The geopolitical ramifications of climate change are not commonly discussed in the main stream media or anywhere for that matter.  The one exception I know is a new book by Gwynne Dyer, a Canadian author, historian and documentary film-maker who now lives in London, UK.  His book Climate Wars is now available, published by Random House, but if you want a good summary of the book, you can check out his 3 part series on Climate Wars that was broadcast by CBC Radio in Canada on the program, Ideas .  It is available on his website: www.gwynnedyer.com. Or, here:

Part 1 

Part 2 

Part 3 

Essentially, the build-up to these wars has already started in some ways, in that some nations are beginning saber-rattling over Arctic soverinty.  A few years ago a Russian submarine planted a small titanium flag at the sea floor of the Arctic Ocean to effectively say, "this is our territory, so back off".  Canada, Greenland (Denmark), the US, and Norway also have claims to slices of Arctic territory.  So far, everything has been wholly diplomatic and of course that is the desirable way to settle international affairs, but continued climate change, especially of the run-away sort, has the potential to pit nation-state against nation-state and culture against culture to provoke future resource conflicts over Arctic territory.  The audio documentary discusses in a reasoned, rational way through interviews with various scientists and policy-makers, the science of climate change, how it is portrayed in the media and the geopolitical implications of all this.  From the perspective of an Earth Scientist, I  assert that the jury is no longer out on whether climate change has a significant anthropogenic component or not, contrary to what is seen as a 'balanced' view in the US media (particularly).  In Spain, and in most of Europe, there is an overall consensus that it is happening and we have to affect it positively in some way.  That's not to say that people have changed their high-consumption habits in any meaningful way, but to be honest, changing from incandescent to energy-saving light-bulbs, recycling, composting, taking the train, flying less, walking more, etc... while all important, are quite minor in comparison to how we use energy on a government or international level.  The major hurdles to making meaningful reductions in our  greenhouse gas emissions comes from coal burning power plants.  So, if we were even able to somehow make a collective switch to electric cars, for example, but still charged our cars with electricity generated from coal burning plants, we have defeated the purpose.  A better way is to cut out the cars and replace transportation with a public high-speed rail system.

The real risk of climate change, is not a few degrees of average warming, in and of itself, it is the positive feedback mechanism that is inherent in this increase.  Principally, somewhere between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius warming is believed to be enough to begin the release of permafrost-trapped methane in the Arctic, setting off this feedback mechanism, at which point we have lost any real control over how to affect warming trends.  Remember, methane is some 30 times more potent as a greenhouse gas as is carbon dioxide.   At this point, all bets are off as to how fast warming may proceed.  In that sense, it may actually be better to burn the methane for energy usage and convert it into carbon dioxide, than to let it enter the atmosphere as methane.  Unfortunately, that option is out because the methane is trapped in the ice. Moreover, it is dispersed throughout the Arctic in very low concentrations.  So, our best option to prevent the release of more methane is to prevent the permafrost from melting in the first place.  This is totally possible.  The ability and the technology is all there to generate energy more sustainably and to collectively power-down and live more locally.  Estimates range from only 10-20 years until we reach the 'point of no return' in terms of CO2 output.  If that happens, our only solution (if one even exists... and remember that sometimes problems may not even have achievable solutions) may be a technological one... injecting sulfur-dioxide into the atmosphere, for example, to reflect more sunlight.  But, we have to be cautious about such an approach, even if it were possible.  The side-affects may be worse than the advantages.  The pre-cautionary principle is ever-important in cases like this.

So, what will be the outcome of increased warming trends in climate (not weather; the two are not the same)?  Well, in addition to more extreme weather events due to increased evaporation, there is the effect that warming will have on food production.  Right now, we live in a society that operates on the basis of just-in-time delivery of food.  Hungry?  Just go to the store and buy a banana from the tropics.  I love bananas and they are indeed rich in potassium, but they can't be grown in Europe or North America, so I don't think I will have the privilege of eating them should the global shipments of food cease due to geopolitical tensions or oil shortages.  Personally, I have started a long-term food storage facility in the basement consisting of canned and bottled goods and dried grains such as pastas and rice.  I hope that I can mitigate future discomforts caused by food shortages.  But I hold no illusions that this is a permanent solution on its own.  Food production must return to being grown more locally and seasonally.  Should food production decrease in some areas due to droughts or floods or plagues, humans may try to usurp others' agricultural lands.  After all, food is a basic human need.  

There are four actions/consequences that could happen based on how we make collective and personal decisions.  How we prepare for the future is up to us. 1) If we prepare well, and nothing amounts to climate change (unlikely), then what have we lost?  2) If we prepare well and climate change effects are at some level of severity, then we should give ourselves a pat on the back.  3) If we don't prepare and nothing amounts to climate change, then... status quo.  4) If we don't prepare and climate change effects are at some level of severity, then there will be some level of negative consequences.  The future is (partly) up to us.

Peace,

Grant