Is this supposed to sway eco conscious genocide supporters? “Think of the environmental harms!” Rather than focusing on the immediate horrors currently being inflicted by Israel on the Palestinian population
Is this supposed to sway eco conscious genocide supporters?
This is not the way I understood this article. It seems to me it is one more argument for the case of continuous ethnic cleansing for so many decades.
If we agree that
most frequently, however, the aim of ethnic cleansing is to expel the despised ethnic group through either indirect coercion or direct force, and to ensure that return is impossible,
then by bombing all buildings, homes and infrastructure, they force people to go somewhere else and in the same time restrict them from coming back, since there is nothing to come back to.
So in this study, they actually measure the not coming back for decades part
Edit: I did several edits. I stop now.
Reasons to be against the Gaza genocide # 3,625
At this point, clearing it and re-building will have to happen regardless of the outcome of the genocide, so what point are they trying to make here? The only green choice is to leave Gaza a destroyed wasteland?
It needs to be cleared, re-built, and returned to the Palestinians. Ideally funded by the Israelis.
The point of this study, to my understanding, is to calculates some of the aftermath of this ongoing genocide, concerning debris, carbon emissions, time frames, and implications for rebuilding. No?
Well, sure, recovery from incredible devastation will take decades and the energy required to clear and replace all the structures will not be environmentally friendly, that should all be obvious to anyone who knows anything about construction projects:
https://www.fairplanet.org/story/concrete-climate-change-environmental-injustice/
"To create Portland cement, limestone undergoes a calcination process, which releases large amounts of CO2 from the chemical reaction. This is the concrete industry’s dirtiest activity, releasing up to 50 per cent of the cement industry’s carbon emissions.
Additionally, to transform raw materials into clinker, cement’s intermediate product, large amounts of energy are required to heat, mix and cool the ingredients in giant kilns.
It is estimated that, in traditional kilns, one tonne of cement produces one tonne of carbon dioxide, although modernised factories have found ways to reduce these emissions.
Water Use
Cement creation is also highly water intensive, particularly during cooling after materials are baked at extremely high temperatures.
Nature Magazine estimates the concrete industry is responsible for nine per cent of all water withdrawals from the sector. Approximately 16.6 km squared of water is used annually for concrete production, and this figure is expected to soar as the demand for concrete continues to rise."
So, again, what are they trying to argue here? The only environmentally responsible option is to leave Gaza destroyed?
So, again, what are they trying to argue here? The only environmentally responsible option is to leave Gaza destroyed?
From the study itself (4. Discussion & 5. Concluding remarks), this is not what I got. On the contrary, it seems to me like they try to make some calculations/estimations/evaluations so that this is something that takes place.
Which is nothing compared to other emissions. Do it.
