John Kerry’s War

David Cavena20 Mar, 2024 2 Min Read
As long as it's "green," it's okay.

As we've previously reported, former senator and secretary of state, as well as failed presidential candidate John F. Kerry is departing his position as Biden administration "climate czar" and transferring his talents to the private sector. But if you thought that would mean he's going to stop saying crazy things about "climate change," well, his comments as headed for the exit will disabuse you of that notion. How so? In discussing the war in the Ukraine, he said that if Russia were to successfully reduce carbon emissions, perhaps the people of the world would "feel better about what Russia is choosing to do at this point in time."

So to get everyone to "feel better" about what Kerry more than once refers to as an "illegal war" of aggression, all Putin must do is Go Green?! And people thought we were exaggerating when we compared carbon offsets to the Medieval sale of indulgences, a kind of green get-out-of-jail free card!

We’ve previously discussed Kerry’s desire to reduce global food production. Now he is telling us that war isn’t a problem, as long as at least one of the combatants is "green," an odd concept from one ostensibly worried about "the planet's" future. One wonders if Kerry has determined that reducing our population indirectly via various environmental schemes is insufficient. Reducing the global population directly, on the other hand, through large scale bloody warfare, is something about which we might “feel better,” under certain Thunbergian conditions. Because if emissions are more important than human lives, the deaths of half-a-million Russians and Ukrainians are probably a positive. One human exhales about 0.66 kg of CO2 per day, or 241 kg per year. Five hundred thousand fewer Slavs is 120 fewer tons of CO2 annually. What’s for Kerry not to like?

That said, in 2007 over one hundred climate scientists signed the Bali Open Letter to the U.N. General Secretary, which read in part:

In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current U.N. approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

Of course, human suffering is of no concern for the global left. Leftists governments executed well over 100 million of their own people last century. It's unlikely that changing the nameplate to “climate change” has altered their focus.

And it's a bonus for them that the whole "climate change" thesis is unfalsifiable. Presenting evidence that recent climatic variation is wholly in line with historical trends gets you labeled a "denier." If you’ve wondered why we’ve altered conversational terms from “The Coming Ice Age,” (1970s) to “Global Warming,” (1990s) to “Climate Change,” (2000s), and can no more explain the Medieval Warm Period than we can the Little Ice Age or the (actual) hottest year on record, 1934, here’s why: We have no idea what’s going on.

And yet they've embraced it so wholeheartedly as to “feel better about” the deaths of hundreds of thousands of human beings so long as they're killed “greenly." How can you even argue with that? The answer, unfortunately, is: you can't.

David Cavena is a native southern Californian exfiltrated to Arizona. An IT professional for 40 years, he has pushed cows in California, dudes and horses in Wyoming, and programmers in Los Angeles and Phoenix. An avid outdoorsman – skier, backpacker, water skier and scuba diver – David writes from Arizona.


See All

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *