You Ain’t Seen Nothin’ Yet

 

As world representatives gather in Glasgow, Scotland, UK this November for the 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26), purportedly to get as many nations as possible on the same “stop and reverse” climate change effort, the existing and approaching environmental catastrophes and natural disasters are increasingly obvious. What may be less obvious is the litany of potential conflicts, dangers, serious political turmoil and reconfiguration that just may be the most threatening part of climate change. Eighteen US intelligence agencies combined resources to produce a horrifying 27-page report – the first “National Intelligence Estimate on Climate Change” – to outline those possible and expected global tensions through 2040. Writing for the October 21st BBC.com, Gordon Corera explores that revealing document.

The headline: security is a huge issue with global climate change. Those most displaced with the fewest support systems to mitigate their pain bear the greatest burden. Poor people. Poor nations. People with nothing left to lose are both desperate and dangerous. Nations facing resource loss or devaluation have ticking time bombs on their hands. While other countries, watching opportunity defrost, opening waterways and agricultural land, are beginning to poise themselves with strong military build-ups to take advantage of these changes. All of the above augur for potential and very serious conflicts – both between and within nations – and powerful migration patterns that challenge the world’s capacity to sustain human life.

We’ve already seen what happened with over a million displaced Sunni farmers, whose plots of land in Syria and Iraq simply dried up and literally blew away. Some called it an “extended drought.” But it was desertification, farms that were never coming back in any foreseeable timeline. Shiite rulers in those nations refused to help. ISIS stepped in… and you know the rest. 

Corera drills into the intelligence document’s details: “The report paints a picture of a world failing to co-operate, leading to dangerous competition and instability… It warns countries will try to defend their economies and seek advantage in developing new technology. Some nations may also resist the desire to act, with more than 20 countries relying on fossil fuels for greater than 50% of total export revenues… ‘A decline in fossil fuel revenue would further strain Middle Eastern countries that are projected to face more intense climate effects,’ the report says…

“The US intelligence community identifies 11 countries and two regions where energy, food, water and health security are at particular risk. They tend to be poorer and less able to adapt, increasing the risks of instability and internal conflict. Heat waves and droughts could place pressure on services like electricity supply… Five of the 11 countries are in South and East Asia - Afghanistan, Burma, India, Pakistan and North Korea - four countries are in Central America and the Caribbean - Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras and Nicaragua. Colombia and Iraq are the others. Central Africa and small states in the Pacific are also at risk…. Instability could spill out, particularly in the form of refugee flows, with a warning this could put pressure on the US southern border and create new humanitarian demands.

“Flashpoints[?]… The Arctic is likely to be one, as it becomes more accessible because of reducing ice. That may open new shipping routes and access to fish stocks but also create risks of miscalculation as militaries move in. [As pictured above, Russia’s massive build-up of nuclear-powered icebreakers and its claim to most of the Arctic region should be extremely worrying to all nations in the area].

“Access to water will also become a source of problems. In the Middle East and North Africa, about 60% of surface water resources cross boundaries. Pakistan and India have long-standing water issues. Meanwhile, the Mekong River basin could cause problems between China and Cambodia and Vietnam, the report warns.

“Another source of risk is that a country might decide to use geo-engineering to counter climate change… This involves using futuristic technology, for instance sending reflective particles to the upper stratosphere which mimic the cooling effects of a volcanic eruption or using aerosols to cool oceans in a particular area… But if one country acts alone it could simply shift the problem to another region and create anger from other nations impacted in a negative way or unable to act themselves.” 

We could use increasingly sophisticated geo-technology and upgraded power generation systems for the betterment of all. We could simply cooperate to mitigate damages from a total global perspective. Richer nations could help the lesser economic countries cope with the inevitable change. Fish and animal migrations may change access to food supplies. Migrating insects will tax our pharmacological abilities and sharing solutions should be in the cards. Or not.

Even within the United States, you can see serious political schisms develop as states with serious fossil fuel and/or vast agricultural resources witness large urban concentrations lobby to create serious land use and fossil fuel restrictions to improve greenhouse emissions. Red versus blue. Science denial rises as the cost of following scientific advice escalates. Domestic terrorism, according to the FBI, eclipses foreign terrorism by miles these days.

“‘Governments increasingly recognise that climate change is shaping the national security landscape like never before,’ Erin Sikorsky, the director of the Center for Climate and Security who formerly worked on the National Intelligence Council, told the BBC.

“‘Climate considerations cannot be separated from other security concerns, such as competition with China. That country faces compounding climate risks, from rising sea levels affecting millions of people in coastal cities, flooding in its interior that threatens energy infrastructure, and desertification and migrating fish stocks that undermine its food security. National security strategy that does not take such factors into account will get answers to key questions about China's behaviour incorrect.’” BBC.com. There is much to be gained from serious and intensive global cooperation, even between nations that are otherwise on less than friendly terms. And so much more to be lost it we fail to find that common path.

I’m Peter Dekom, and for reasons that continue to escape me, mankind has all-too-often opted to learn its existential lessons the hard way.