Sir Rod Eddington, [former chief executive of British Airways] was asked to advise the government on the links between transport and the UK's economic growth. He found that even when the costs of climate change... are taken into account, the total costs of expanding the UK's airports and road networks are lower than the amount of money to be made. Though he never spelled it out in these terms... Eddington discovered that it makes economic sense for people to die in order that we can travel more.
Those who will feel most of the costs of climate change do not live in the United Kingdom... Eddington has decided that it makes economic sense for other people to die in order that we can travel more freely.
To say that the civilian deaths from aerial bombardment are unintentional is sophistry, because if there is a probability that the bombs will hit civilian targets, then ipso facto the civilian deaths are not unintentional. This is tantamount to saying that a drunk driver who did not intend to kill someone in an "accident" should be set free for good motives; US law prosecutes drunk drivers regardless of whether they have been in an accident, because it recognizes that drunk driving is an inevitable accident. The same must be said of aerial bombardment. It always already intends to kill civilians, despite the best intentions of the military planners.