args

Money should be spend more on climate crisis than on military force

Nowadays both climate crisis and military force is important for mankind. Even though we must take into account that quality of the climate is disappearing. For many enviromentalists, the world seems to be getting worse, because the natural resources are running out, the species are becoming extinct in vast numbers and that the planet's both water and air becoming polluted. On the other hand, in 1997 the World Wide Fund of Nature issued a press release called: "Two thirds of the world's forest lost forever". Besides, the next source of climate crises is black carbon or soot, which is more interesting black carbon is not like other kinds of air pollution that causes globar warming and so on. First and foremost, it is not a gas but is made up of tiny carbon parts like those you can see in dirty smoke and it plays a big role in warming the planet. Secondly, it absorbs infra-red heat radiated by earth and spreads back to space, black carbon aslo absorbs heat from sun. In contrast, once Al Gore mentioned in his speech that he spent enough time dealing with military complex and Local battles, regional wars and world war, everything associated with military causes pollution, climate disaster, air pollution, water pollution.It is therefore clearly seen that we have to come up with idea that money should be spend on climate more than military force. However, there was an action to protect our climate from smoges in 1952 which calls " Cleaning the air after the great smog in 1952". As far as I'm concerned I think money should be spend on climate crisis more. And we must pay attention for African old proverb which says : "If you want to go quickly, go alone; if you want to go far, go together" and we have to go both far and quickly to protect our planet.