One way to look at it, is where morality may not always play a part in the thoughts of realists and instead self - interest. If a realist were to believe in national self - interest, they may not side with the strike, since it goes against what would be good for them politically. The strike was also against putting pipe lines through native lands, however those pipes bring in oil that the military uses, and going against the military is not in a country's self interest. If you go by that chain of thought, then realists would not be for the strike.
Another way to see how realists were to react, is through history and their morality. These realists could have seen the rise of people believing in climate change and all the destruction that this change is causing in the world. Their political view would support Greta Thunberg and the climate strike, since they wouldn't necessarily see it through a corporation's eyes and instead see what is being done to the world and act on it.
Either way a realist acts, is based on their morality and the levels of it.
- Eli
I agree that realists would not support the strikes- they have nothing to do with political power. These climate protesters also want decreased greenhouse gas emissions, which means less oil. As you mentioned, the military is dependent on oil. However (although this is almost entirely hypothetical) what if the military used green energy? If the next commander in chief wanted to decarbonize the military, how would a realist look at this? I think it would be closer to your second way of viewing this. Climate change is a threat to national security and public safety, and some protests have historically worked (U.S. civil rights movement). I think our gut instinct is to say "no, a realist would never support these strikes or climate change because it's weak." That may be true for this exact moment under these circumstances, but I don't think it would be so hard to change.
ReplyDelete