• frezik
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    My point is that you argued it poorly with “None of Israel’s innovations make up for the climate catastrophe they are creating.” Because, yup, they probably do. CO2 is simply a numbers game. Saying “equivalent to 36 countries” doesn’t really mean anything, because there are lots of small, global south countries with trivial CO2 output.

    From the actual study: “Our upper estimate on all pre-/post-war activities are comparable to the burning of 31,000 kilo tonnes of coal– the amount of which can power about 15.8 coal-fired power plants in one year.” That’s a much more solid number. 16 coal fired plants is . . . not nothing, but not a lot. If this was all that mattered, then Israel’s energy innovations elsewhere could easily cover it when those innovations are being shipped worldwide. Consider that China is looking towards 300 new coal plants in the not too distant future. 16 is very little.

    The moral case against Israel is much stronger than the climate case, but that’s not what you’re writing here.

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Remember that was only the first 120 days.

      It’s been over three times that long, now. Is it 48 coal plants by now? Probably not, but it’s a very significant amount of carbon!

      We can’t meet our climate goals and find Israel at the same time, that’s all I wanted to say. We need better properties.