The Impact of War on Global WARming

Global warming is receiving increasing attention at home and internationally. Copenhagen’s high profile world summit on climate change in December 2009 is being attended by 192 countries and 100 heads of state who will discuss emissions cuts and financial measures to combat climate change.
While it’s good that carbon emission cuts from industry are being discussed, an item that is not prominent on the agenda is that of the obvious harm that war does to the planet. Fuel-intensive combat, oil well fires, the boom in cement consumption due to reconstruction efforts and security needs, and heavy use of explosives and chemicals all contribute to global warming in a massive way.
Here are some facts on the Iraq war and the impact that this war alone has on the environment:
Projected total US spending on the Iraq war could cover all of the global investments in renewable power generation that are needed between now and 2030 in order to halt current warming trends.
CO2 released by the war to date equals the emissions from putting 25 million more cars on the road for one year.
If the war was ranked as a country in terms of annual emissions, it would emit more CO2 each year than 139 of the world’s nations do.
The $600 billion that the US Congress has allocated for military operations in Iraq to date could have built over 9000 wind farms (at 50 MW capacity each), with the overall capacity to meet a quarter of the US’s current electricity demand and cut 1/6 of the country’s total CO2 emissions.
In 2006, the US spent more on the war in Iraq than the whole world spent on investment in renewable energy.
US president Obama has committed to spending $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of green energy technology and infrastructure. The US spends that much on the war in Iraq in just 10 months.
In presenting these statistics, we are not suggesting that greenhouse gas emissions are the most important impact of war, nor the major reason to oppose it. But war is a major factor behind global warming. This is an aspect of war that is being largely ignored by the world’s green parties.
Claudia Saba - IAWM SC

Swiss Referendum is Illegal

ArayaHuman Rights Organization
منظمة الراية لحقوق الانسان
Arayahro@yahoo.ie

The motion of banning the minaret of the Mosque, or the Bells of the Church, or the Star of David from the Synagogue is illegal. Even to propose such an idea is illegal, under article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:

•Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

The practicing of beliefs, the worshipping and observance of a Muslim is in the Mosque, five times a day. It is preposterous how the minaret has affected the citizens of the Swiss people. It is ridiculous that a law should be placed in the constitution regarding this small architectural magnificence.

Additionally, the 1981 Declaration of the General Assembly says:

4 (b) : The Commission on Human Rights urges States, "To exert the utmost efforts, in accordance with their national legislation and in conformity with international human rights law, to ensure that religious places, sites, shrines and religious expressions are fully respected and protected and to take additional measures in cases where they are vulnerable to desecration or destruction."

The Muslims in the world have been under a lot of bombardment and discrimination; and the Muslim community in Switzerland was always productive and respected the law and the traditions of the country.

However, the treatment of the Muslims by enforcing this law is not making things any better for the government or the people.

Property rights surly don’t affect the architecture of the worshipping place of Muslims. Why bring in this referendum now? What is the reason why the Muslim minaret is attacked while the Cross and the Star of David is not? This is total discrimination. It is the type of discrimination that the Nazis imposed back in 1940.

Vatican City does not allow Mosques to be built. Similarly, the Saudi Arabia’s law is exactly like that of the Vatican, except it is not allowing a Church to be built on the land. These laws date back thousands of years. They have always been enforced and nobody questioned them. It is a matter of sanctity. This is their law; unlike Switzerland, which is a secular society and should respect all religion buildings without discrimination.

If this is the democracy the West is trying to bring to the Middle East than there is a big question mark with regards to tolerance and accepting other people’s beliefs. For instance, Churches, Mosques and other places of worship have existed in the Muslim lands for centuries, sometimes even climbing higher than the minaret. They were never considered a threat to the people of the countries.

The Swiss citizens should be civilized enough to realize that we are living in a cosmopolitan era that has gone past the Fascist age of Europe and the Crusaders.


Administration