Global Warming and Peace
October 16th, 2007
Congratulations to Al Gore for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Congratulations to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for sharing in that prize. There could be no better recipients for the Peace Prize than the man who, more than anyone else has raised the awareness of global warming, and for the international body of scientists that, finally, lifted the dialogue about global warming out of the world of opinion and into the world of science.
Regular readers know that I have often written about global warming. Here I discussed the Intergovernmental Panel, and here I spoke about the change in consciousness about the subject that occurred in 2006, when “Inconvenient Truth†came out. Yes, I am an environmentalist, and yes I have long believed that global warming, and mans’ contribution to it was one of the most important issues we face today. As a futurist however I also see it as one of the greatest challenges in human history. Why the Nobel Peace Prize? What does global warming have to do with peace? There are two reasons.
The first is the clear view that global warming for the next two decades will create tensions between nations and even, in the U.S. between states. Climate change is going to create droughts, famine, shortages of water and competition for natural resources. It is generally accepted that the Iraq war was, to some degree, about oil. Do you think we would have gone to war there if we did not need to import oil because we had created an energy policy over the past two decades that had led to much lower oil consumption?
The immediate looming threat to peace is the early stage saber rattling that is going on about the great reservoirs of oil that is now available under the rapidly melting polar ice cap. What about the growing shortage of safe drinking water in Asia and Africa? Who has the rights to water from rivers that flow through more than one country? It is well documented that the developed nations of the world put a disproportionate amount of green house emissions into the atmosphere but that the consequences of climate change will disproportionately affect the less developed countries. This will only increase unrest and division between the have and have not nations.
In the U.S. there is already tension between western states regarding water. The sprawling population centers in the southwest and west are on arid land where water has always been scarce. How will Arizona, Nevada, Utah and California work with each other when it is clear that they cannot all have the water they need? Right now in Georgia, the drought is so severe and the reservoirs are so depleted that some counties and cities are faced with the reality of running out of water in less than six months. Will county officials start keeping water for their own counties at the expense of others?
So, peace in the future is directly tied to how well we both slow down global warming in the next 20 years and how well we adjudicate the disputes over natural resources that are already occurring.
The second reason that global warming is a peace issue is that it is a major issue of survival that necessitates a global solution. There is no single country or even groups of countries that can solve the problem by themselves. We are now in the global stage of human evolution and we now have the first problem to solve as a species. The collaboration between countries, among populations and all marketplace businesses is essential for a solution. Humanity either solves the problem as one or we might well die separately. The human species is being served up an issue for all of us. The inherent opportunity is to create a unity among all of us in facing this issue that will bring us together in a common cause. Having a common cause that is global in scope is certainly a step toward world peace.
There are many paths toward peace. Addressing the issue of climate change is one of them.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
I could not disagree more.
Awarding Al Gore the Nobel Peace price does nothing but devalue the prize itself.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again… for every scientist that says he’s proven something, there are at least two who can prove him wrong.
Don’t get me wrong, if you look back over the last couple decades, the climate is warming, albeit slowly. Not one person on this planet can say with any indisputable certainty what role man kind plays in this short term trend.
However, there is a reason our planet made it’s way out of the last ice age (and there was more than one).
I suspect that in 10 to 20 years we’ll look back and think about how silly this was, just like we look back on all the hysteria generated in the 1970’s that “science” indicates we’re heading for another ice age.
Al Gore? Nobel Peace Prize? Good riddance.
Grant
October 16th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Grant-
Glad to have you back Grant. We can speak in 10 years about this to see what the truth turns out to be.
In the meantime, I have numerous papers and presentations from great scientists, including the Chief Scientist of NASA that all basically agree that humans are affecting global warming. But they all say that even if there is still a debate warranted, and you obviously think there is, that risk managment dictates that actions be taken. If the Gore type advocates of global warming are correct, then we took action. If they prove to be wrong, well, we have taken steps to wean ourselves from oil purchased from terrorist states and have focused on the development of reusable energy at the least.
David
October 17th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
I suppose I would be more receptive to the global warming debate if politics were removed from the equation.
If it were Joe Scientist from America University making these claims, and going on to win the Nobel Peace prize, it would be easier to swallow.
It seems there is so much hysteria stemming from this politician who is used to tell you want you want to hear to in an effort to get elected (that goes for any politician, donkey and elephant).
I also agree with you that it is smart to be proactive about this, however I think a guy has to buy into the notion that man has changed the climate for the worse before he can accept that man can change climate for the better.
As for me, I have yet to buy into this notion, and am not happy about the thought of spending my hard-earned tax dollars on such an effort.
-Grant
October 18th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Politicians always seem to pollute an issue. The ‘told you so’ environmentalist politicians who ooze self-righteousness and the ” I came out against global warming, but now that it is popular I better support it to get re-elected” opportunists.
As to tax dollars, I would rather spend them to support the development of alternative and renewable energy sources than the billions a month we are spending in Iraq.
October 19th, 2007 at 6:55 am
I agree with your last paragraph David. Even as a supporter of the overall efforts in IRAQ, I think that if we could shift just a small portion of that defense budget to “future” looking projects such as energy, infrastructure, etc… it would be a much better long-term investment.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:49 pm
This post really intrigued me, beucase backs up how important of a problem global warming is. Being 18 years of age, I realize that global warming has such a wide spectrum and aspects tied to it, like the water problems in western usa. It is a probelm will greatly affect peace. I don’t remember when, but you had a specific artle relating to the water shortage in western usa. Obviously in this example peace will not be achieved if vital problems like these are solved. Also, I think for the Bush Administration and many republicans to turn their backs on global warming as a whole is pathetic and leads me to this final statement. Bush, as I can prove today, continues to ask for money for the war on terror, but just why can’t he do anything to help in global warming problem? Nice post David,thanks————-AJ Swenson
December 5th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Evolution is a Fraud and will never be proven.