In the United States, we have Al Gore and his successors to thank for the national focus on global warming and climate change, at home and across the world. Throughout the years, we have seen all ends of the debate. We've seen Donald Trump claiming in 2012 that global warming was Chinese hoax in order to stunt American manufacturing. And we've seen Senator Bernie Sanders, in 2016, claim that climate change is directly correlated to the rise of terrorism. Now, while the latter probably got a few nods from his base and the former got a lot of people to scratch their heads, we've been devout of a lot of necessary honesty and substance in this extremely complicated, essential, and nuanced discussion.
Recently, the discussion has shifted towards whether or not climate change or global warming is to be referred to and treated as a security issue, especially a national security issue. While military, Defense Department, or other national security protective measures would be greatly ineffective in affecting climate change, there is very little else that this nation could do to combat it. Now, there are certainly claims that those who favor climate change legislation have offered bountiful suggestions as to how to effectively alleviate our climate problem. However, it's not that easy. Like in most issues, it's never that easy.
The points that most often drive the pro-legislation advocates are the "No Plan(et)-B" slogans and emphasizing that there needs to be a viable earth in order to sustain life. While these are both true, it does not mean that since they have predicted an endgame for hundreds, or thousands, of years in the future that they are suddenly inerrant in their policy suggestions. This false idea leads to much of the contempt and disdain that comes from the other side of the debate. Further, many anti-legislation advocates oppose such policies because of the dooming repercussions that would follow.
A large portion of these advocates either understand or would be directly affected by the economic or personal implications of this legislation. These people are miners, and other people throughout manufacturing states like West Virginia and Michigan. These people, if we were to follow through with these damning policies, would lose their job, and their livelihood. That, right now, is far greater a security issue to the men and women of the United States than anything else regarding the issue. It is most viable that we work towards finding more substantial sources of energy that are efficient and safe while also protecting these people and their way of life. It is common to spin the climate issue as a very urgent threat, but the reality shows that its effects will come far down the road, with enough time for us to solve the problem with utmost efficiency. However, until then, the most pressing security threat will be that to the ontology of the individuals that these policies would impact.
I very much agree with your assertion that climate change should not be a national security issue. It is not a problem to be fought by the military or the Defense Department. Many politicians on both sides have made extremely outlandish comments on climate change as you mentioned. Your idea of focusing on substantial sources of energy is extremely important and I agree with it. I also believe that doing so requires global efforts from many nations because it is not just an issue within the United States, but for the globe. The ontological security factor of the individuals you mention has been one of the most difficult aspects of handling climate change. It is difficult to find a solution in which such people would not be affected. While I do not have an answer as to how to handle it, I think that finding better sources of energy is important, as you mention.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that climate change should not be a national security issue, nor handled by the military. Like you mentioned, the issue with the current legislation that Congress members are trying to pass is that it does not take into account the short term consequences. People will lose their jobs, companies will go out of business, and there would be a disruption in our easy access to energy. Unfortunately there are too many issues that need attention/solutions in the near future that we cannot focus on problems that could arise years and years down the road. I do like your solution of trying to find a better source of energy. In this sense, jobs will not necessarily be lost, the planet can continue to thrive, and the price of energy could potentially go down. Overall, the United States is going about this issue is a very poor way and needs to look down other paths to try to find a solution.
ReplyDeleteI think the ontological issues of climate change do not come from climate change itself, but rather from the political debates that surround it. That within itself disqualifies climate change as a security issue from my point of view. While it is a major issue still, I would see it as something separate from a security issue. They can overlap, as is the case in your example of WV and MI laborers, but overall, climate change itself cannot be understood the same way that we understand other security issues.
ReplyDeleteI agree that sustainable forms of energy need to be found, and that certain policies would harm people like coal miners in the U.S. However, I also cannot help but point out some things that I'm sure you are aware of, but did not mention in this post. Sustainable energy is just one of the many factors of climate change. Global warming and consequent rising sea levels are another larger one, one that is connected to our current forms of energy and that is a relatively shorter term and dangerous problem. It may be hard for those in nations with large landmasses such as the U.S. to remember how quickly and drastically such a thing can impact smaller nations, particularly island nations. If the U.S. however chooses not to pay too much attention to how this affects foreign nations (however it should as all nation large and small share this planet and its climate challenges, and can only effectively resolve them collaboratively), then they should at least consider their own islands of Hawaii and Puerto Rico who are also in imminent danger from this issue. I understand that this a vast and complicated issue that involves ontological and human insecurity for certain societal groups, it also involves a vast range of environmental threats across the world that could escalate to threaten human lives;through the conflict it incites and/or the environmental damage it causes.
ReplyDelete