Why is it so easy to get gvt to quickly commit to 2% of GDP for military spending, and so damn hard to convince gvt to spend 2% on climate action? Which is the greatest security threat? Why can’t we get meaningful spending for a Youth Climate Corps? www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/art... - ThreadSky

sethdklein.bsky.social • 13 days ago

Why is it so easy to get gvt to quickly commit to 2% of GDP for military spending, and so damn hard to convince gvt to spend 2% on climate action?

Which is the greatest security threat?

Why can’t we get meaningful spending for a Youth Climate Corps?

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-carney-to-announce-canadas-defence-spending-will-hit-2-of-gdp-nato/

Comments

seedyem.bsky.social•13 days ago

Because people like toys and hate changing their habits or being forced to recognize they are part of the problem. Climate spending will be sub fusc when it happens....if.

janshalom.bsky.social•13 days ago

It's mind boggling that just decades after Eisenhower warned about the #militaryindustrialcomplex we are dumping resources into it, threatening our living home, our democracy - the very things we need for security!

planetlover27.bsky.social•13 days ago

This right here times a million

mohamedsid.bsky.social•13 days ago

A blindspot in threat perception. Putin's Russia is a much more imminent and perceived threat than the so slow its barely preceptable damage that climate change causes. Look how much trouble we had acting collectively to combat covid. It doesn't bode well for our fight against CO2 o
Immissions 😔

janshalom.bsky.social•13 days ago

We need to ask if #militaryspending could protect us from Putins, terrorists of the world. @chenoweth.bsky.social @mariajstephan.bsky.social's study shows that nonviolent responses are gnerally more effective, certainly less damaging.

zapparules.bsky.social•13 days ago

2% of GDP is a big number and as a note about your comment about it being easy look at how many previous Governments have not made it happen. Where would your 2% go in fighting climate change?

juando82.bsky.social•13 days ago

Why? The “right people” dont profit.

nicolenab.bsky.social•13 days ago

Because that would take profits away from the defence industry? We can’t spend taxpayer dollars on actual taxpayers.

snorider.bsky.social•13 days ago

I'm beginning to think nothing will change until our weather hits critical levels. At some point, replacing critical infrastructure will become impossible, and food production will be increasingly difficult. We need to be working on ensuring local food security for all Canadians.

dexterxsr.bsky.social•13 days ago

Humanity will go extinct, it's time for Harm Reduction, we can't solve the Climate Disaster

holtscat.bsky.social•13 days ago

The 2% of GDP target creates a vicious circle because GDP counts spending on dealing with harms (rebuilding after hurricanes and wildfires) the same as money for positives so the defense sector benefits from increasing climate related losses AND takes funding that could be used for prevention.

lacompa.bsky.social•11 days ago

Our crazy, threatening and stupid southern neighbour is acting up lately.

silverfoxontherock.bsky.social•13 days ago

Excellent question! What’s interesting is the Canadian military has a huge recruit retention problem cuz young recruits are promised training in highly skilled jobs but wait 2+ years for it (many leave before cuz they are so underemployed). A Youth Climate Corps could avoid this - a Katimivik 2.0!

blaine.bsky.social•13 days ago

~90% of my 10 acre property burned last year in the Slocan fires. Since BCWS left the scene, there has been exactly $0 in government support for recovery. Until politicians & civil servants feel how real this is & how painful this is going to be ... I don't know how we get there.

blaine.bsky.social•13 days ago

We salvage-logged our burnt and dangerous forest (previously pristine old-growth rainforest). The government is going to make more in tax from that than we will, so net-less-BCWS, this fire was *profitable* for provincial and local government, viewed through their budgets. That's one place to start.

snorider.bsky.social•13 days ago

With the current fires, fire insurance will increase in cost if not disappear all together for those of us in areas susceptible to wildfires.

blaine.bsky.social•13 days ago

💯

Hilariously, our buildings survived in the epicenter of the most catastrophic wildfire the Kootenays has had in generations. Post salvage logging, there's nothing left to burn for ~20 years. I don't need wildfire insurance anymore; I'm hoping they'll still sell me insurance for "the other stuff."

snorider.bsky.social•13 days ago

I'm so glad your buildings survived. I'm thinking fire insurance will become an expensive optional extra.

adelleloiselle.bsky.social•13 days ago

I get your frustration. Of course climate is the biggest problem. And I’d add all these geopolitical issues we have now will only get worse if we don’t address climate.
But I wouldn’t make this either or. We need both.
And today’s political climate might have lessons for the environment.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply