Tuesday, November 11, 2014

Security Emergency

          In class we have been discussing the climate change efforts that have been attempted globally and they have all failed for the most part. Partly, because countries cannot come to a solid agreement of what needs to be accomplished and how to go about it. There are plenty of other questions at hand but one that I think would bring countries together to come to a compromise to move forward with climate change efforts is whether it is being justified as a national security threat or not. According to the article we needed to read on americansecurityproject.org, about 70% of the globe considers climate change as a national security threat. By finding a common ground by establishing that most nations have the same idea that it is a national security individually, this could possibly be the foundation for them to form a unity to begin enacting efforts to battle climate change globally.  
            Progress has not been able to be accomplished or even started because there have always been conflicts between countries as to what methods would work for the whole globe, how much each nation should contribute and on what basis, along with many other factors; none of which could be agreed on. But with more countries looking at the long term effects that are creeping closer as time goes on, more nations are seeing how climate change will heavily impact many things that help their country thrive like the infrastructure, the land where crops are grown, and the ships that come into port on nations shores. Not only does climate change impact the nation itself but it also impacts the relationships that nations have with each other across the globe.
            Climate change that impact nation’s environments in a way that would drastically diminish the growth of crops due to too much rainfall or severe droughts can hurt the economy of a nation that will prove to be difficult to bounce back from. There is also the problem of shore erosion that could hinder ships from docking in ports to transport imports. If countries are unable to export or import products, that not only damages their nations society and makes resources scarce and more expensive, but it does the same for the nation that will be lacking the exports it would be receiving. And if the infrastructures are damaged, that would delay how quickly resources can be exported or utilized within the country can lead to bigger issues over time.

            As these issues become more of a reality rather than a possibility, it is imperative for countries to figure out a compromise that will work for everyone or allow everyone to find a solution that works best for their country and work toward a mutually agreed upon end goal. By seeing climate change as a national security threat to many nations, and them building a comradery off of this basis, actions could be made with the interest of the whole globe instead of everyone’s individual national interest at the forefront of handling the impact of climate change. 

3 comments:

  1. I am not so sure that climate change can be made into a national security issue, as far as its importance would be on par with the importance of issues like war. Maybe it could be a national security issue with the caveat that it is less important, or at least less pressing, than other national security issues.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Climate could be made a national security issue for some countries but not for all. At least it does not appear to me that way, based n my understanding of what national security is. Countries like the US who may not directly feel a negative impact from the changing climate might be less open to viewing it as a national security problem.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Climate change is an issue that affects every nation on our planet. However, I don't believe that every nation recognizes it as an issue, and moreover, considers it an issue worth addressing. I don't think climate change can become a national security issue in certain groups of countries such as developing nations who are not directly effected by climate change. These nations consider economic productivity and increasing development to be more important than lowering global temperatures. The benefits to these nations reaped from increasing resource use to improve their nation is not worth the slowed development that would result from limiting themselves in order to effect temperature increases. I don't think its realistic for this group of nations to consider climate change a national security issue until it directly effects them.

    ReplyDelete