User:RNDM21/sandbox

Chosen Solution
My chosen solution is the latter of the two. To prohibit foreign influence, in conflicts. This should do one of two things, A, punish a country for going into war while ill prepared, and B, prevent situations such as the one happening now with Israel and Palestine, Where the US is emitting half of the total CO2 emissions of the specified period. This solution would have caveats, however since it is nearly impossible to regulate countries to a 'T' so this would be more of a “under 500m dollar aid” are allowed, maximum. This would also not include defence pacts or alliances, such as NATO (as they would further complicate issues) and also leave out humanitarian aid (for obvious reasons). This should NOT impact aid, but only prevent the American situation of using over 50 million litres of aviation fuel, from delivering 10,000 tonnes of weapons in the 60-day period it was tracked. This should, at least prevent the unscrupulous actions, causing such an obscene threat to the environment for the sake of killing people‽

Why better than other solution?
This problem of the environmental impact from war is a current factor and one likely to occur more and more in the future, especially as the world becomes more interconnected and tensions arise, and conflicts are more likely to occur. Compared to other options, such as promoting peace talks or war in the sense of communications. I believe that my solution is somewhat, by the meekest of means, viable, and perhaps slightly interesting especially compared to the former, as it gives leeway, affects major conflicts, the ones that the people actually care about, the ones which the news cover. However the former solution would be already happening, and it is cheaper and easier to implement, however likely being extremely ineffective, by merely suggesting for the parties to communicate. And so, through my un-creative mind, this is my best solution to the environmental impact of war.