The changing weather

Extrait for the globalwarming awareness :


The changing weather patterns and ocean temperatures affect agriculture, fish and
wildlife, water and energy. Crop yields, affected by temperature and water stress as
well as length of growing season fall by 10-25% and are less predictable as key
regions shift from a warming to a cooling trend. As some agricultural pests die due
to temperature changes, other species spread more readily due to the dryness and
windiness – requiring alternative pesticides or treatment regiments. Commercial
fishermen that typically have rights to fish in specific areas will be ill equipped for
the massive migration of their prey.
With only five or six key grain-growing regions in the world (US, Australia,
Argentina, Russia, China, and India), there is insufficient surplus in global food
supplies to offset severe weather conditions in a few regions at the same time – let
alone four or five. The world’s economic interdependence make the United States
increasingly vulnerable to the economic disruption created by local weather shifts in
key agricultural and high population areas around the world. Catastrophic shortages
of water and energy supply – both which are stressed around the globe today –
cannot be quickly overcome.

Impact on National Security

Human civilization began with the stabilization and warming of the Earth’s climate.
A colder unstable climate meant that humans could neither develop agriculture or
permanent settlements. With the end of the Younger Dryas and the warming and
stabilization that followed, humans could learn the rhythms of agriculture and settle
in places whose climate was reliably productive. Modern civilization has never
experienced weather conditions as persistently disruptive as the ones outlined in this
scenario. As a result, the implications for national security outlined in this report are
only hypothetical. The actual impacts would vary greatly depending on the nuances
of the weather conditions, the adaptability of humanity, and decisions by policymakers.
Violence and disruption stemming from the stresses created by abrupt changes in the
climate pose a different type of threat to national security than we are accustomed to
today. Military confrontation may be triggered by a desperate need for natural
resources such as energy, food and water rather than by conflicts over ideology,
religion, or national honor. The shifting motivation for confrontation would alter
which countries are most vulnerable and the existing warning signs for security
threats.
There is a long-standing academic debate over the extent to which resource
constraints and environmental challenges lead to inter-state conflict. While some
believe they alone can lead nations to attack one another, others argue that their
primary effect is to act as a trigger of conflict among countries that face pre-existing
social, economic, and political tension. Regardless, it seems undeniable that severe
environmental problems are likely to escalate the degree of global conflict.
Co-founder and President of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development,
Environment, and Security, Peter Gleick outlines the three most fundamental
challenges abrupt climate change poses for national security:
1. Food shortages due to decreases in agricultural production
2. Decreased availability and quality of fresh water due to flooding and droughts
3. Disrupted access to strategic minerals due to ice and storms

In the event of abrupt climate change, it’s likely that food, water, and energy resource
constraints will first be managed through economic, political, and diplomatic means
such as treaties and trade embargoes. Over time though, conflicts over land and
water use are likely to become more severe – and more violent. As states become
increasingly desperate, the pressure for action will grow.

Decreasing Carrying Capacity

Today, carrying capacity, which is the ability for the Earth and its natural ecosystems
including social, economic, and cultural systems to support the finite number of
people on the planet, is being challenged around the world. According to the
International Energy Agency, global demand for oil will grow by 66% in the next 30
years, but it’s unclear where the supply will come from. Clean water is similarly
constrained in many areas around the world. With 815 million people receiving
insufficient sustenance worldwide, some would say that as a globe, we’re living well
above our carrying capacity, meaning there are not sufficient natural resources to
sustain our behavior.
Many point to technological innovation and adaptive behavior as a means for
managing the global ecosystem. Indeed it has been technological progress that has
increased carrying capacity over time. Over centuries we have learned how to
produce more food, energy and access more water. But will the potential of new
technologies be sufficient when a crisis like the one outlined in this scenario hits?

Abrupt climate change is likely to stretch carrying capacity well beyond its already
precarious limits. And there’s a natural tendency or need for carrying capacity to
become realigned. As abrupt climate change lowers the world’s carrying capacity
aggressive wars are likely to be fought over food, water, and energy. Deaths from
war as well as starvation and disease will decrease population size, which overtime,
will re-balance with carrying capacity. When you look at carrying capacity on a regional or state level it is apparent that those nations with a high carrying capacity, such as the United States and Western
Europe, are likely to adapt most effectively to abrupt changes in climate, because,
relative to their population size, they have more resources to call on. This may give
rise to a more severe have, have-not mentality, causing resentment toward those
nations with a higher carrying capacity. It may lead to finger-pointing and blame, as
the wealthier nations tend to use more energy and emit more greenhouse gasses such
as CO2 into the atmosphere. Less important than the scientifically proven
relationship between CO2 emissions and climate change is the perception that
impacted nations have – and the actions they take.
The Link Between Carrying Capacity and Warfare Steven LeBlanc, Harvard archaeologist and author of a new book called Carrying Capacity, describes the relationship between carrying capacity and warfare. Drawing on abundant archaeological and ethnological data, LeBlanc argues that historically
humans conducted organized warfare for a variety of reasons, including warfare
over resources and the environment. Humans fight when they outstrip the carrying
capacity of their natural environment. Every time there is a choice between starving
and raiding, humans raid. From hunter/gatherers through agricultural tribes,
chiefdoms, and early complex societies, 25% of a population’s adult males die when
war breaks out.
Peace occurs when carrying capacity goes up, as with the invention of agriculture,
newly effective bureaucracy, remote trade and technological breakthroughs. Also a
large scale die-back such as from plague can make for peaceful times---Europe after
its major plagues, North American natives after European diseases decimated their
populations (that's the difference between the Jamestown colony failure and
Plymouth Rock success). But such peaceful periods are short-lived because
population quickly rises to once again push against carrying capacity, and warfare
resumes. Indeed, over the millennia most societies define themselves according to
their ability to conduct war, and warrior culture becomes deeply ingrained. The
most combative societies are the ones that survive.
However in the last three centuries, LeBlanc points out, advanced states have
steadily lowered the body count even though individual wars and genocides have
grown larger in scale. Instead of slaughtering all their enemies in the traditional
way, for example, states merely kill enough to get a victory and then put the
survivors to work in their newly expanded economy. States also use their own
bureaucracies, advanced technology, and international rules of behavior to raise
carrying capacity and bear a more careful relationship to it.
All of that progressive behavior could collapse if carrying capacities everywhere
were suddenly lowered drastically by abrupt climate change. Humanity would
revert to its norm of constant battles for diminishing resources, which the battles.

The two most likely reactions to a sudden drop in carrying capacity due to climate
change are defensive and offensive.
The United States and Australia are likely to build defensive fortresses around their
countries because they have the resources and reserves to achieve self-sufficiency.
With diverse growing climates, wealth, technology, and abundant resources, the
United States could likely survive shortened growing cycles and harsh weather
conditions without catastrophic losses. Borders will be strengthened around the
country to hold back unwanted starving immigrants from the Caribbean islands (an
especially severe problem), Mexico, and South America. Energy supply will be
shored up through expensive (economically, politically, and morally) alternatives
such as nuclear, renewables, hydrogen, and Middle Eastern contracts. Pesky
skirmishes over fishing rights, agricultural support, and disaster relief will be
commonplace. Tension between the U.S. and Mexico rise as the U.S. reneges on the
1944 treaty that guarantees water flow from the Colorado River. Relief workers will
be commissioned to respond to flooding along the southern part of the east coast and
much drier conditions inland. Yet, even in this continuous state of emergency the
U.S. will be positioned well compared to others. The intractable problem facing the
nation will be calming the mounting military tension around the world.
As famine, disease, and weather-related disasters strike due to the abrupt climate
change, many countries’ needs will exceed their carrying capacity. This will create a
sense of desperation, which is likely to lead to offensive aggression in order to
reclaim balance. Imagine eastern European countries, struggling to feed their
populations with a falling supply of food, water, and energy, eyeing Russia, whose
population is already in decline, for access to its grain, minerals, and energy supply.
Or, picture Japan, suffering from flooding along its coastal cities and contamination
of its fresh water supply, eying Russia’s Sakhalin Island oil and gas reserves as an
energy source to power desalination plants and energy-intensive agricultural
processes. Envision Pakistan, India, and China – all armed with nuclear weapons –
skirmishing at their borders over refugees, access to shared rivers, and arable land.
Spanish and Portuguese fishermen might fight over fishing rights – leading to
conflicts at sea. And, countries including the United States would be likely to better
secure their borders. With over 200 river basins touching multiple nations, we can
expect conflict over access to water for drinking, irrigation, and transportation. The
Danube touches twelve nations, the Nile runs though nine, and the Amazon runs
through seven.

In this scenario, we can expect alliances of convenience. The United States and
Canada may become one, simplifying border controls. Or, Canada might keep its
hydropower—causing energy problems in the US. North and South Korea may align
to create one technically savvy and nuclear-armed entity. Europe may act as a
unified block – curbing immigration problems between European nations – and
allowing for protection against aggressors. Russia, with its abundant minerals, oil,
and natural gas may join Europe.
In this world of warring states, nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable. As cooling
drives up demand, existing hydrocarbon supplies are stretched thin. With a scarcity
of energy supply – and a growing need for access -- nuclear energy will become a
critical source of power, and this will accelerate nuclear proliferation as countries
develop enrichment and reprocessing capabilities to ensure their national security.
China, India, Pakistan, Japan, South Korea, Great Britain, France, and Germany will
all have nuclear weapons capability, as will Israel, Iran, Egypt, and North Korea.
Managing the military and political tension, occasional skirmishes, and threat of war
will be a challenge. Countries such as Japan, that have a great deal of social cohesion
(meaning the government is able to effectively engage its population in changing
behavior) are most likely to fair well. Countries whose diversity already produces
conflict, such as India, South Africa and Indonesia, will have trouble maintaining
order. Adaptability and access to resources will be key. Perhaps the most frustrating
challenge abrupt climate change will pose is that we’ll never know how far we are
into the climate change scenario and how many more years – 10, 100, 1000 --- remain
before some kind of return to warmer conditions as the thermohaline circulation
starts up again. When carrying capacity drops suddenly, civilization is faced with
new challenges that today seem unimaginable.

Could This Really Happen?

Ocean, land, and atmosphere scientists at some of the world’s most prestigious
organizations have uncovered new evidence over the past decade suggesting that the
plausibility of severe and rapid climate change is higher than most of the scientific
community and perhaps all of the political community is prepared for. If it occurs,
this phenomenon will disrupt current gradual global warming trends, adding to
climate complexity and lack of predictability. And paleoclimatic evidence suggests
that such an abrupt climate change could begin in the near future.
The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute reports that seas surrounding the North
Atlantic have become less salty in the past 40 years, which in turn freshens the deep
ocean in the North Atlantic. This trend could pave the way for ocean conveyor
collapse or slowing and abrupt climate change.

With at least eight abrupt climate change events documented in the geological
record, it seems that the questions to ask are: When will this happen? What will the
impacts be? And, how can we best prepare for it? Rather than: Will this really happen?

Are we prepared for history to repeat itself again?

There is a debate in newspapers around the globe today on the impact of human
activity on climate change. Because economic prosperity is correlated with energy
use and greenhouse gas emissions, it is often argued that economic progress leads to
climate change. Competing evidence suggests that climate change can occur,
regardless of human activity as seen in climate events that happened prior to modern
society.
It’s important to understand human impacts on the environment – both what’s done
to accelerate and decelerate (or perhaps even reverse) the tendency toward climate
change. Alternative fuels, greenhouse gas emission controls, and conservation efforts
are worthwhile endeavors. In addition, we should prepare for the inevitable effects
of abrupt climate change – which will likely come regardless of human activity.
Here are some preliminary recommendations to prepare the United States for abrupt
climate change:

  1.  Improve predictive climate models. Further research should be conducted so
    more confidence can be placed in predictions about climate change. There
    needs to be a deeper understanding of the relationship between ocean
    patterns and climate change. This research should focus on historical, current,
    and predictive forces, and aim to further our understanding of abrupt climate
    change, how it may happen, and how we’ll know it’s occurring.
  2. Assemble comprehensive predictive models of climate change impacts.
    Substantial research should be done on the potential ecological, economic,
    social, and political impact of abrupt climate change. Sophisticated models
    and scenarios should be developed to anticipate possible local conditions. A
    system should be created to identify how climate change may impact the
    global distribution of social, economic, and political power. These analyses
    can be used to mitigate potential sources of conflict before they happen.
  3. Create vulnerability metrics. Metrics should be created to understand a
    country’s vulnerability to the impacts of climate change. Metrics may include
    climatic impact on existing agricultural, water, and mineral resources;
    technical capability; social cohesion and adaptability.
  4. Identify no-regrets strategies. No-regrets strategies should be identified and
    implemented to ensure reliable access to food supply and water, and to ensure
    national security.
  5. Rehearse adaptive responses. Adaptive response teams should be established
    to address and prepare for inevitable climate driven events such as massive
    migration, disease and epidemics, and food and water supply shortages.
  6. Explore local implications. The first-order effects of climate change are local.
    While we can anticipate changes in pest prevalence and severity and changes
    in agricultural productivity, one has to look at very specific locations and
    conditions to know which pests are of concern, which crops and regions are
    vulnerable, and how severe impacts will be. Such studies should be
    undertaken, particularly in strategically important food producing regions.
  7. Explore geo-engineering options that control the climate. Today, it is easier
    to warm than to cool the climate, so it might be possible to add various gases,
    such as hydrofluorocarbons, to the atmosphere to offset the affects of cooling.
    Such actions, of course, would be studied carefully, as they have the potential
    to exacerbate conflicts among nations.

Conclusion

It is quite plausible that within a decade the evidence of an imminent abrupt climate
shift may become clear and reliable. It is also possible that our models will better
enable us to predict the consequences. In that event the United States will need to
take urgent action to prevent and mitigate some of the most significant impacts.
Diplomatic action will be needed to minimize the likelihood of conflict in the most
impacted areas, especially in the Caribbean and Asia. However, large population
movements in this scenario are inevitable. Learning how to manage those
populations, border tensions that arise and the resulting refugees will be critical.
New forms of security agreements dealing specifically with energy, food and water
will also be needed. In short, while the US itself will be relatively better off and with
more adaptive capacity, it will find itself in a world where Europe will be struggling
internally, large number so refugees washing up on its shores and Asia in serious
crisis over food and water. Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life.

Credits

These documents was writing By Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall for :

Imagining the Unthinkable

The purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable – to push the boundaries of current
research on climate change so we may better understand the potential implications on United
States national security.
We have interviewed leading climate change scientists, conducted additional research, and
reviewed several iterations of the scenario with these experts. The scientists support this
project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First,
they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather
than on globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller.
We have created a climate change scenario that although not the most likely, is plausible, and
would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered
immediately.