Most people would agree climate change is one of the biggest threats to our world. But opinions differ on the nature of this threat, how it will affect our lives and what we must do to face it.
Politicians, diplomats and security experts across the board -- not only in the Western world -- share the assessment that climate change might have a serious impact on international peace and security. It is not difficult to see why: rising sea levels threaten the very existence of small island states in the Pacific and the loss of coastal shores to the sea leading to population resettlements. The increased scarcity of potable water -- as a consequence of wells becoming brackish due to salty sea water -- adds to rivalry and tension. Overwhelming evidence shows this has already begun to happen: it is not the subject of a scientific discussion in an ivory tower.
Let there be no doubt: we are not talking about a small number of people on a remote island having to give up their stretch of the beach. We are talking about sea level rises that might seriously impact the lives of millions of people who live close to the coast -- and only a little higher than sea level. Densely populated mega-deltas of the Ganges, Nile, Mekong or Mississippi or big coastal cities such as Karachi, New York, Singapore or Tokyo come to mind -- and remember that Fukushima isn't the only (nuclear) power plant built next to the sea.
The implications of climate change will not only be economic or demographic. It will affect "hard security" as well: people will clash over basic resources, they will be forced to resettle or even to migrate across borders.
Poverty and statelessness will add to already destabilized societies. But the threat to peace and security will not be limited to existing poor and needy populations: receding coastlines could well incite disputes among developed nations over maritime territories and economic zones -- think of contested islands in East Asia or the race for the shelf at the North Pole and you can easily imagine how tensions could mount.
The threats are self-evident. But what should we do?
I think it is important to remind ourselves of two basic facts :
First, this threat is of a very different nature than any threat we have had to deal with before: it is global in reach -- and makes no distinction between North and South or East and West. There will be some countries more capable of dealing with the consequences of climate change than others. But none will go unscathed. None will be able to address these challenges on its own. It is therefore mandatory -- and in the interest of all states -- to strive for an internationally coordinated approach.
Second, the one international body that has the legitimacy and responsibility to maintain international peace and security is the United Nations Security Council. It must therefore be at the heart of any multilateral approach to tackle global threats to peace and security.
One has to concede, however, that there are varying expectations on how the Security Council should fulfill this task: some governments would like to see the Security Council only act when two countries are at the brink of war. These countries usually hold the view that only military action that crosses borders justifies Council action and that everything else amounts to outside interference. On the other hand there are governments that -- in allusion to the "blue-helmet" UN peacekeepers -- are already calling for "green-helmets to close down coal-mines." These governments expect the Security Council to act decisively on the perceived root-causes of global warming. They see no viable alternative to address their justified -- and very existential -- fear of vanishing into the sea.
As far-fetched as the idea of "green-helmets" might sound, consider the tasks that the United Nations peacekeepers already perform today -- e.g. emergency aid, development and recovery, state -- and peacebuilding. Repainting blue helmets into green might be a strong signal -- but would dealing with the consequences of climate change -- say in precarious regions -- be really very different from the tasks the blue helmets already perform today?
Trying to answer this question would mean crossing the bridge before coming to it: it is too early to seriously think about Council action on climate change. This is clearly not on the agenda. The Council should, however, fulfill its duty and ready itself: It should not only act after the first tragedies hit the headlines. A good first step would be to acknowledge the realities of climate change and its inherent implications to international peace and security. This should not be seen as an infringement on the competence of other international bodies dealing with the general policies regarding climate change and global warming. On the contrary, it would emphasize that the Council is ready to assume its responsibilities to try to prevent the worst from happening -- acting with the precaution and prudence we expect in regard to international security.
Follow Dr. Peter Wittig on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@germanyUN
Corbin Hiar: International Climate Negotiations Grind to a Standstill
Leon T. Hadar: When Obama Meets Hu: "Normalizing" Sino-American Relationship?
Nikolas Kozloff: WikiLeaks, Cuba and More U.S. Cynicism on Climate Change
Tommy Stadlen: Look Beyond The UN For Climate Solutions
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Gateway to the UN System's Work on Climate Change - Home
Divisions Surface at UN Climate Change Talks | Environment | English
Q&A: UN climate change conference in Bangkok | Environment ...
Climate Change Drives Instability, U.N. Official Warns - NYTimes.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lx92rgo9jo
Desert Jihad
Sea level? Slowing down - http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
No where near 'unprecedented' rate - ~20 meters in ~1000 years = ~20mm/year - http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/09newworld/background/occupation/media/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level_600.jpg
CO2 and temperature, currently at a LOW point for BOTH over the last 400 million years - http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
Hurricanes / Tornadoes, no correlation - http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/global_running_ace.jpg http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/tornado/tornadotrend.jpg
My comment is I want to quote the following article "The ocean rise may continue even after warming stops" R&D magazine 19Th July 2011. In my modest opinion there isn't the slightest chance of a temperature rise this century being below the IPCC UN goal of 2 centigrade. As a matter of a fact it already may be more. Wait and see isn't an option either and a joint Global United action is warranted. This isn't something to be achieved overnight. It is Important to keep informing the general public in a way that helps us to realize the global scale of the climate problem we are to face.Two third of the global population lives on the shore line and will be affected by rising sea levels over time if nothing is done or too little too late . With regards, Peter Dousma, graduate technical business engineer
United Nations countries belong to an organization called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which publishes a report every six years. Often referred to as the "climate bible" these reports are relied on by governments around the world……
The latest (report) was released in 2007. Sometimes called the AR4 (the Fourth Assessment Report), it contains 44 chapters and is nearly 3,000 pages long. Written by people organized into teams - Working Group 1, 2 and 3 - it consists of three smaller reports bundled into one.
The chairman of the IPCC has repeatedly said the report relies solely on peer-reviewed literature to support its findings. He has said research that hasn't appeared in peer-reviewed journals should be thrown "into the dustbin" (see the last line of this newspaper article). But our audit has discovered almost 5,600 non-peer-reviewed references in this report…..
Of the 44 chapters in the IPCC report:
21 received an F- 59% or fewer references are peer-reviewed
4 received a D- 60-69% of references are peer-reviewed
6 received a C- 70-79% of references are peer-reviewed
5 received a B- 80-89% of references are peer-reviewed
8 received an A- 90-100% of references are peer-reviewed
http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/IPCC-report-card.php
and i don't really care what color the helmet is...the last thing i want to see out here where i am is a soldier of any kind. many of us are preparing for this. if our govt was responsible, they'd be helping prepare the public at large instead of playing like our culture is fine and will answer the problem we created by creating more technology. it ain't gonna happen.
they KNOW where we're at on the bell curve of peak oil. scares the tar out of me their not coming clean.
Climate instability breeds societal chaos. With nations fighting over water, and disappearing agricultural belts, that shift because of climate change. Famine, social dislocation all present huge instability with wars and migration.
Even in the USA- another 1 degree rise Celsius in temperature will result in large regions of the American wheat and corn western corn belt will result in crop failures and eventually the entire region reverting to a large dust-bowl.
The stakes are high. The frightening aspect is that it is happening now. C02 emissions are soaring, and stand at highs not seen in nearly 20 million years. Yet we have a US Congress lead by criminals who deny a problem exists. It seems like a perfect storm- of inaction, greed, and willful destruction of many parts of the American heartland.
The price will be so high in the end- its not if the USA still exists, but whether a civilization will.
tick tock.
The basic science of it was settled long long ago. The scientists agree. Deniers are just now getting the issue and deciding it is a money scam. This reflects more upon the minds of the deniers than anything else.
"The poll shows that, when asked to assume that global temperatures are rising, most Americans say they view human activities as either the primary cause or a contributor to this trend. ..... Furthermore, a surprisingly large percentage of people continue to believe the falsehood that there is a lot of disagreement among scientists that the earth is warming in the first place. " Yale and GMU poll, jun 2011
The English speaking countries have had a massive surplus of safety for years, so its going to be hard to convince them that they need even more. Instead, the UN will need to promote a Safe Atmosphere in the countries that have already experienced environmental degradation. Greenland, for example, is still trying to rebuild the forests that were cut down by the Vikings.
In the US or Australia, the campaign will have to focus on areas that have experienced drought, floods, or fires. The rest of us simply feel too secure to be worried.
With the fees from the CDM (UN Clean Development Mechanism) replacing the lucrative but now defunct Iraqi Food for Oil swindle propping up UN's bloat, and if the UN "speaks for the world," yes indeed most people would agree by representation.
It is interesting to see someone acknowledge here the UN in a little way. But he is German, not American. It seems all the American lackeys subisdised by big-energy-other-than-Exxon-Mobil have received instructions never to mention the words Unitted Nations or the IPCC for that matter. They will cite IPCC science, but never the source.
Here is a super slide show of the forrest coverage in Tibet, which has risen from 1% to 11.9%
http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/666026/Forest-coverage-rate-in-Tibet-rises-to-1191-after-peaceful-liberation.aspx
It's high time that "democracies" stop dragging their feet on environmental protection under the guise that it is too expensive.
A cautious approach is called for.
On the other hand, Security Council attention to the issue is merited and their involvement is past due.
Meanwhile, quietly, and in spite of all the Dalai Lama's vitriol, China is making progress in protecting the environment in the midst of development and climate change.
http://tibet.news.cn/english/2011-03/01/c_13755712.htm
please enjoy the slide show :)
dismantling industrial civilization is pretty much our only shot now. we cannot sit idly by waiting for the corporations whose sole purpose is to produce goods with exponential growth constantly.
unsustainable means just that.