1 July 2015, The Guardian, Climate change a security risk second only to terrorism, says defence report. Defence white paper consultation report flags consequences of environmental pressures as a significant security risk for Australia. The Abbott government’s energy white paper made headlines for its curiousreluctance to mention climate change – but the looming defence white paper may prove to be a different story. A report on community consultations associated with the defence white paper flags the consequences of climate change, extreme weather events and environmental pressures as a significant security risk for Australia – second only to the risks posed by terrorism. “Many people suggested [climate change] would lead to an increased need for humanitarian and disaster relief activities, including by armed forces,” the report released on Wednesday said. “Some people also noted that climate change and resource stresses, such as food and water shortages, could drive unregulated cross-border movements of people.” The consultations also unearthed “considerable interest in evolving the ADF [Australian defence force] to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and manage its environmental impact.” Read More here
Category Archives: Security & Conflict
24 June 2015, The Conversation, Political warfare on climate could leave national security at risk: Will the government’s forthcoming Defence White Paper discuss the national security implications of climate change? A report released this week by the Centre for Policy Development think tank urged the government to “manage the risks prudently”, while also acknowledging that “the parliamentary discussion on climate change increasingly resembles trench warfare”.
My research indicates that these bitter political divisions have, since 2010, stymied the Australian Defence Force’s response to the issue. Although there have been pockets of activity, a renewable program here or the use of some biofuels there, the ADF has largely been missing in action on climate change and its broader implications for national security. This has not been the case elsewhere. Take the United States, for instance. Facing an equally (if not more) polarised body politic and a tight fiscal environment, the US military and national security establishment has nevertheless been leading the way on climate security. The US military has a climate change adaptation plan. The Australian military doesn’t. In a period of austerity, the US military continues to invest heavily in adaptation and mitigation measures. The Australian military doesn’t. Read More here
23 June 2015, Common Dreams, ‘A Great Day for Corporate America’: US Senate Passes Fast Track. ‘Shameful’ vote all but ensures approval of mammoth trade deals like the TransPacific Partnership. In a win for multinational corporations and the global one percent, the U.S. Senate on Tuesday narrowly advanced Fast Track, or Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) —ensuring for all practical purposes the continued rubber-stamping of clandestine trade agreements like the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The cloture motion to end debate needed 60 votes and it got just that, passing the chamber60-37. The full roll call is here. A final vote will come on Wednesday. Having overcome the biggest hurdle, the legislation is expected to pass, and will then be sent to President Barack Obama’s desk to become law. Read More here
8 June 2015, Ralph Nader, 10 Reasons the TPP Is Not a ‘Progressive’ Trade Agreement: One must seriously question what President Obama and his corporate allies believe to be the definition of “progressive” when it comes to this grandiose statement. History shows the very opposite of progress when it comes to these democratic sovereignty-shredding and job-exporting corporate-driven trade treaties — unless progress is referring to fulfilling the deepest wishes of runaway global corporations.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) set our country’s progress back through large job-draining trade deficits, downward pressure on wages, extending Big Pharma’s patent monopolies to raise consumers’ medicine prices, floods of unsafe imported food, and undermining or freezing consumer and environmental rules. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is formally described as a trade and foreign investment agreement between 12 nations — Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam. The White House is now pressuring Congress to Fast Track through the TPP. Fast Track authority, a Congressional procedure to limit time for debate and prohibit amendments to proposed legislation, has already passed in the Senate, although only after an unexpectedly rough ride. Here are 10 reasons why the TPP is explicitly not a “progressive” trade agreement: Read Them here