|
Editorial by Zac Goldsmith in "The Ecologist" of March 2004. Environmentalists have always invested disporportionate hope in America. If only we could persuate the world's biggest polluter, climate change might still be diverted. But how do you deal with an establishment that would rather spend trillions landing a single man on Mars than millions addressing threats to the only planet we know can sustain us? How can a shameless establishment be shamed into taking responsible action? Well, against the odds, that investment is beginning to look good after all. America is indeed awakening to the horrors of climate change. The only problem is, its response is almost as scary as the crisis itself. A few weeks ago 'Fortune Magazine' published a summary of an unclassified report it was shown by the Pentagon. The report is the culmination of a year's research coordinated by Department of Defence 'strategic planner' Andrew Marshall, a man 'Fortune' describes as a Pentagon 'legend whose pronouncements on looming risks have long had an outsized influence on defence policy'. Working alongside Marshall was another 'visionary', Peter Schwartz who used to be head of planning at Shell and has since worked for everyone from the CIA to Steven Spielberg. Their mandate was to examine the level of threat to America's security posed by climate change, and their verdict is nothing short of apocalyptic. The scenario goes something like this: Global warming, instead of unfolding gradually over the years, may trigger dramatic, rapid shifts in a matter of years, as the huge Atlantic Ocean currents which warm the Eastern US and Northern Europe are curbed by inceased flow from Arctic glaciers. The effect of a total shutdown of the ocean currents would probably usher in a new Ice Age. This, the report says, could happen more or less at any time. At first, the changes may be mistaken for natural volatility, allowing policy makers to maintain non-action. But within a few years, all doubt will have been swept away, as the changes become more dramatic. Rainfall in Northern Europe will have dropped by nearly 30 per cent, and its climate will take on the characteristics of Siberia. In Northern America, meanwhile, average temperatures will have plunged by up to five degrees Fahrenheit, violent storms will be the norm, punctuated by severe droughts made worse by violent winds. Breadbaskets the world over will quickly be transformed into deserts. Politically, the report suggests, these changes could not be more significant. The US, with its diverse climats, may be better placed to cope than most nations. But it will need to bolster its border and coastal defences to keep millions of starving people at bay. In Europe, desperate Scandinavians will pound at their southern neighbours' doors, as will starving refugees from North Africa. As pressure on resources continues to escalate, and famine sets in globally, Japan will begin eyeing oil and gas rich Russia, and the ongoing tensions between nuclear powers, China, Pakistan and India will escalate. In time, the report concludes, whole societies will be overwhelmed. The geopolitical barrage of power will be thrown off course. And because of the speed and breadth of the changes, technological progress will offer little in the way of solutions. Instead, the world will revert to a state of perpetual war over food, water and energy. First, he says, we need to be asking when, not if, abrupt climate change will happen. On that basis, the US government should embark on a 'speed research' so it can recognise the signs of impending change. And it needs to conduct studies on the likely political, economic, ecological and social fallout of such changes. Then there's the issue of how to deal with the crisis when it happens. Teams of people will need to prepare a response to massive migration problems. Ominous sounding 'no regrets' strategies should be crafted to ensure reliable access to food and water, and to ensure 'national security'. And that's the bit that needs thinking about. The US is the biggest contributor to climate change. Its government is the biggest reason we are not addressing the problem. Until today, Mr Bush has performed acrobats to avoid taking any responsibility for the crisis. More than that, he has transformed non-action into a badge of honour. Now one of his leading defence analysts has advised him the issue is not only real, it's possibly the gravest security threat his country has ever faced. And he has advised that the country do what? Well, I'm not familiar with Andrew Marshall, but I doubt his vision of food security looks like Ghandi's. His 'no regrets' strategy sounds to me like smash and grab. In other words; to hell with prevention. Let the problem slide, let the companies grow, and when the tuime comes, to hell with everyone else. But for people who aren't so confident in even America's ability to navigate the crisis, there's one final suggestion: geo-engineering. If the world gets very cold, we can always deploy those trusted scientists to engineer global warming. The only thing is, that's exactly what they've been doing for decades. www.theecologist.org | it could look like this... | more scenarios... ecoglobe Klimaseiten - pages climat | Ihre Reaktion - votre réaction |
zurück - retour - back
4405