The biggest source of climate emergency is population. No population, no pollution created by population. I don't think that's debatable.
So why is no one advocating for nuclear war? It simultaneously removes billions of population, and makes nuclear winter which will global cool and reverse the effects of the warming. If global warming is really a world-ending concern as they like to doomsay, then they should be clamoring for the big red buttons to be used on the densest population centers in the world.
If their goal is gradual depopulation, then the global warming isn't a concern to them; they want it for another reason. Easier rulership, perhaps. Because you don't say something is a clear and present danger by 2040 or whatever date they're using now (it started with 1990, so they keep pushing it forward), and then propose a solution that only solves the problem after 3 generatons, or in other words, 2080-ish.
The biggest source of climate emergency is population. No population, no pollution created by population. I don't think that's debatable.
So why is no one advocating for nuclear war? It simultaneously removes billions of population, and makes nuclear winter which will global cool and reverse the effects of the warming. If global warming is really a world-ending concern as they like to doomsay, then they should be clamoring for the big red buttons to be used on the densest population centers in the world.
If their goal is gradual depopulation, then the global warming isn't a concern to them; they want it for another reason. Easier rulership, perhaps. Because you don't say something is a clear and present danger by 2040 or whatever date they're using now (it started with 1990, so they keep pushing it forward), and then propose a solution that only solves the problem after 3 generatons, or in other words, 2080-ish.