Atlantic mocks for warning nuclear war would harm climate

If a nuclear war breaks out and tens of millions of people die, the Atlantic figured out who would be the real victim: the climate.

The far-left magazine owned by the billionaire widow of Apple founder Steve Jobs, Laurene Powell Jobs, relentlessly mocks a 1,200-word essay by Robinson Meyer warning that if the Russian invasion of Ukraine were to escalate into nuclear war, it “would be worse for the climate than any energy policy that Donald Trump has ever proposed. »


“If you’re worried about rapid and catastrophic changes in the planet’s climate, then you must be worried about nuclear war,” Meyer writes. “That’s because in addition to killing tens of millions of people, even a relatively ‘minor’ exchange of nuclear weapons would destroy the planet’s climate in enormous and lasting ways.”

Meyer presents a parade of perhaps unintended consequences of the deaths of millions of people, writing that the use of nuclear weapons “would also produce winds equal to those of a category 5 hurricane”, would start “wildfires urban and wild” and would send megatons of carbon into the atmosphere which would raise global temperatures.

In the dystopian world that would undoubtedly follow a nuclear holocaust, Meyer worries that survivors could continue to rely on fossil fuels, making “the permanent consequences for the climate system…even worse.”

“The ruins of our postwar society would be poorer, and fossil reserves are the easiest sources of energy to locate,” writes Meyer. “Renewables, wind turbines and other decarbonizing technologies, on the other hand, require secure factories, highly skilled engineers and complex global networks of trade and exchange.”

Twitter users who already thought there was reason enough for humans not to want nuclear war were not sympathetic to Robinson’s efforts to inject climate change into the problem.

Talk radio host Buck Sexton said the essay is the latest example of how the left-wing chatter class has lost plot.

“The elitist left has gone really crazy,” Sexton tweeted. “That’s not hyperbole, that’s an observation.”

Others on Twitter ridiculed the article for stating the obvious – and the superfluous.

“Next from the Atlantic: ‘Nuclear war is wiping out all life on planet Earth, women and people of color most affected’,” he tweeted. Ryan James Girdusky.

“I have to hand it over to the elite staff at The Atlantic. Yeah, I’m pretty sure a nuclear war would be a problem for the general climate. SMH,” Chris Summers added.

“Raise your hand if you already know a nuclear war would be awful and you don’t need the Atlantic to tell you that. And you also know the sun is hot on its surface and you don’t have don’t need the atlantic to tell you either,” Twitter user Jim West said.

Meyer acknowledged in the article that most people think of humans and climate first much later, if at all, when considering nuclear war. But apparently, this isn’t the first time scientists have worried about the effects a nuclear World War III would have on Mother Earth.

“Nowadays we don’t tend to think of nuclear war as a climate issue, but concerns about these kinds of dangers were part of how modern climate change gained political significance in the first place,” Meyer wrote. “During the 1980s, a group of scientists sounded the alarm about the effects of a nuclear winter and the ‘widening hole in the ozone layer’.”