“There is a just cause for war to prevent the future hazards of anthropogenic climate change.”
Earlier today, Extinction Rebellion carried out one of their most distasteful protests as they hijacked Remembrance Day memorial at the Cenotaph, moments before the 11 am silence with an XR wreath and banner reading “Honour their sacrifice; climate change means war.”
Yet, the real rationale for climate wars has been promoted by climate alarmists who argue “that there is a just cause for war to prevent the future hazards of anthropogenic climate change.”
A paper on ‘Preventive Environmental Wars‘ published two years ago in the Journal of Military Ethics lays out the reason why going to war against what alarmists believe to be enemy nations is a just cause.
This article argues that there is a just cause for war to prevent the future hazards of anthropogenic climate change even if, because of what is known as the Non-Identity Problem, that cause is not grounded in the rights of future generations. The evidential demands for justifying preventive military action to forestall climate change have been met, as a majority of climate scientists affirm that climate change is underway and is likely to become seriously hazardous for future generations. The types and scale of prospective harms threatened by climate change are such that, were they to result from an armed attack, there would unequivocally be a just cause for war. Though the author argues that there is a just cause for preventive environmental war, such wars are probably unjustified, all things considered. At present, preventive environmental war would be counterproductive and would harm many non-liable people. Should non-coercive remedies fail, measures short of war, such as “soft war” and jus ad vim tactics, should then be attempted to coerce compliance by environmental wrongdoers. Should these remedies prove ineffective, preventive environmental war may be a necessary evil.
Adam Betz: Preventive Environmental Wars