FT.com / In depth - A warmer world is ripe for conflict and danger
FT.com / In depth - A warmer world is ripe for conflict and danger
Excerpts :
“Picture Japan, suffering from flooding along its coastal cities and contamination of its fresh water supply, eyeing Russia’s Sakhalin Island oil and gas reserves as an energy source...Envision Pakistan, India and China – all armed with nuclear weapons – skirmishing at their borders over refugees, access to shared river and arable land.”
It is from a Pentagon memo on the possible consequences of global warming.
Oxfam predicts 30m more people could be at risk of famine as a result of global warming.
The demand for essential resources could exacerbate tensions within countries.
A contributing factor to the conflict in Darfur has been a change in rainfall that pitted nomadic herders against settled farmers.
Creeping environmental deterioration already displaces 10m people a year. This could rise to 50m by 2010. Movements like this will have a huge impact on worldwide immigration patterns.
China’s economy is dependent on Himalayan glaciers to feed its southern rivers. But rising temperatures are now causing these glaciers to melt at an alarming rate.
In America, Hurricane Katrina turned New Orleans from a stable, wealthy and vibrant city into a wasteland in the space of a few days. In the UK, the Thames barrier, designed to be raised once every six years, is now being raised six times a year. Just one big flood would cost £30bn, or 2 per cent of UK gross domestic product.
We need to take action to prevent it, rather than just mitigate its effects. But, at the same time, politicians have a duty to prepare for its consequences in terms of domestic and international security.
Action means the UK needs a climate change bill with annual binding targets for emissions.
Only annual targets will create an economic price for carbon and encourage us to diversify our energy sources.
Using more renewable energy sources will also make our energy supplies more secure. By 2020, 90 per cent of UK energy will be supplied from abroad, leaving us vulnerable to political pressure. Reducing our reliance on oil and gas will help fight climate change and reinforce our security.
Showing leadership domestically also builds the trust necessary to get diplomatic agreement abroad – underpinned by a new global emissions authority. Sceptics who argue that the likes of China and the US would never agree misunderstand how energy security is already influencing their policies.
China, a resource-poor country, recently set a goal of doubling the use of alternative sources of energy. President George W. Bush last year promised a 22 per cent rise in US government clean energy funding to help end what he called the country’s “addiction to oil”.
Excerpts :
“Picture Japan, suffering from flooding along its coastal cities and contamination of its fresh water supply, eyeing Russia’s Sakhalin Island oil and gas reserves as an energy source...Envision Pakistan, India and China – all armed with nuclear weapons – skirmishing at their borders over refugees, access to shared river and arable land.”
It is from a Pentagon memo on the possible consequences of global warming.
Oxfam predicts 30m more people could be at risk of famine as a result of global warming.
The demand for essential resources could exacerbate tensions within countries.
A contributing factor to the conflict in Darfur has been a change in rainfall that pitted nomadic herders against settled farmers.
Creeping environmental deterioration already displaces 10m people a year. This could rise to 50m by 2010. Movements like this will have a huge impact on worldwide immigration patterns.
China’s economy is dependent on Himalayan glaciers to feed its southern rivers. But rising temperatures are now causing these glaciers to melt at an alarming rate.
In America, Hurricane Katrina turned New Orleans from a stable, wealthy and vibrant city into a wasteland in the space of a few days. In the UK, the Thames barrier, designed to be raised once every six years, is now being raised six times a year. Just one big flood would cost £30bn, or 2 per cent of UK gross domestic product.
We need to take action to prevent it, rather than just mitigate its effects. But, at the same time, politicians have a duty to prepare for its consequences in terms of domestic and international security.
Action means the UK needs a climate change bill with annual binding targets for emissions.
Only annual targets will create an economic price for carbon and encourage us to diversify our energy sources.
Using more renewable energy sources will also make our energy supplies more secure. By 2020, 90 per cent of UK energy will be supplied from abroad, leaving us vulnerable to political pressure. Reducing our reliance on oil and gas will help fight climate change and reinforce our security.
Showing leadership domestically also builds the trust necessary to get diplomatic agreement abroad – underpinned by a new global emissions authority. Sceptics who argue that the likes of China and the US would never agree misunderstand how energy security is already influencing their policies.
China, a resource-poor country, recently set a goal of doubling the use of alternative sources of energy. President George W. Bush last year promised a 22 per cent rise in US government clean energy funding to help end what he called the country’s “addiction to oil”.
Preparing for the consequences of climate change means we must re-evaluate our policies. We need a sharper focus on preventing and addressing climate change in the developing world. We must also examine potential areas of conflict caused by climate changes in planning defence policies.
As early as 1971, Richard Falk argued that environmental change was a security issue and outlined his “first law of ecological politics”: the faster the rate of change, the less time to adapt, the more dangerous the impact will be.
posted by AshishBhardwaj at 9:28 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home