http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3036559Jeffersons Ghost (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Mar-20-08 10:23 AM
Original message
141 MILLION MORE REASONS TO OPPOSE THE OCCUPATION OF IRAQ
Advertisements [?]
Are you looking for a few more reasons to oppose the Iraq war?
Not that you need them, but there is 141 million reasons to oppose the Iraq fiasco.
Our new report, A Climate of War, catalogs the greenhouse gas emissions of the Iraq war, along with an accounting of what we could have bought if we were spending that money fighting climate change instead of a war for oil.
Here are some of the shocking facts:
1. 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.
2. The war is responsible for at least 141 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) since March 2003. To put this in perspective, CO2 released by the war to date equals the emissions from putting 25 million more cars on the road in the US this year.
3. In 2006, the US spent more on the war in Iraq than the whole world spent on investment in renewable energy.
Click here to read more key findings, and download a copy of the report.
http://priceofoil.org/2008/03/19/iraq-25-million-new-ca... /
The costs of the Iraq war are truly staggering. 3,992 US dead, 29,395 US wounded, 82-89,000 Iraqi dead, $3 trillion dollars.
Finally, 141 million metric tons of carbon dioxide and money that is desperately needed to stop global warming is being squandered.
Its time to fight climate change, not wars for oil. No War equals Less Warming.
Refresh | 2 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
so you think carbon dioxide presents a bigger threat than islamofacists
predfan (196 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Mar-20-08 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
1. Actually, it may be correct that the US spent that much in 2006 on the war,
but they didn't fund it. Our granddchildren will get the honor of paying for this war, and it's disgraceful that no reporter has the guts to ask Bush, Cheney, or McCain to counter that statement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Jeffersons Ghost (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Mar-20-08 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. agreed, and in truth, ANY figures on the expenses of the war are far lower than actual costs...
There are LOTS of ways to hide true economic expenditures in a war... I've heard they even hide the cost in lives by counting only those that die in Iraq, while ignoring people that die later in hospitals in other countries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Peace Teacher (38 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Mar-20-08 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
3. The cost of lives is too high!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
the cost of appeasing is even higher.
