There is nothing muddled or contradictory in that message.
rezaprima 2y ago
Do you really mean "they should have used more environmental friendly means to wipe out entire population" ?
- raxxorraxor 2y ago
  They did not wipe out anyone but there are means to do so that are very likely more environment friendly. Preventing casualties probably comes with an environmental imprint, although I believe this effect to be very marginal compared to the ordinance that was generally exchanged in the past and overall it probably isn't even noteworthy compared to many other carbon dioxide sources. This is a purely indictive article without much sense. If I were the editor of the Guardian, I would be a bit embarrassed.
  - NomDePlum 2y ago
    Killing and/or maiming 120,000+ people, the majority who are civilians is not something that can be described as "preventing casualties". There are obvious choices that the IDF and others involved have made that has led to greater and more consequentqal harm to both the environment and civilians, in general. Not sure how you can describe the article as indicative given it is based on a peer-reviewed study. You appear to be relying on your own judgement and broad assumptions to discredit a report without any other basis.
NomDePlum 2y ago
Very odd comment. The impact of recent events have been looked at from multiple perspectives, given the environment impact is severe and almost entirely avoidable it is worth discussion. Maybe if Israel hadn't pursued wholesale indiscriminate destruction of Gaza's infrastructure and institutions there wouldn't be a need, but that's not what has happened.

smt88 2y ago

I don't understand what your point is. The article is highlighting the environmental cost of war, specifically this war. There is nothing muddled or contradictory in that message.

rezaprima 2y ago

Do you really mean "they should have used more environmental friendly means to wipe out entire population" ?

raxxorraxor 2y ago
They did not wipe out anyone but there are means to do so that are very likely more environment friendly. Preventing casualties probably comes with an environmental imprint, although I believe this effect to be very marginal compared to the ordinance that was generally exchanged in the past and overall it probably isn't even noteworthy compared to many other carbon dioxide sources. This is a purely indictive article without much sense. If I were the editor of the Guardian, I would be a bit embarrassed.
- NomDePlum 2y ago
  Killing and/or maiming 120,000+ people, the majority who are civilians is not something that can be described as "preventing casualties". There are obvious choices that the IDF and others involved have made that has led to greater and more consequentqal harm to both the environment and civilians, in general. Not sure how you can describe the article as indicative given it is based on a peer-reviewed study. You appear to be relying on your own judgement and broad assumptions to discredit a report without any other basis.

NomDePlum 2y ago

Very odd comment. The impact of recent events have been looked at from multiple perspectives, given the environment impact is severe and almost entirely avoidable it is worth discussion. Maybe if Israel hadn't pursued wholesale indiscriminate destruction of Gaza's infrastructure and institutions there wouldn't be a need, but that's not what has happened.