I love the lede to this story, because it takes your words right out of your mouth. Not mine, because I have a theory on what that title could possibly mean:
Ghassan Hage, a future generation professor of anthropology and social theory at the University of Melbourne, presented a topic titled 'Is Islamophobia Accelerating Global Warming?' on Monday at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The presentation, sponsored by the school's Global Studies and Languages Department, delved into "an entanglement of two crises, metaphorically related with one being a source of imagery for the other and both originating in colonial forms of capitalist accumulation," according to an online promotion for the event, reports Fox News.
That much is known. The rest is a collective, "Huh?"
Indeed it is. Part of it is sheer gobbledygook - another of Hage's presentations is dubbed "On Exterminability: The Affective Culture of Settler-Colonialism Today", sponsored by, natch, the "Center For Palestinian Studies"....
....so "huh?" is an eminently rational response.
But I do have that theory I mentioned: If we presume that reducing our dependence on Middle East oil is "Islamophobic" because it will reduce the resources that Iran, ISIS, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia have to "invest" in the Global Jihad, and that the means of doing so - developing our abundant fossil fuel energy resources here at home - will stimulate "greenhouse gas emissions," and therefore contribute to "global warming," then one could arrive at the conclusion Imam Hage is trying to torturedly construct.
That's the best guess up with which I can come. I haven't seen any other theories at all. And even it has its problems, like subsidizing the Global Jihad still maintaining or expanding "greenhouse emissions. I'd be more interested in learning whether the Left considers "Islamophobia" or "global warming" to be more objectionable. For now we're going to have to settle for the footnote that Hage is a known anti-Semite - which is another way of saying to "consider the source".