16 April 2007 - New York,
United States — WMD are a constant topic
on the agenda of the United Nations, but
now the Security Council members will have
to ask, "Which W is it: weather or
weapons?"
The UN's International Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) recently produced an ominous
warning of massive changes in food production
zones; billions of people threatened by
reduced water supplies; hundreds of millions
more threatened by rising sea levels; and
mass migrations as hundreds of millions
become climate refugees.
In light of this, climate change is now
officially being recognised by the UN as
a security issue and a cause of conflict,
and has been placed on the agenda of the
Security Council.
The Security Council's mandate is to "to
promote the establishment and maintenance
of international peace and security with
the least diversion of the world's human
and economic resources for armaments..."
That's a clear set of marching orders to
tackle global warming now for what it is:
a threat to the "sustainable security"
of the planet.
Poverty, environmental disaster, and war
In the ground-breaking report of The World
Commission on Environment and Development
of 1987, Our Common Future, Gro Halrem Brundtland
wrote: "A world in which poverty is
endemic will always be prone to environmental
disaster."
But it's time to turn that on its head:
"a world in which environmental disaster
is endemic will always be prone to poverty
and war."
So how will the debate evolve? Will the
climate 'nay sayers' and intransigents face
sanctions under the Security Council's mandate
to "call on [UN] Members to apply economic
sanctions and other measures not involving
the use of force to prevent or stop an aggression."
Will the Security Council learn from its
recent mistakes, such as Rwanda and Darfur,
and take action before millions of lives
are lost?
The climate of war
A host of ex-generals, including the former
Army Chief of Staff and US President Bush's
former chief Middle East peace negotiators,
have now added their voices to the growing
chorus of concern over climate-change-induced
conflict.
"We will pay for this one way or another.
We will pay to reduce greenhouse 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,"
warned ex-marine Corps General Anthony C
Zinni, former commander, US forces, in the
Middle East.
Like never before, green issues and peace
issues are rising together and have to be
tackled together.
George W Bush once famously said "the
American lifestyle is not open to negotiation."
This misses the point, you can't negotiate
with climate change or, as Hurricante Katrina
showed, extreme weather events.
Although the G77 has expressed concern
that the Security Council is not the proper
place to discuss climate, there is no question
that the proliferation of Weather of Mass
Destruction is a worthy topic for the Security
Council. Its appearance on the Council's
agenda represents a coming of age and recognition
that failure to act now could see UN peace
keepers patrolling the climate change front
line for centuries to come.
You can't nuke a hurricane
The Security Council Climate debate will
be chaired by the UK foreign Secretary,
Margaret Beckett. Beckett could use the
opportunity to take a real leadership role
and announce a reversal of the British Government's
recent decision to upgrade its nuclear arsenal.
She could tell the council that the GBP75
billion currently earmarked for keeping
the UK a nuclear weapons power for another
half century will instead be invested in
real security by cutting the country's carbon
emissions.
A recent Greenpeace report showed that
redeploying the trident war chest into renewables
and energy efficiency could cut the UK's
CO2 emissions by 14 percent. In one swift
move she could help build confidence in
the struggle to curtail both WMD threats.
Becket could begin the process of redirecting
some of the US$ 1.3 trillion annual global
military spending - which is now greater
than the highest level during the cold war
- into combating the 'warm war', into averting
conflict rather than trying to control it.
In our recently published report, "Energy
[r]evolution," we've shown that with
proper investment in renewable energy along
with energy efficiency, our world can achieve
a 50% reduction of global emissions by 2050:
all at a fraction of annual global military
outlay.
