The following article linked below is by Javier Solana, and according to him "the scientific argument about climate change is over", and because of this "fact" the EU must devise strategies to deal with this climate change.
It's funny that all of the problems and the so called solutions do nothing but benefit Javier Solana and the EU. From building up EU capacities to solve future security issues, to instituting something called "carbon diplomacy" which I am assuming allows the EU to weld political power on other nations and regions in the name of saving the planet. And finally solving territorial claims and open up new trade routes to of course benefit the EU. Nothing like capitalizing on global warming.
I also find it very interesting that this article is titled "Before the Flood." I think this is in reference to the coming global flood of climate change, but I of course think of scripture and this one surely comes to mind.
37. "For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah.
38. "For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,
39.and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.
I think that if we are worried about the coming global climate flood, we ought to realize that Christ is coming back soon and to some people He will come like a flood. Let's not be one of them.
Before the flood
The countries of Europe must devise urgent strategies to deal with the consequences of climate change, as our report clearly shows
March 10, 2008 1:00 PM
The risks posed by climate change are real and its impacts are already taking place. This year the vast majority of emergency appeals for humanitarian aid were climate-related. But the risks go far beyond humanitarian crises. Nor is it "just" an environmental challenge, no matter how urgent and important. Climate change also causes serious political and security risks that directly affect European interests. That is why we need to address these together, as Europeans.
This week, I will present a report together with the European commission to European heads of state and government. Its core argument is that climate change is already having a profound impact on international security; that this will intensify in the years ahead; and that we need urgent action to safeguard our own interests.
The most appropriate way of viewing climate change is as a threat multiplier: it aggravates the stresses and strains within and between countries. Climate change threatens to overburden those countries and regions that are already fragile and conflict-prone. The critical variable is governance. How governments will respond to the impacts of climate change depends on how well they resolve conflicts today.
Let me be clear: saying that climate change poses security risks reinforces the need to stick to our commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We cannot give up on mitigation or on ways to adapt to unavoidable climate change. Doing so is tremendously important. But it is not the whole story. Both mitigation and adaptation should go hand in hand with addressing the international security threats of climate change. Both should also be seen as preventive security policy.
Let me highlight just three of the threats posed by climate change.
Conflict over resources is one of them, especially where access is politicised. A reduction of arable land, widespread shortage of water, diminishing food and fish stocks, increased flooding and prolonged droughts are all set to increase in many parts of the world. Water shortage in particular has the potential to cause civil unrest. Africa is the most vulnerable continent to climate change because of multiple stresses and low adaptive capacities.
Second, increased migration. The UN predicts that there will be millions of "environmental" migrants by 2020 with climate change as one of the major drivers. Such massive migration flows are likely to increase conflicts in transit and destination areas. This may lead to greater tensions between different ethnic and religious groups and political radicalisation.
And third, what happens to oil, gas and fishing resources if borders and territories change, or disappear beneath the sea? Can the rights and responsibilities of a country exist with no landmass, as is predicted for some Pacific islands? What happens if the Northwest passage becomes permanently passable? If handled well, this is a huge opportunity. But without an agreed international framework, as is, for example, the case in the Arctic, on how to assess and adjudicate territorial claims, political tensions are bound to rise.
The multilateral system is at risk if the international community fails to address these threats. Those most affected by climate change are not those most responsible for causing it. This could fuel a politics of resentment: north-south but also south-south, pitting major emitters against those most affected. In short, the geopolitics of climate change will extend far beyond the environment and will link old problems in new ways.
What are we proposing?
First, to build up EU capacities across the board: from monitoring and early warning, to conflict prevention, crisis management and disaster response. If we agree as EU that the security impact of climate change is real and affecting our own interests then we should make the necessary financial resources available.
We should also develop "carbon diplomacy". We need to do more focused research and shared analysis with partners on what the security hot spots will be and how we can best tackle them together. In all our relationships - from Africa to the Middle East, from Latin America to Central Asia and beyond - we should raise awareness about the security effects of climate change and build capacity in those countries that will be hit hardest.
Third, we need to see whether existing rules of the game are "climate-proof". With rising waters and melting sea ice, there is an increasing need to address the growing debate over territorial claims, exclusive economic zones, and access to new trade routes. There might be a need to strengthen existing rules of international law such as the Law of the Sea. Some countries that are extremely vulnerable to climate change are also calling for international recognition of environmentally induced migration.
The scientific argument about climate change is over. Even if we switched off for good all the lights today, the consequences of past emissions will be felt tomorrow and we must prepare for them now. This equally applies to the security consequences. And it is up to Europe to lead the international response.