5 October 2016. The Military and Climate Security Budgets Compared. Fifteen of the sixteen hottest years ever recorded have occurred during this new century, and the near-unanimous scientific consensus attributes the principal cause to human activity. The U.S. military’s latest National Security Strategy says that climate change is “an urgent and growing threat to our national security, contributing to increased natural disasters, refugee flows, and conflicts over basic resources like food and water.” What they don’t say is that the overall balance of U.S. security spending should be adjusted to fit that assessment. And we know less about how much we are spending on this urgent threat than we used to, since the federal government hasn’t produced a climate security budget since 2013. In this new report, Combat vs. Climate, the Institute for Policy Studies steps in to provide the most accurate climate change security budget currently available, drawing data from multiple agencies. And it looks at how these expenditures stack up within our overall security budget. Then, the report ties the military’s own assessment of its urgent threats to a budget that outlines a “whole of government” reapportionment that will put us on a path to averting climate catastrophe. This is our status quo: As global temperatures hit one record after another, the stalemate in Congress over funding to respond continues. Climate scientists warn that, as in Syria, unless the global greenhouse gas buildup is reversed, the U.S. could be at risk for conflicts over basic resources like food and water. Meanwhile, plans to spend $1 trillion to modernize our entire nuclear arsenal remain in place, and projected costs of the ineffective F-35 fighter jet program continue to climb past $1.4 trillion. Unless we get serious about moving the money, alarms from all over about the national security dangers of climate change will ring hollow. Access article here. Access report here.
Category Archives: Carrying Capacity
26 July 2016, The Guardian, Disasters linked to climate can increase risk of armed conflict. Research found that 23% of violent clashes in ethnically divided places were connected to climate disasters. Climate-related disasters increase the risk of armed conflicts, according to research that shows a quarter of the violent struggles in ethnically divided countries were preceded by extreme weather.The role of severe heatwaves, floods and storms in increasing the risk of wars has been controversial, particularly in relation to the long drought in Syria. But the new work reveals a strong link in places where the population is already fractured along ethnic lines. Previous work has shown a correlation between climate disasters and fighting but the new analysis shows the disasters precede the conflict, suggesting a causal link. Experts have warned that an increase in natural disasters due to global warming is a “threat multiplier” for armed violence. The scientists behind the new research say it could be used to predict where future violence might flare, allowing preventative measures to be taken. “Armed conflicts are among the biggest threats to people, killing some and forcing others to leave their home and maybe flee to faraway countries,” said Prof John Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany and one of the research team. The combination of climate disasters and ethnic tensions make an “explosive mixture,” he said. Read More here
26 June 2016, Climate News Network, China aims to halve meat eating.The Chinese government has issued guidelines to help wean its citizens onto a more vegetarian diet − offering huge potential health gains and cuts in greenhouse gases. In a bold challenge to individual appetites and societal norms, China says it wants to reduce its citizens’ consumption of meat by 50%. The country consumes 28% of the world’s meat, including half of its pork, although its per capita consumption is much less than in at least 14 other countries. The average American or Australian eats twice as much meat as the typical Chinese citizen. The Chinese health ministry has published new dietary guidelines recommending that people should eat from 40g to at most 75g of meat a day, which is close to the level recommended by British health authorities to limit the risk of developing bowel cancer. The guidelines’ main purpose is to improve public health, but if they achieve their aim they will also give a significant boost to efforts to cut emissions of the greenhouse gases (GHGs) that are stoking climate change and global warming. Livestock emissions Worldwide, 14.5% of greenhouse emissions come from the livestock industry, which is more than the contribution from the entire transport sector. Livestock emit the highly-potent greenhouse gas methane, although there have been proposals to tackle the problem by changing the animals’ diets. Land clearing, fertilisers and slurry also release large quantities of GHGs. The new guidelines could mean carbon dioxide equivalent emissions from China’s livestock industry would fall by 1bn tonnes by 2030, from a projected 1.8bn tonnes in that year. Read More here
14 April 2016, Kelvin Thompson MP, Population Growth Driving Infrastructure Deficit. Josh Gordon is absolutely right to raise the problems associated with Melbourne’s rapid population growth of the past decade. It is absolutely correct that politicians and economists are allowed to get away with murder by talking about economic growth when they should be required to talk about GDP per capita. It is like saying that because more people have moved into your street, that the street has more money, and therefore you are richer. You are not personally richer at all – indeed the probability is that your street is more crowded and that in amenity you are poorer. Melbourne’s rapid population growth is the reason there is an infrastructure problem. The Queensland academic Jane O’Sullivan has done research which shows that in a stable population the community needs to set aside around 2 per cent of its income to repair and replace ageing infrastructure, but that in a community growing by 1 per cent it needs to set aside 3 per cent of its income to keep up, and in a community growing by 2 per cent it needs to set aside 4 per cent of its income. The infrastructure task doubles, with only 2 per cent extra people to pay for it. Read More here