In recent years, prominent voices in the public sphere have drawn an analogy between climate change and warfare. This has led, for example, to calls for massive, coordinated interventions akin to the Manhattan Project[i] – the Second World War era project which led to the development of the first nuclear weapons – or drawing on British wartime propaganda calling for a ‘war footing’[ii] among the general public to deal with climate change. While not all of those drawing this analogy have explicitly claimed that a Hobbesian ‘Leviathan’ approach is necessary to force cooperative action, the link between State power and climate change was clearly articulated by US Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who recently promised supporters that, if elected, she would “make America the clean energy superpower of the 21st century”[iii].
The increasing trend to militarise environmental and common pool resource problems has also been criticised from multiple corners[iv]. Some environmental and indigenous rights activists see top down government intervention as an aggressive imposition of the will of those most responsible for climate change upon the lives of those least responsible[v], while conservative voices (at least those who admit the science behind climate change), voice skepticism regarding the efficacy of governmental or inter-governmental institutions to broker and administer a truly global effort. Looking beyond climate change specifically, the militarisation of conservation has been shown to have perverse human rights implications, and in some cases may even cause more ecological harm than good[vi].
On the one hand, the application of military analogies in policy making carries its own risks, misconstruing and simplifying the nature of the problem[vii]. On the other hand, the scale of the problem is such that any real solutions leading to the mitigation of carbon emissions, as well as adaptation to the changes already under way, cut across such a broad array of facets and domains of human affairs[viii] that dealing with them individually may be impossible. As much as the decentralisation of decision-making may appeal in procedural terms, it can be difficult to imagine disconnected, individual initiatives ever leading to a common solution. Further, one could provocatively argue that the exclusion of governance favours ‘the market’ as an inevitable mechanism for resource allocation decision-making.
Authors are invited to engage with the question: Does the challenge of climate change warrant a ‘war footing’? If so, who is the enemy?
Read the responses:
Continue reading “Climate Change: War Footing or Peaceful Solidarity?”
Dr Samuel Randalls
Department of Geography
University College London
The notion that climate change should invoke security-laced rhetoric and a military-style response is not new (de Goede and Randalls, 2009). To give just two examples: Claims of crisis were made in the Impact Team report ‘The Weather Conspiracy’ published in 1977. Here the threat, a new ice age, required ‘crusaders’ to go out and encourage energy efficiency to prevent the enemy (ice) from destroying civilization as we know it. In 1989, Al Gore stated that climate change would challenge nations strategically and that the USA would, in a military parallel, deal with climate change at the point at which the ‘nuclear option’ would be invoked. The idea that climate change demands a war footing therefore has historical precedents, but these arguments have been couched in the different concerns and contexts of the time (ice, cold war politics). Continue reading “If A War Is The Answer, What Was The Question?”
Professor Merrill Singer
Department of Anthropology
University of Connecticut
Asserting the Manhattan Project, the effort that developed the first nuclear weapons, as a model for addressing global climate change1, suggests the need for environmental activists to closely examine the lessons of the model in question.
The starting point for this endeavor is determining the role of the Project in the ending of WWII, on which is based its claim of success as a technological, scientific, and military initiative. It has now been thoroughly documented, as affirmed in Dwight Eisenhower’s personal memoir The White House Years, that with American aircraft attacking Japanese cities at will in 1945 the Japanese wanted to surrender prior to the use of nuclear weapons. They felt, however, that they could not accept the stark terms demanded of them in the Potsdam Proclamation, most notably the total elimination of Japan’s royal house. As expressed in a memorandum sent by General Douglas MacArthur to President Roosevelt, high ranking Japanese officials agreed to practically all of the other terms specified in the Proclamation2. American policy makers maintained, none the less, that only the dropping of an atomic bomb would convince the Japanese to give up. Some critics, however, argue that with the Soviet Union declaring war on Japan the bombing was in no small measure intended as a message about U.S. military superiority, and hence Hiroshima might reasonably be called the first shot of the Cold War. At the time of the bombing of Hiroshima, Japan had already began negotiating with the Soviet Union for a peace treaty, something well known to American leaders because of the breaking of Japanese military codes. Moreover, in his farewell speech upon leaving office, President Eisenhower warned about the dangerous rise of the military industrial complex, and surely the Manhattan Project was also a significant step in the making of that powerful and still thriving entity. Continue reading “The Dangers of the Manhattan Model for Fighting Climate Change”
Professor James Fairhead
Department of Anthropology
University of Sussex
As a coalition builds to escalate war in Syria and neighbours, several of our princes and politicians have been drawn to see this maelstrom as somehow caused by climate change, and so to fight it, we should presumably open a second front on hot air.
We must remember, however, that there is more to ‘climate and security’ than worrying whether people fight more in increasingly bad weather. Policies addressing climate change are driving major transformations in access to global land, forests and water as they create new commodities and markets for carbon, biofuels, biodiversity and ‘climate-secure’ food. And now the emergence of these new ‘climate change commodities’ is reinforcing and attracting the financial grid and its speculators. Perhaps we should more properly ask: how might the advent and expansion of these new commodities and their markets generate or prolong conflicts. ‘Climate conflicts’ become manifest in the new economic and political orders that arise around these markets, driving ‘land grabs’ and ‘green grabs.’ So will the Paris COP be fair? Or will it facilitate nature to become a form of natural capital that can be ever more accumulated by the ‘less-than-one-percent’ in our increasingly unequal world? Continue reading “Should This Not Be A War Against Ourselves?”
Professor Hans A Baer
School of Social and Political Sciences
University of Melbourne
Various scholars and climate activists have proposed a framework for climate change campaigning based on the argument that climate change mitigation is so urgent and immense that it requires emergency measures like those adopted by the Allied powers during World War II. For example, Jorgen Randers and Paul Gilding maintain that a climate emergency plan is likely to emerge prior to 2020 when global society finally more fully recognises the threat of climate change to humanity. They maintain that their action plan can keep global warming below 1oC above pre-industrial levels. Randers and Gilding envision three phases in their plan:
- A climate war (years 1-5) which would launch global society to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 per cent within five years.
- A climate neutrality phase (years 5-20) which would lock in the 50 per cent emergency reductions, and move the world to net zero climate emissions during this phase.
- A climate recovery phase (years 20-100) which would entail stabilization of the global climate system and the creation of a sustainable global economy.
Continue reading “The Climate Emergency Mobilization Framework: A Critical Review”
Professor Dominic Boyer
Director, CENHS, Rice University
Even if one were the sort who believed that war solved anything, there would still be the issue of identifying who or what was the enemy in the “battle” against climate change. Is it the upstream and downstream industries and infrastructures of Big Carbon? Is it the governments who rely upon carbon fuels as the cheapest route to economic development? Is it anyone who eats meat given that greenhouse gas emissions of livestock production alone exceed those of the transportation sector? Is it simply anyone who flips a light switch or plugs an appliance into an outlet and expects immediate gratification in the form of abundant affordable electricity? All of this makes a turn toward martial discourse sound rather hollow. Who exactly are we meant to be fighting? To my ear, war talk is displaced self-hatred about one’s own investment in an accelerationist culture of energy excess. Does anyone really aspire to participate in a diffuse and endless War on Climate Change that—like the War on Terror before it—would simply demonstrate once again violence’s remarkable talent for begetting itself? Continue reading “Without Attachment or Fear”