Skip to main content

security

United Nations General Assembly passes landmark resolution about climate change

Published by

Last Thursday, while in Ottawa, during the 2030 North conference, I turned on the tv to see a beautiful young woman from Palau, with a flower behind her ear, talking about a historic UN General Assembly resolution that was passed on Wednesday. Small island states have been running a campaign about the threat that rising sea levels pose to their security. The link between climate change and the security of many countries was formally recognized. We heard a lot about this issue at our "Ecojustice: How will disenfranchised peoples adapt to climate change?" conference, in April, 2009.

Here's some of the press release:

"Introducing the draft in the Assembly today, on behalf of the Pacific Small Island Developing States, Nauru’s representative emphasized that rising oceans could, sooner than previously thought, leave little of that regional group’s already tiny homelands above water unless urgent action was taken. Already, the impact of climate change included inundation of heavily populated coastal areas, loss of freshwater, failure of agriculture and other results of saltwater intrusion.

As a result, resettlement and migration were already occurring and dangers to international peace and security would soon increase, she stressed. The Assembly’s adoption of the text would encourage dealing with climate change in a holistic manner, while demonstrating serious concern for the survival of whole populations and the existence of their lands.

Nicaragua’s representative, speaking before the vote on behalf of the “like-minded group” -- Bahrain, Bolivia, Ecuador, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Venezuela -– said the group would join the consensus on the compromise text. In addressing the issue, however, it was vital that Member States, particularly industrialized nations, promote sustainable development, while adhering to the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, and fully implement Agenda 21 and other relevant development commitments.

Following the Assembly’s adoption of the resolution, the representatives of many small island developing States took the floor to underscore the dire nature of the threats that climate change posed to their nations, including the Marshall Islands, Palau, Tuvalu, Solomon Islands, Fiji, Samoa and the Maldives.

Palau’s representative said: “We do not carelessly call climate change a security threat. When we are told by scientists to prepare for humanitarian crisis, including exodus, in our lifetimes, how can it be different from preparing for a threat like war?” All United Nations organs, most particularly the Security Council, must act urgently. Under Chapter VI of the Charter, the Council may investigate any dispute or situation that might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions must be the focus, and the goal must be effective, enforceable action to that end."

Dawn R. Bazely

Gwynne Dyer on Climate Wars at 2030 North in Ottawa, 2009

Published by

I have recently been attending loads of conferences and workshops at which climate change is on the agenda. Most of them were permeated by a complete lack of any sense of urgency about what climate change will mean for North Americans in the next 20 years. So, I found Gwynne Dyer's gloom and doom in his talk on Climate Wars, sponsored by WWF, and delivered in conjunction with the 2030 North conference in Ottawa this week, to be very refreshing.  In his presentation on  the state-centred security dimensions of climate change, three main points stuck with me:

1. military generals in the USA are pondering how to deal with forthcoming events such as Florida disappearing when the ice caps melt. This contrasts with what I found when I flew into Ft. Lauderdale for a 2003 conference on invasive plants. I made a point of asking about 10 staff at my hotel whether they were at all worried about the sea level rises that would inevitably accompany the melting ice caps: I should note that I have teaching research into global warming in my ecology courses since 1990.  Without exception, the staff all looked at me as if I had just grown 2 heads!  How times change - at least in some parts of North American society.

2. a retired US General that he interviewed, said that he viewed the potential for nuclear attack during the Cold War as a "low probability, high consequence event" whereas Climate Change (warming) is a "high probability, high consequence event".

3. never mind about the Arctic, northern nations should worry about the nations to the south, where a 2 degree temperature rise (we are now hearing about a 4 degree temperature rise scenario), will mean that crop plants can't grow and survive.  A government that can't feed it's population is unlikely to be stable.

Hmm - the lights in the hotel ballroom where the talk took place were blazing, and I couldn't tell if there were low energy light bulbs - I hoped so.

Dawn R. Bazely

css.php