The UN Security Council met this week to consider whether or not climate change constituted a threat to international peace and security and, if so, what to do about it. As Deutsche Welle puts it here, “What might appear self-evident to many took days of complicated discussions and negotiations…” If droughts, heat waves, fires, ever-intensifying storms – the range of apocalyptic impacts that we are already experiencing from climate change – are not a threat, then what is, one wonders?
The UNSC first met over four years ago to discuss this, at the behest of the UK’s foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett. The UK has long recognized the security implications of climate change. They even have a climate and energy security envoy, through the Ministry of Defense and Foreign Commonwealth Office, Admiral Neil Morisetti. (I wrote about Adm. Morisetti and some others discussing this topic a year ago here.) The present foreign secretary, William Hague, was at the Council on Foreign Relations this past spring, delivering a speech on how “an effective response to climate change ‘underpins our security and prosperity.’”
At the Security Council this week, Russia effectively blocked the adoption of strong language on climate change. This sort of obstructionism is certainly counter to what President Medvedev said last summer in the middle of the fires and death that were besetting Russia then: “What’s happening with the planet’s climate right now needs to be a wake-up call to all of us, meaning all heads of state, all heads of social organizations, in order to take a more energetic approach to countering the global changes to the climate.” Go figure the change of heart. Anything to do with Russia’s near-total reliance on the sale of its fossil fuels – and the burden it would be for them if they – and the Europeans – curtailed their use and the greenhouse gases they generate?
The Secretary General said this week “Extreme weather events continue to grow more frequent and intense in rich and poor countries alike, not only devastating lives, but also infrastructure, institutions, and budgets – an unholy brew which can create dangerous security vacuums.” Achim Steiner, Executive Director of the UN Environment Program, was forceful in his remarks, highlighting the threats to food security, conflicts over resources, and climate change as a threat multiplier, among other concerns. But he was also hopeful: “… there is no reason why the international community cannot avoid escalating conflicts, tensions and insecurity related to a changing climate if a deliberate, focused and collective response can be catalyzed that tackles the root causes, scale, potential volatility and velocity of the challenges emerging.”
US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, was also forceful and to the point in her statement: “The question is not whether we will be faced with climate-related threats but when, and how we respond. We need to be much better prepared to tackle one of the central threats of our age. It is past time for the Security Council to come into the 21st century and assume our core responsibilities.” As the negotiations ground down, Russia’s intransigence at the heart of it, Rice was less diplomatic: “This is more than disappointing. It’s pathetic. It’s shortsighted, and frankly it’s a dereliction of duty.”
Thankfully, there is still some leadership being shown by nations like the US and the UK on this critical aspect of the climate crisis. Their defense, intelligence and foreign policy establishments are firmly focused on the security implications. One has to think that the rest of the world will get on board, sooner rather than later.
