Snow: The New Weapon of Mass Disruption?

This winter break has not been short on interesting, worrisome international developments like the new START Treaty, the latest Chinese anti-naval weapon system, the unpredictable North Korean foreign policy, the meltdown of the Eurozone, Estonia joining the Eurozone, and the Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s judicial drama among many others. Nothing, however, has been more concrete and disrupting than winter itself.

The news in the US and Europe has been hijacked by bad weather disrupting daily life and routines. Major international airports such as London Heathrow, New York JFK, Paris Charles de Gaulle and others have seen flight delays and cancelations over long periods of time. This last week, the Financial Times has been publishing on a daily basis articles on travel disruption. Even Philip Stevens of the Financial Times wrote a piece on December 20, 2010 on the lack of preparation from British authorities and Heathrow airport in case of ‘weather crisis.’

Interestingly, this rough winter is turning into political crisis especially in France, the UK and the US. For example, the French Ministry of Transportation has been under fire for its lack of preparation and crisis management. The UK is losing millions of pounds everyday, caused by limited air travel. The financial consequences will be major on British economic recovery if winter continues in the same rhythm. And Mr. Bloomberg, New York City mayor, has been coming under fire for the lack of reaction in dealing with last week blizzard. In the middle of this media frenzy, did anyone notice the missing element?

In fact, I have been extremely surprised by the non-existence of the debate on global warming. Media, politicians, and other event-makers do not speak on such matter. Are they avoiding it? Or are they not connecting the dots? Many scientists argue that global warming will be causing extreme weather conditions to occur more frequently with wide variations of temperatures all around the year. This has been the case these last several years with extremely dry and hot summers and intense winters in Europe and the US.

Politically speaking, governments have not been able to find common ground on dealing with global warming. Since the Kyoto Protocol of 1998, I can only remember failed week long intergovernmental conferences on climate change at the exception of the latest UN talks in Cancun earlier this month. Governments in Cancun were able to reach at the last minute a deal to curb climate change. However, this was not enough to erase the traumatism caused by the 2009 failed Copenhagen climate summit. The best illustration of political failure to find agreement on climate change is best illustrated in the article, “How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room,” written by Mark Lynas in the Guardian. Once more nation-states are not willing to commit on binding agreements for several reasons: it could undermine their economic growth, they see foreign policy based on a zero-sum game, and it would mean that an international body could sanction nation-states for non-compliance and/or violations of the agreement. On the short-term, these are valid points, however, global warming cannot be solved through a Westphalian perception of the world, but rather through a post-Westphalian or a global society strategy.

The international actor that could bring some leverage in leading the path is not the United Nations, but in fact the European Union. Unfortunately, the EU so far has not been as vocal as necessary in international climate talks for two reasons: first, EU member states are very divided on such matter; second, due to institutional cacophony. It is time for the 27 plus the Commission to have an honest discussion of finding common positions and identifying redlines in order to become a relevant and effective unified international voice and actor.

The argument raised by emerging economies and developing nation-states like China is that the Global North, read the US and EU, built up their economies and industries, while not carrying about the environment. So why should they? The point is fair, however, we are not living anymore in the 19^th and 20^th centuries. Technological prowess should offer alternative to gas, oil, and coal. As one of my student asked on such matter, ‘what is the use of a strong economy in a unlivable earth?’ This could sound childish, however, the message is clear. Changing mentalities, narratives and policies is not an easy task to do, therefore what are the options? Foreign policies will undeniably be altered by the emergence of new security threats.

If today snow storms can slow down economic growth and recovery, and become a political crisis for local, regional, and even national governments, what would it be when the sea level will be much higher, when water supplies will become inexistent, when drought will affect production, when risks of major global diseases increase? These questions are fair to reflect on and should be addressed by all of us rather than discussed in specialized circles. The first decade of the 21^st century was a disappointment on only addressing and not establishing institutional structures tackling the issue of global warming. Hopefully, I will be able to reflect on this second decade with a different assessment.