February 5, 2008
Column: US optimism can benefit all
Here is a proposal for the next American president. The US should take the lead in setting up a massive, publicly funded research project to tackle climate change. The American government has, in the past, shown that it is capable of sponsoring pioneering science – from the Manhattan project that produced the atomic bomb to the space programme. Why not apply American energy, money and know-how to a new Manhattan project on global warming?
The secrets of the bomb and space programmes were kept closely guarded for security reasons. But climate change is a security issue for the whole world. So a US-led research project on technologies to tackle global warming could be a much more open and international affair. It would also have to be much more wide-ranging than the bomb or space programmes – sponsoring research on everything from alternative energy to carbon-capture and geo-engineering (such as efforts to create a stratospheric shield in the atmosphere).
The main purpose of any such programme would be to combat the obvious threats posed by climate change. But it would also have the incidental benefit of blunting one of the main sources of global anti-Americanism – the idea that the US is too casual about climate change.
The remainder of this column can be read here. Please post comments below.
Gideon,
If I may, your best column yet. This truly is the defining issue of our day, on so many fronts. It is essential that the US should, as you say, take the lead on developing the technologies that will allow us to have a less polluted world. And it is very likely that whoever wins the next election will put the policy framework in place to allow them to do so. There are so very many levels of interest on this issue - from the US’ global image, to the price of oil, to national security - that his wilful blindness has far and away been the major failing of the Bush years. And I find it hard to understand how the last few years have been wasted - after all this is natural GOP territory. But once the case is made - that it serves America’s business, economic and national security interests - to develop new technologies that sever the oil link, I am sure that we will see the US move very quickly into a true global leadership position.
Posted by: AYC | February 5th, 2008 at 9:03 am | Report this commentTo challenge this piece feels like questioning motherhood. Obviously, AYC experienced a womb moment when he read it. Nonetheless, permit me to ask why this piece on this day from the chief foreign-affairs correspondent?
Clearly, there is much good in this discussion, but most of it can be found on the websites of the not-for-profits of the IT-age tycoone you’ve cited. Your principal aim here appears to be to offer an idea that the US can embrace in order to restore some sense of its fading glory. Clearly, you do not think Mr Obama is up to that task.
This is not 1947 and the world does not need the US to launch an environmental Cold War. I agree that the world will unlikely benefit from environmental treaties, although I will not dismiss their value.
Despite persistent disputes, wars and macro-economic failures on continental scales, the principal goal of the post-WWII era–a globalised world–has largely been achieved. Perhaps due more to Mr Gates than the UN or the EU or US MNCs and banks.
So, why do you suggest that it is the US that uniquely has what it takes to develop the technologies and scientific advancements needed to reconcile our consumptive needs with a finite universe? Are you not aware of how globalised the scientific community is? Have you not known what sits beneath the airport at Geneva when you land? Do you think the Japanese have invested only in educating a society on the virtues of Luis Vuitton design? And Russia?
The US will be well served by investing first in bridges that traverse its rivers, seawall systems to protect the poor who occupy many flood plains, and schools that distract students from shooting one another.
The FT science and technology editors would unlikely have penned such a piece. So that leaves one to ask what geopolitical enlightenment should be expected. I think little, frankly.
Davos conference-hall/hotel bar chat will most likely emerge as the source of this discussion.
Sorry, but lately I feel like a dinner guest on this blog who has a rudeness problem. Perhaps I do. Nonetheless, I found much to ponder and worry constructively about in other articles in today’s FT, particularly the one on Obama, whose foreign policy has faild to merit the attention of this column.
Posted by: WCM | February 5th, 2008 at 9:45 am | Report this commentGood point. Perhaps Gates and Co. could first be persuaded to find out if any part of the nature of the current phase of the ever changing global climate is a result of man made efforts or not. Is it not best to do this first and try once and for all to establish some useful non partisan facts - if that is really possible? The Channel 4 programme on this subject was disturbing, not because of climate change per se, but because of the evidence of significant disagrement within the so called scientific community.
Posted by: Charles Hazell | February 5th, 2008 at 10:13 am | Report this commentCharles, to be perfectly frank, the facts are largely irrelevant on climate change, at least as far as persuading the American public about the merits of going green are concerned. The facts are there, to the best of the ability of international science and have been largely ignored by the US consumer. Yet there are so many other reasons for the US to engage with this issue - and that are more likely to spur the American people on - that to set up a commission to examine the facts would be a waste of time. It is more than likely that US politicians - on both sides - have recognised the wider issues and that is why policy is beginning to move there.
WCM, I see exactly where we diverge in our world view. I recognise and support the spirit of entrepreneurialism in the US, which if properly harnessed is more likely than any other source to provide a solution. You see it as some sort of threat. The point of Gideon’s piece is that it is this intangible, pretty much unique to the US, rather than any other single factor, which will drive the development of the technology. And ultimately this will benefit us all, including you. And I think you underplay the extent to which policy is now driving this issue, which clearly falls within Gideon’s remit. And where policy creates opportunity, business surely follows. You do have a rather gloomy view of the world. Maybe this is what leads to your rudeness?
Posted by: AYC | February 5th, 2008 at 12:20 pm | Report this commentAYC–My world view is founded on the first-hand knowledge that enlightened thinking is manifest outside–as well as within–the US. Advocates of limitless US hegemony have much to answer for at this passage in history. Your thinking on the role of policy aligns with European-style industrial policy more than US entrepreneurialism.
As far as Mr Rachman’s remit is concerned, that is for his editors to manage. My challenge is pointed as I believe Mr Rachman is deliberately taking a breather to assess just what new global order may be unfolding.
Posted by: WCM | February 5th, 2008 at 12:49 pm | Report this commentGideon the program you’re looking for is called ITER and its website is at iter.org - most projects around climate change don’t tackle the central issue (CO2) directly. If successful, ITER has the capacity to solve all related problems. It’s an international project involving all major countries, costs $15b (already allocated) and needs help from press & PR people (lke yourself). Fusion energy can fundamentally help fix the situation by switching us away from burning carbohydrates.
That’s very unappealing to the most powerful lobby on the planet who would rather see us find a technological fix that would allow us to burn carbohyrates and keep generation of energy from becoming commoditized.
Posted by: felix drost, amsterdam | February 5th, 2008 at 12:57 pm | Report this commentExcellent article. To quote our friend Stimulus:
“There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America”.
Posted by: RR | February 5th, 2008 at 1:06 pm | Report this commentWCM: you ask a lot from GR: whose remit is to produce 750 (1000?) word articles. I found this analysis excellent, but it is a lot longer than 1000 words.
“Waving Goodbye to Hegemony”
By Parag Khanna, New America Foundation
The New York Times Magazine | January 27, 2008
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/waving_goodbye_hegemony_6604
Posted by: MaryCunningham | February 5th, 2008 at 1:37 pm | Report this commentWCM,
My thinking on the role of policy is quite clear, and is neither US- nor Euro-centric. The clear fact of the matter is that once policy is enacted - whether that be expansion of the carbon markets, limits on C02 emissions etc - business will look to make the best of the situation. A far better situation than some centrally planned initiative - as even the European Commission has recognised.
btw, how long do you expect his breather to be? Will the new world order be long in unfolding?
Posted by: AYC | February 5th, 2008 at 1:37 pm | Report this commentQuote
The American government has, in the past, shown that it is capable of sponsoring pioneering science – from the Manhattan project that produced the atomic bomb to the space programme.
Unquote
The above statement overlooks that the Manhattan project and the space programme were / are part of the American military effort and what Eisenhower called the Military-Industrial Complex has a very large interest in funding and equipping them. Indeed the American government always has money to find increasing sophisticated, high-tech ways to obliterate Third World peasants and threaten other governments.
Such budgetary largesse does not extend to peaceful technologies. Therefore, the final paragraph about the American government having shown in the past that it can set up world-changing scientific initiatives, is irrelevant to non-military applications (or please name the successful non-military technologies that the US government has sponsored in the past 50 years).
Finally, as a poster on a similar thread pointed out last year, “technological breakthrough” appears to be the Deus Ex Machina that is brought out to save the day against environmental concerns (and the arguments about the need for reduced consumption and growth rates), when the pro-growth, business-as-usual crowd run out of more convincing things to say.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 5th, 2008 at 1:40 pm | Report this commentP, that’s exactly the point. There are important military technologies which can come out of this. Military vehicles which don’t rely on fuel oil? Don’t tell me the US military wouldn’t be interested in that.
Although to take up your other point, you don’t necessarily need high tech equipment to threaten other governments. A series of strategically placed militias and terrorist groups will do. Ring any bells?
Posted by: AYC | February 5th, 2008 at 2:14 pm | Report this commentHi AYC,
I think the military industrial complex are busy making money hand over fist from refining the existing methods of mass slaughter and would rather continue with their push to subjugate other oil producers, rather than getting involved in “hippy” concerns like saving the planet.
As for your second point, high tech weapons certainly help a lot and so would placing warmongering members of your own ethnic lobby in various US think tanks and even the Élysée Palace and Quai d’Orsay. Rings any bells?
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 5th, 2008 at 3:57 pm | Report this commentAYC–I would think that many US voters will send a clear signal today that they have had enough of their tax dollars spent on defence or pseudo-defence initiatives that have more to do with your long-announced interests than with ensuring the quality of life in the US or the advancement of science.
Mary–I appreciate your defence of Mr Rachman, but I think he is far to clever to need one. I have no doubt he pondered long on what to write and not to write.
Posted by: WCM | February 5th, 2008 at 4:02 pm | Report this commentP, I quite agree. “Hippy concerns” do not interest the military. However ending the reliance on unstable countries (not to mention unstable leaders - ring any bells?) probably does, as well as the endless applications to which the new technology could be put. Why expend the effort subjugating, when you can reduce your rivals to penury and strategic irrelevance?
WCM, ever hear of John McCain - the next president of the US?
Posted by: AYC | February 5th, 2008 at 4:41 pm | Report this commentIn the past, many technologies originally developed through either the space programme or the military-industrial complex have ultimately found profound and transformational uses in civilian life. Here are three of many examples:
A. Plastics were developed as a light and durable material intended for use on the space missions;
B. The internet began as the ARPA-net — a research project of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA, formerly ARPA) intended to develop a computer network able to withstand a nuclear attack;
C. GPS is another military project which has wide-ranging applications in commercial uses and everyday life.
Posted by: RCS | February 5th, 2008 at 4:42 pm | Report this commentHi RCS,
I doubt if plastics in general were developed solely for space missions and I suspect their use pre-dated the space missions although some kinds of plastics may have been. I think Teflon was developed as a result of the space missions but, given the huge amounts of military expenditure over the past 50 years by the US, I think these are very slim pickings indeed. If the money had been directly spent on saving the planet and its people, the world would probably be a radically better place.
AYC, If your scenario comes true, there will be little incentive for the US to continue supporting a land-grabbing, aggressive, racially supremacist entity in the area. That should not only ring a bell with you, but ring all manners of alarm bells too
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 5th, 2008 at 5:26 pm | Report this commentI haven’t read all comments but note the 1st one claiming this is GR’s best column. I strongly disagree. This is probably one of his worst, just as useful as political party flyer. Lots of niceties but (unusually) lack of analysis.
I genuinely enjoy GR’s columns for their originality, new angles, analysis, thoughts etc.. Whether my personnal views are aligned doesnt affect on how I rate a column. I happened to agree strongly with the main point - that technological innovation is key to manage climate change.
Still “American technological prowess can be harnessed for non-commercial purposes” !!! Does anyone seriously believe a company stumbling upon “clean” energy will spread & share it in a non-commercial way???
Is the US’s attitude to climate change really “one of the main source of anti-americanism”? I doubt very much that the Palestinian, Russian, or French in the street would rank US greenery as a top 3 reason for anti-americanism. I guess real (and perceived) US imperialism seems much more to blame.
The gates and google foundation parts seem like paraphrases of recently written Economist columns. (!!!) And there’s not even the slightest criticism to their all or nothing approach. At least a mention of the recent study (see Economist) on malaria that basically says that old-fashioned mosquito nets and insecticides would save millions of lives. Meanwhile, the foundations are spending fortunes to find a vaccine! Which, if nets and insecticides were provided to malaria areas would be pretty much useless as once a critical mass of people are equipped the disease would be pretty much eradicated.
I’m no expert on the debate - just repeating things I read. But I expected the more informed view of GR on this.
As for clean energy, doesn’t it only exist in Alice’s Wonderland? Isn’t this another alchemist quest to change lead into gold? I doubt very much we’ll come across clean limitless energy. As in everything, there will be choices and compromises to make. Meanwhile the so-called clean coal power plants are being delayed in America… Not sure why, but surely clean-coal ought to be very close to the top of priorities given the abundance and cheapness of coal. The problem of course, is that coal is not glamourous enough (it’s as old as the industrial age, it’s boring, and the chances are there’s not much profit in it) for the green army..
So the overall assumption is that US taxpayers will be happy to fund a global scientific project against climate change which is not-for-profit and where the US isn’t in charge, for if it were, the US would surely be accused of imperialism-for it would be trying to impose its view on the world of what needs to be done against climate change.
Clearly the EU approach is no panacea either. And I’d like to hear what John Kay, fellow columnist at the FT might say on the topic.
My sense is that a tax on pollution must be part of the solutions. This is what is done for every other economic externalities: a tax - why not with climate change, because politicians are scared voters won’t like it., Well voters don’t like taxes on anything, does that mean we should simply abolish taxes? The real reason of course is that polluting businesses do not want to foot the bill.
There was a time (not that long ago) when it was perfectly fine (legal and all were doing it) to empty chemicals into rivers. Now, it’s been banned, and chemical companies are scrutinised on their wastes into sea and rivers. The same principle should apply with CO2 emissions.
Another thing seems to me to be good jugdement: we need to be cautious about what we do. As much as “the science of climate change is beyond any doubts” as you can see everywhere these days, I think we should keep researching it. And when some evidence challenges that view, it should be debated and investigated further. The current consensus seems happen to bury and publicly shame anyone who dares disagreeing with the View.
Remember also that the space project was a massive destruction of capital - sending man on the moon brought absolutely nothing to humanity but pride. In scientific terms, it was a waste - the whole thing would have been just as useful without manned-missions. (maybe today the case for manned-mission is stronger, but then it wasnt).
Looking forward to the next column.
Posted by: Anon | February 5th, 2008 at 5:46 pm | Report this commentDear Anon,
Good points.
I agree that the tax system must be a core part of the solution. The most elegant solutions are usually the best solutions (a form of Occam’s razor) and internalising externalities through taxation should definitely count as one of the most elegant.
Further, attempts at changing the environment have usually resulted in concomitant damage to the ecosystem, as witness the effects of various dams, canals and the like. Trying to ENGINEER a reversal in climate change (as opposed to a simple reduction in emissions) is surely risky.
Posted by: RCS | February 5th, 2008 at 6:14 pm | Report this comment>>RCS: “In the past, many technologies originally developed through either the space programme or the military-industrial complex have ultimately found profound and transformational uses in civilian life.”
A key European government developed the blueprint for transforming military investments into civilian products. The US learned alot from them. In any event, this was not the point, and GR did not position his green spending as military spending.
If McCain or Clinton, the USA should at the least drop the A. I would also put a high likelihood on a McCain win, but would anticipate GR’s column title today will have a very short shelf life, if it has one today.
Posted by: WCM | February 5th, 2008 at 6:35 pm | Report this commentCome to think of it, this article has another major flaw: The US has a record of using her lead (frequently a near-monopoly) in technological matters as a means of extending her political and economic hegemony rather than using it in the nice, humanistic way that Mr. Rachman suggests.
As an example of misuse of their technological advantage, look at the way that the Americans use their domination of the aircraft industry to deny purely civilian aircrafts to Iran. Even Airbus is not allowed to sell to Iran because it uses parts that have American patents. The same story applies to equipment for oil industry.
In the economic arena, I think the one of the most potent antidotes to Mr. Rachman’s optimism is the way American companies are patenting human genes:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1013_051013_gene_patent.html
Do you really think, based on the above, that the US will simply share any technologies it acquires on climate change, for the salvation of humanity?
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 6th, 2008 at 11:53 am | Report this commentPacifist, quite the reverse. Capitalism allows the free flow of capital and knowledge, which is why thousands of Chinese scientists and students visit top US universities annually to learn from the best and take all this knowhow home. Capitalism is why patents are necessary because capitalism disseminates technology rapidly that without patents invention wouldn’t be protected from copying.
Your point hinges (and collapses) on the single point that the world (not just the US) is boycotting Iran because it’s being run by a cabal of fundamentalist extremists who are trying to build a nuclear weapon. Not because of misuse but because of UN security council sanctions.
There is not a single previous historically dominant force on the planet which so freely shares as the US today; if there was I’m sure you’ll mention it!
Posted by: Felix Drost | February 6th, 2008 at 12:22 pm | Report this commentHi Felix,
You are quite wrong about the reason for the American sanctions against Iran which predate the wrongful accusations of nuclear proliferation.
These accusations are simply a ploy to pursue pre-existing policy. Nor is the “world” sanctioning Iran but mainly those whose arms are twisted because of American power.
As for patents, I am sure if the American corporations could patent the air that we breathe, they would not be shy to do so.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 6th, 2008 at 12:39 pm | Report this commentP,how can you say with such certainty that the accusations of proliferation are wrong? If the regime is as deranged as you have previously acknowledged, who’s to say what they have been getting up to?
As to your other point, as Adam Smith wrote in the Wealth of Nations:
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.”
Posted by: AYC | February 6th, 2008 at 1:08 pm | Report this commentHi AYC,
I don’t want to divert this thread to the Iran nuclear issue, suffice it to say that IAEA and the Americans’ own NIE have disagreed with the assertions of the extremists and fanatics in the Bush administration. Also, I haven’t said that the regime is deranged although the relatively powerless president Ahmadinejad reminds me of a circus monkey that has become over-excited under the spotlights and doesn’t know what to do with himself.
My point was not one against free markets but simply pointing out the political interference in the free markets by the US and the monopolistic tendencies of the American corporations.
Both the above traits militate against America making available technologies that benefit the world in general (which anything to do with preventing climate change has to be) and point to a continuation of the business-as-usual.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 6th, 2008 at 1:46 pm | Report this commentFelix/AYC/Pacifist,
Seems we’re in agreement that:
- Free markets and the reward of a big payoff are the best way to motivate innovation to combat climate change.
- That GR’s view that US taxpayers/companies would engage in this process in a benevolent way is at best naive.
Separately, I wouldn’t focus so much on US firms. For renewable energies, the leaders are clearly not in the US. Be it Iberdrola of Spain (a large % of its power comes from renewables), to the German and Danish companies leading the Wind energy sector and of course also including the solar energy firms. (If i’m not mistaken there is some promising work being done in Israel’s silicon valley)
As for ethanol, what the US is doing is almost comical if it wasn’t so tragic! Corn ethanol is a waste of resources and not only sucks up much water but also puts up food prices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_ethanol
All that because politicians (it’s the same in so many countries) do not dare to face up to farmers vested interests. The clear answer here is to import the stuff from Brazil but a tariff has been slapped to such ethanol…
This illustrate, in my view, the massive improvement that could be made if we decided to reform current policies to make more sense. Of course, innovation, carbon trading or taxes etc should be part of the solution, but if only we could take the sensible policies now - which in my view is simply repealling the distorting policies we often take for granted, then surely we would save huge amount of CO2.
Just a few examples: repealing the unfair advantage aviation enjoys over other means of transport - so tax kerosene similarly to other fossil fuels. People would hate it, but it’s illogical and indefensible for airlines to enjoy essentially tax-free kerosene. Flying would be more expensive - but that would also mean the daily flown flowers or baby vegetable grown using Africa’s great lake’s water would not be economical anymore. No bad thing. And that would also put pressure on the Govt to give the go ahead to High Speed Britain - a proper high speed rail network. Given population density and repartition in the UK (essentially all living along a North/South line, making it easy for trains), it’s mind-boggling why this isn’t the case yet. Nobody should have to fly from London to Manchester nor Scotland for that matter.
Many of these could be done at the country level - though for airlines, a European scheme at least is necessary. Still, the point that China/India or the US might not agree is irrelevant. Who cares? Say Europeans decide to tax kerosene for all flight in or out of the EU - given known plane fuel efficiency, even if an airline bought fuel outside the EU, it would still be liable to pay as long as it flies to or from the EU.
Posted by: Anon | February 6th, 2008 at 2:21 pm | Report this commentThe problem here is not sense but political courage.
to the contrary Anon. I think that if we allow corporations to do what they do best - within the framework of the legislation framed for the common good - we will all benefit. Not sure P would be caught dead agreeing with me in public, so you might want to remove him from future posts where you bracket us together.
One thing you might want to consider, is that historically the US might be slow about getting into specific markets, but once they take the decision, they engage fully, and established leaders can be overhauled. And given the nascent technology that many of the firms currently deploy, you would hardly say that the thing was settled. Take solar for example - that technology has a long way to go before it is anything like as efficient as coal, gas or oil. For example, the London mayor installed solar panels on City Hall last year, at a reported cost to the UK taxpayer of £500,000. What was less heavily publicised was that they would only help to reduce bills by about £10,000 a year, meaning there will still be £350,000 to make up when the lease runs out. This means there is an immense implicit cost of carbon. If the panels were cheaper, and more efficient, then we’d be more likely to see them taken up elsewhere - developments which can only come about through competition.
Also, I fundamentally disagree with your point about flights, especially as it relates to Africa. African produce is already more carbon efficient than similar produce grown in hot houses in Europe. You’re proposing to make it a) even more carbon inefficient to have winter vegetables in Europe and b) grind the economies of African countries even further down? And if you are going to focus on flights, which are a relatively low producer of carbon - roughly 3% (although there is evidence to suggest these emissions at high altitude are more damaging than others) of global output according to Stern - you’re going to damage the economy disproportionately. How about a tax on lumber / crops from Brazil and Indonesia, where deforestation is THE major cause of carbon increases globally?
The most efficient way of dealing with this is to tax carbon at source. One price for everybody and across all industries. And if you set it high enough you really provide the incentive to find alternatives.
Posted by: AYC | February 6th, 2008 at 5:52 pm | Report this commentAYC,
Maybe I didn’t explain myself properly.
I do believe innovation both private (especially) and public is key - what I had an issue with is GR’s assertion that US corps. would be doing it for the greater good in a non-commercial way. Maybe I’m cynical, but I think GR’s column was a bit naive on this point.
Also, I agree with you on solar. Most countries that use a lot of it have very specific conditions and almost always strong public subsidies without which the maths simply don’t add up.
I agree with your point re the consequence of my suggestion re air transport. And of course, this isn’t a happy consequence and clearly not an optimal outcome. Yet I find it simply impossible to justify taxing some means of transports and not others. Air transport is in effect subsidized - even if we do not pay attention to the low (as a global % - the airline industry preferred measure! obviously.) yet high (per passenger) carbon emissions, how can it be right for air transport to be put at a tax advantage vs cars?
The original tax situation was probably right to help air transport develop in the early years, but surely now they don’t need that extra help. (instead, it might be granted to train/trams etc…- capital intensive projects, but with much lower emissions)
I’m aware taxing air transport fairly (ie - in line with other means of transportation) would create externalities - but I’m arguing those only happened in the first place because air transport was subsidized. Does anyone think the flower business (kenya’s 3rd largest currency earner - and 25% of EU sold flowers) would have even existed had air transport been priced to reflect its costs? I don’t think so.
What I’m trying to say is that before we even start passing new laws and new rules to fight climate change, we need to review current ones that are distorting the market in damaging ways. Current policies generate many distortions and waste that we should in priority work on.
And finally, you are quite right - taxing externalities is the best way to deal with them. Giving a price to externalities, be them carbon emissions, or chemical in the sea/river/air, is the best way to deal with them. Though clearly, giving away free polluting permits as the EU did, will set that price so cheaply that incentives to reduce emissions are non-existent.
Posted by: Anon | February 11th, 2008 at 11:48 am | Report this commentTo Pacifist and any others who don’t see the military-climate change nexus:
There’s little doubt that the geopolitical benefits of oil outweigh the costs from the US’ perspective. The West’s immense annual transfer of wealth to questionable oil-producing regimes has become an intense headache for the Pentagon in the current era of expensive oil.
Added to this, the impact of climate change itself is increasingly recognised - in the Pentagon and elsewhere - as having grave long-term national security ramifications. If you map out the countries currently considered to be weak governance zones, or otherwise at risk of becoming a failing state, and superimpose a map of the most adverse impacts of climate change, you see a worrying picture.
Increased drought, failed harvests and so on are potential catalysts for destabilisation in these states with limited absorptive capacity, and as such could tip these states from weak to failing, or failing to failed. We’ve heard often enough about the role of water resources in the unfolding of the Darfur crisis to know this to be true. Given the potential cost of (interventions in) failing states, there’s growing recognition that the security implications of climate change need to be part of the US’ and EU’s long-term security strategies.
Posted by: DKM | February 11th, 2008 at 2:04 pm | Report this commentDKM,
Posted by: French_in_London | February 12th, 2008 at 11:49 am | Report this commentNot sure anyone would disagree with your analysis. The point is obvious and I would venture that most goverments and leaders recognise this. At the same time, and as often in these situations, it’s the “what to do” and “how to do it” that are difficult.