The politics of global warming. It's hard to negotiate with a desperate man

Why are wars fought?

Historically, some have been fought over religious beliefs, a few over misunderstandings or pride, and, if we are to believe the tales that come out of Hollywood, some are even fought for love. But, by far the majority are fought for one of two things - either need, or greed. Plunder and conquest has swung the broadsword for millennia, either by those that merely wanted more, or by those whose survival depended on it.

In a world currently 'waging a war on terror', it's not hard to make the jump to needing to 'wage a war on climate change', and, I believe, on inequality. In this belief, in the words of the famous singer, "I'm not the only one.":

A report, scheduled to be published on Monday but distributed to some reporters yesterday, said issues usually associated with the environment — like rising ocean levels, droughts and violent weather caused by global warming — were also national security concerns.

“Unlike the problems that we are used to dealing with, these will come upon us extremely slowly, but come they will, and they will be grinding and inexorable,” Richard J. Truly, a retired United States Navy vice admiral and former NASA administrator, said in the report.

The effects of global warming, the study said, could lead to large-scale migrations, increased border tensions, the spread of disease and conflicts over food and water. All could lead to direct involvement by the United States military. - New York Times

At the release of the Stern Report last year, the UK's Prime Minister Tony Blair made prominent the economic aspect of "pay now, or pay a lot more later". U.S. military leaders are now urging the security aspect of that concept.

US generals urge climate action

Former US military leaders have called on the Bush administration to make major cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

... 'Pay now - or later' - BBC

Battles for oil will likely give way to battles over necessities

The report warned that in the next 30 to 40 years there will be wars over water, increased hunger instability from worsening disease and rising sea levels and global warming-induced refugees. “The chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide and the growth of terrorism,” the 35-page report predicted.

“Climate change exacerbates already unstable situations,” former U.S. Army chief of staff Gordon Sullivan told Associated Press Radio. “Everybody needs to start paying attention to what’s going on.

... “It’s not hard to make the connection between climate change and instability, or climate change and terrorism.”

... “Weakened and failing governments, with an already thin margin for survival, foster the conditions for internal conflicts, extremism and movement toward increased authoritarianism and radical ideologies,” the report said. “The U.S. will be drawn more frequently into these situations.”

In a veiled reference to Bush’s refusal to join an international treaty to cut greenhouse gas emissions, the report said the U.S. government “must become a more constructive partner” with other nations to fight global warming and cope with its consequences.

The Bush administration has declined mandatory emission cuts in favor of voluntary methods. Other nations have committed to required reductions that kick in within a few years.

“We will pay for this one way or another,” wrote Zinni, former commander of U.S. Central Command. “We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we’ll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll.” - MSNBC

Will we merely place sandbags around our shores - to keep out the rising tide of oceans, discontent and global warming's huddled masses? Will this become just another excuse to increase military spending? As the old saying goes, prevention is always better than cure.

 

Want to comment? Visit the Celsias Lounge and find or start a topic!