↓
 

PLEA Network

Climate change information and resources for change

  • PLEA Network
  • Addiction to Growth
    • Steady State Economy
    • Universal Basic Income
    • The Law vs Politics
  • The Science
    • Impacts Observed & Projected
    • All Things Carbon and Emissions
    • BOM Updates
    • Antarctica
  • Mainstreaming our changing climate
  • Fairyland of 2 degrees
  • Population & Consumption
    • People Stress
    • Food & Water Issues
    • Equity & Social Justice
    • Ecosystem Stress
    • Security & Conflict
  • Communication
    • Resource News Sites
  • Global Action/Inaction
    • IPCC What is it?
    • Paris COP21 Wrap-up
  • Australian Response / Stats
    • Federal Government – checking the facts
  • The Mitigation Battle
    • Fossil Fuel Reduction
  • Adaptation & Building Resilience
    • Downsizing Plan B
    • City Basics for Change
  • Ballarat Community
    • Regional Sustainability Alliance Ballarat
    • Reports & Submissions
  • Brown Hill Community FireAware Network
    • FireAware Network – Neighbourhood clusters
    • FireAware Network – Understanding risk
    • FireAware Network – Be prepared
    • FireAware Network – Role of council and emergency services
    • FireAware Network – Resources
  • The Uncomfortable Corner
  • Archive Library
    • Site Topics Index
    • Links Page for Teachers
  • Countries fail again to decide timing of key IPCC climate science reports
Home→Categories Security & Conflict - Page 7 << 1 2 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 12 13 >>

Category Archives: Security & Conflict

Post navigation

← Older posts
Newer posts →
PLEA Network

7 September 2016, The Conversation, Pacific pariah: how Australia’s love of coal has left it out in the diplomatic cold. Australia’s Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull will have some explaining to do when he attends the Pacific Islands Forum leaders’ meeting in Pohnpei, Micronesia, this week. Australia’s continued determination to dig up coal, while refusing to dig deep to tackle climate change, has put it increasingly at odds with world opinion. Nowhere is this more evident than when Australian politicians meet with their Pacific island counterparts. It is widely acknowledged that Pacific island states are at the front line of climate change. It is perhaps less well known that, for a quarter of a century, Australia has attempted to undermine their demands in climate negotiations at the United Nations. The Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) – organised around an annual meeting between island leaders and their counterparts from Australia and New Zealand – is the Pacific region’s premier political forum. But island nations have been denied the chance to use it to press hard for their shared climate goals, because Australia has used the PIF to weaken the regional declarations put forward by Pacific nations at each key milestone in the global climate negotiation process. In the run-up to the 1997 UN Kyoto climate summit, Pacific island leaders lobbied internationally for new binding targets to reduce emissions. However, that year’s PIF leaders’ statement was toned down, simply calling for “recognition of climate change impacts”. Likewise, in the lead-up to the 2009 Copenhagen talks, Pacific island countries called for states to reduce emissions by 95% by 2050. But at that year’s PIF meeting in Cairns, the then prime minister, Kevin Rudd, convinced leaders to scale back the proposed target to 50%. Pacific media branded the outcome “a death warrant for Pacific Islanders”. Ahead of last year’s Paris summit, Australia again exercised its “veto power” over Pacific climate diplomacy. Over the preceding years Pacific island leaders had made their climate positions quite clear, both at UN discussions in New York and in a string of declarations including the Melanesian Spearhead Group Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change, the Polynesian Leaders’ Declaration on Climate Change, and the Suva Declaration on Climate Change. Read More here

PLEA Network

18 August 2016, New Internationalist, Climate change and colonial history make a toxic combination. New research points to a powerful link between climate change and armed conflict. It also finds that countries that are ethnically mixed are more likely to experience this kind of conflict. But their results may actually tell us more about the consequences of colonialism than ethnic diversity. This new research joins a raft of existing research on climate change and conflict – often reaching competing conclusions. What is the link between climate change and conflict? This isn’t an issue that can be solved with one study. There are in fact hundreds of studies looking at this issue. And they don’t all reach the same conclusion. Some studies do show that climate impacts lead to increased violence. But some studies find that there was actually no connection at all. Being hit by a disaster or climate change impacts didn’t make any difference to levels of violence. Some studies even found the opposite. Climate change impacts actually reduced some kinds of violence. So what happens when we look at all this research as a whole? Yes, some of the studies point in different directions. But what about when we consider all the research together? Does it point to powerful climate – conflict connection, or not? It still isn’t clear. Read More here

PLEA Network

8 February 2016, Climate Home, US military to war game climate change threats. US military planners have been ordered to war game climate change scenarios, focusing on “geopolitical and socioeconomic instability” linked to extreme weather. A new directive says forces need to undertake joint training exercises with allies to “enhance capacity” and “improve tactics” for tackling impacts linked to global warming. “Mission planning and execution must include identification and assessment of the effects of climate change on the DoD [department of defence] mission,” it reads. Under DOD DIRECTIVE 4715.21 chiefs of staff, equipment buyers and health advisers will need to integrate climate change into any new purchases, missions or infrastructure plans. The document, which is signed off by Robert Work, deputy secretary of Defense, calls for greater work with climate scientists to “reduce risk and promote mission execution.” Planners must “integrate climate change considerations into mission area analyses and acquisition strategies across the life cycle of weapons systems, platforms, and equipment.” Medical staff will need to update training to “address effects on personnel, including changes in extreme temperatures, precipitation patterns, and disease vector distribution.” Despite stiff opposition from many Republicans, the Pentagon has released a stream of climate-related warnings, research and adopted new clean energy policies in the past eight years. In 2014 chiefs of staff said it was “overwhelmingly clear” that climate change posed a security risk to the country. Last year the NATO military alliance war-gamed the use of wind and solar energy systems, while the US Navy recently launched a ‘Green Fleet’ partly powered by biofuels. Read More here

PLEA Network

14 January 2016, The Guardian, Climate change disaster is biggest threat to global economy in 2016, say experts. Global warming heads top economists’ concerns for first time but large-scale forced migration seen as most likely risk to materialise. A catastrophe caused by climate change is seen as the biggest potential threat to the global economy in 2016, according to a survey of 750 experts conducted by the World Economic Forum. The annual assessment of risks conducted by the WEF before its annual meeting in Davos on 20-23 January showed that global warming had catapulted its way to the top of the list of concerns. A failure of climate change mitigation and adaptation was seen as likely to have a bigger impact than the spread of weapons of mass destruction, water crises, mass involuntary migration and a severe energy price shock – the first time in the 11 years of the Global Risks report that the environment has been in first place. The report, prepared by the WEF in collaboration with risk specialists Marsh & McLennan and Zurich Insurance Group, comes a month after the deal signed in Paris to reduce carbon emissions. The WEF said evidence was mounting that inter-connections between risks were becoming stronger. It cited links between climate change and involuntary migration or international security, noting that these often had “major and unpredictable impacts”. Espen Barth Eide, the WEF’s head of geopolitical affairs, said there was a risk of Europe fragmenting as a result of “people on the move”. Speaking at a press conference in London to launch the report, Eide said: “I am concerned about the continued support in national politics for keeping Europe together.” Read More here

Post navigation

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Archive Library

Access Latest News by date; tags and categories
©2025 - PLEA Network - Weaver Xtreme Theme
↑