Solar panels are tested during a NATO exercise in Hungary. NATO
In an article published on Saturday, NBC News‘ Linda Givetash covered the growing trend of militaries taking concrete steps to address the threat of climate change, including efforts by NATO militaries to enhance energy efficiency in the context of the NATO mission. As Givetash notes, “military officials from 29 countries — including the United States — will test whether energy efficient equipment and hybrid diesel-solar power systems can be easily integrated into their operations in Poland this June.”
For the piece, Givetash highlighted the “newly established International Military Council on Climate and Security“, noting that the IMCCS “aims to bring the impact of climate change on natural disasters and conflicts to the forefront of military strategy.” Givetash spoke with both IMCCS Secretary General Sherri Goodman, and IMCCS Chair General Tom Middendorp. From the article:
Hon. Sherri Goodman: “Militaries are great planning organizations, we need to utilize that great planning capability to get further ahead of the climate threat than we have…”
General Tom Middendorp: “For the military, it’s very important to understand the root causes of a conflict and not deal with the symptoms alone,” he said. “The more that you can address the [root causes], the less you have to fight over it, and it saves lives.”
Click here for the full piece.
Hello. The mentioned – in the post – emphasis, orienting the military to energy efficiency to counter the negative effects of climate change, is an absolutely useless goal. Comparing the natural energy potentials with the energy potential of humanity, it turns out that the potential of humanity is inferior to the natural potential – approximately 10 to the 16th power. It is obvious that modern humanity is simply incapable – on the energy level – to provide any resistance to climate change.
The methodology and technology for stabilizing the climate – in the Northern Hemisphere – developed under the leadership of Maria Kahn – are based on the main provisions of the Theory of Disasters. I illustrate with an example: in the everyday sense, an event is perceived as a “catastrophe” that led to the destruction of a city in a valley because of a stone avalanche that came down from the mountains. In “Theory of Disasters” – the destruction of the city – a consequence of the disaster; “catastrophe” means another event, but – namely: in the mountains – a little bird sat on a pebble … a pebble rolled … and – a powerful avalanche fell into the valley, destroying the city.
Maria Kahn – read the following quote from the Chairman IMCCS Tom Middendorp: “The more you can eliminate the root causes, the less you have to fight for it, and this will save lives.” Maria Kahn – admired the statement of the Chairman IMCCS Tom Middendorp and his position …..
Thank you for attention; with respect….