Moonbat leftist proposes solution to global warming: Nuclear war. Seriously

Universities are filled with idiot leftists who write wailing articles for cash, and normally I don't bother posting their dreck.  But you need to see what they're pushing, cuz a year from now the Democrats will have this as part of their platform.

Samuel Miller-McDonald is a grad student in Applied Insanity who also writes for a couple of leftist websites.  Like all leftists he hates capitalism and believes CO2--emitted by you, but not the CO2 emitted by politicians or Hollywood "stars" jetting across the ocean--is fatally warming the planet, despite tons of evidence that flatly disproves that claim.

According to this moonbat the planet is on a virtually unrecoverable path that will increase the average temperature by six degrees C, killing almost all life on Earth.  But don't worry, comrade--he has a solution:

Nuclear war.

Seriously.  At least that's what he wrote.  With the Left it's hard to tell satire from their serious proposals.  Click the link to see for yourself.  Some excerpts:

The global economy is hurtling humanity toward extinction. Greenhouse gas emissions are on track to warm the planet by six degrees Celsius above preindustrial averages.

Really?  Got a link for that claim?  CNN, perhaps.

A six-degree increase risks killing most life on earth, as global warming did during the Late Permian when volcanoes burned a bunch of fossilized carbon (e.g., coal, oil, and gas). Called the Great Dying, that event was, according to New York Magazine, “The most notorious [extinction event…]; it began when carbon warmed the planet by five degrees, accelerated when that warming triggered the release of methane in the Arctic, and ended with 97 percent of all life on Earth dead.”

If you wanna see some REALLY insane blathering, click on that link above.  The author of the NY Magazine piece is a real hair-on-fire type.

The planet may have already passed irreversible thresholds that could accelerate further feedback loops like permafrost melt and loss of polar ice. Patches of permafrost aren’t freezing even during winter, necessitating a rename (may I suggest ‘nevafrost’?). 

In the summer of 2018, forests north of the Arctic Circle broke 90 degrees Fahrenheit and burned in vast wildfires. We’re reaching milestones far faster than scientists have even recently predicted. As Guardian columnist George Monbiot noted, “The Arctic meltdown […] is the kind of event scientists warned we could face by 2050. Not by 2018.” 

And Al Gore predicted that the Arctic would be totally ice-free by 2015.  How'd that work out?

Mass marine death that rapidly emits uncontrollable greenhouse gasses is another feedback loop that seems ready to strike. The ocean is now more acidic than any time in the last 14 million years, killing everything from snails to whales.

Killing whales?  Got a link for that?  Are you getting the impression this guy's a drama queen?  BTW, the pH of the ocean is around 7.8, which is LESS acidic than pure water.  Of course only one percent of all Americans know what the hell pH means or how to calculate it, so when some damn drama queen screams that the ocean is so acidic it's killing whales, the average -studies major believes it.

Meanwhile, from the global South to wealthier industrialized countries, people are already dying and being displaced from the impacts of extreme climate change via extreme droughts, floods, wildfires, storms, and conflicts like the Syrian civil war. 

Ah yes, one of the Left's more amusing claims is that the war in Syria was caused by global warming.

The IPCC has recently alerted the world that we have about a decade to dramatically cut emissions before collapse becomes inevitable. We could prevent human extinction if we act immediately.  But the world is unanimously ignoring climate change. Nations will almost certainly fail to avert biosphere collapse.

So what does he say is needed to "prevent human extinction"?  Why, you've got to stop using any carbon fuel.   

But why does decarbonization--an innocuous enough term--seem so implausible? Well... a sufficient transition to non-carbon energy would require all the trains, buses, planes, cars, and ships in the world to almost immediately stop and be replaced with newly manufactured vehicles to run on non-carbon fuel, like hydrogen cells, renewable electricity, or some carbon-neutral biofuel. 

All this new manufacturing will have to be done with low-carbon techniques, many of which don’t exist yet and may be impossible to achieve at scale. This means all the complex supply chains that move most of the world’s food, water, medicine, basically all consumer goods, construction materials, clothing, and everything else billions of people depend on to survive will have to be fundamentally reformed, in virtually every way, immediately.  

It also means that all the electric grids and indoor heating and cooling systems in the world must be rapidly transformed from centralized coal and gas power plants to a mixture of solar, wind, and nuclear—both distributed and centralized—dispersed through newly built micro-grids and smart-grids, and stored in new battery infrastructure. 

These new solar panels, batteries, and nuclear plants will somehow have to be built using little carbon energy, again something that may be impossible to achieve at a global scale.

The cost of this transition is impossible to know, but surely reaches the tens of trillions of dollars.

Gee, ya think? 

It needs to happen in just about every industrialized nation on the planet and needs to happen now—not in 2050, as the Paris Agreement dictates, or the 2030s, as reflected in many governments’ decarbonization goals.

So "it needs to happen."  In "just about every industrialized nation."  That sounds like he's willing to grant some exemptions.  Hmmm...like, say, China?  And remember, comrade, the IPCC (pbut) has said we only have a decade to do this, before all the "feedback mechanisms" ensure the extinction of almost all life on Earth.  

Will enough people be willing to do what it takes to forcibly remove [the powerful, eeeevil people who benefit from carbon fuels] from the most powerful institutions in the world? That also seems unlikely, given meager public involvement in this issue so far.

Here's an idea: Cut off all natural-gas pipelines to New York City and Washington DC for just one winter, and see how fast the pols and residents will beg to get it turned on again.

This is the obstacle of collective action: everyone has to sacrifice, but no one wants to start. Who will assent to giving up their steady returns from fossil fuels if everyone else refuses? When people are living so precariously as it is (43% of American can’t afford basic necessities),

That's a made-up, bullshit number.  Oh wait, I got it:  What he means is the Washington liberal think-tank definition of  "basic necessities:" To them, anyone who can't afford $100 per pound wagyu steak is an impoverished, deplorable knuckle-dragger. 

If [obstacles to] decarbonization weren’t daunting enough, the world will also have to suck billions of tons of greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere that have already been emitted. Keeping the planet to even a deadly 1.5 degrees Celsius increase of warming depends on it.

Yep, drama queen.

This sounds simpler than it is...

Well, only if you're a -studies major.  Or 25-year-old newly-elected Democrat rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who when asked how she planned to have the government pay for "medicare for all" cocked her head and said "You just pay for it."  This is the kind of razor-sharp mind that just won control of the House.

Like energy transition, carbon capture and sequestration requires governments to act collectively to invest trillions of dollars in risky, experimental, and probably mostly ineffectual sequestration technologies.

"Mostly ineffectual," yet that's exactly what this drama-queen just said we HAD to do to avoid...how did he put it?...a "deadly 1.5 degree C increase in warming."  Insane.

Again, it’s a collective action problem: nobody wants to be the one to sacrifice while no one else is putting themselves on the line. And the miniscule likelihood that energy transition will occur under a Trump-Digs-Coal presidency—and the Trumpian nationalists winning elections across the world—casts further doubt on the possibility of rapid decarbonization.

You knew this moonbat was gonna blame Trump for ending all life on the planet sooner or later.

To the contrary, wealthy countries are all still slashing public goods, passing austerity budgets, and investing heavily in fossil fuel infrastructure. Even most elected Democrats are dragging their feet on passing climate policy. The world is going in the exact opposite direction from one in which humans can live.

The global economy is a vast machine, operating beyond the control of even the most powerful individuals, and it has a will of its own to consume and pollute.... we all survive by it in some way, often against our wills...

You're right, snowflake.  And if your personal "survival" is against your will, why not assert your marvelous will and stop allowing the "machine" to keep making you survive--supposedly against your will?  Ah, I see...you were just being a drama queen.  Got it.

But a wrench could clog the gears...and one wrench that could slow climate disruption may be a large-scale conflict that halts the global economy, destroys fossil fuel infrastructure, and throws particulates in the air. At this point, with insane people like Trump, Putin, Xi, May, and Macron leading the world’s biggest nuclear powers, large-scale conflagration between them would probably lead to a nuclear exchange. 

Nobody wants nuclear war. It is an absolute horror that would burn and maim millions of living beings, despoil millions of hectares, and scar the skin of the earth and dome of the sky for centuries, maybe millennia.

And if you're familiar with drama-queen writing style, you hear a big "BUT" coming.  And sure enough...

...there may be a silver lining to the mushroom cloud. First, it should be noted that a nuclear exchange does not inevitably result in apocalyptic loss of life.

Wait, didn't you just say that's what it would do? 

An exchange [i.e. nuclear war] that shuts down the global economy but stops short of human extinction may be the only blade realistically likely to cut the carbon knot we’re trapped within. It would decimate existing infrastructures, providing an opportunity to build new energy infrastructure...

Given what we know of human history... conflict [by which he means nuclear "exchange"] may be the only way to build the mass social cohesion necessary for undertaking the kind of huge, collective action needed for global sequestration and energy transition. 

Like the 20th century’s world wars, a nuclear exchange could serve as an economic leveler. It could provide justification for nationalizing energy industries with the interest of shuttering fossil fuel plants and transitioning to renewables and, uh, nuclear energy. It could shock us into reimagining a less suicidal civilization, one that dethrones the death-cult zealots who are currently in power. And it may toss particulates into the atmosphere sufficient to block out some of the solar heat helping to drive global warming. Or it may have the opposite effects. Who knows?

What we do know is that humans can survive and recover from war, probably even a nuclear one. 

Humans cannot recover from runaway climate change. Nuclear war is not an inevitable extinction event; six degrees of warming is.

[N]uclear war could be a rational course of action. 

Batshit crazy. Yet this guy is absolutely typical of young leftists like Ocasio-Cortez. To them, it makes perfect sense.

And if you don't agree with 'em, it means you obviously want to destroy all life on the planet.