National Security
A forest fire can burn the area equivalent to a state, do you really need bombs to threaten national security?
There was a time when national security was about having the largest number of weapons in the most diverse locations across the world. You could threaten the security of any nation as long as you could project your military might over them. This is part of the rationale behind the 800 military bases that the US has across the world and the trillion dollars it spends on its military every year.
Climate change might change that equation.
Over the last few years, temperatures in the ‘global north’ have been rising to unprecedented levels. In Europe this year, countries saw temperatures cross 40 degrees Celsius and reach never-before-seen levels since record-keeping began.
When COVID brought its accompanying supply chain disruption, one of the accusations raked up against the policies of these nations has been the willingness to outsource manufacturing and allow countries such as China to corner the market for natural resources. The real motivation behind it was to protect their own environment, as I argued in my post ‘Why Globalisation Happened?’, a couple of years ago.
That protection of the environment resulted in beautiful forests across Europe and the US, which are regularly visited by locals for hiking and to marvel at their natural beauty. During heatwaves such as the ones that the region is experiencing right now, the very same forests turn into a tinderbox.
Going back to the question of national security, therefore, what you need to threaten the security of these nations is a matchstick, not a nuclear bomb.
If you tell this to 80-year-old “leaders” in these nations, their takeaway will be to mow down all the trees and, better still, set up data centres in their stead.
The takeaway should be that climate change is fast becoming a matter of national security, and at least now, they should take action. Instead of pussyfooting around, making firm commitments, as they have been since Kyoto, they should begin to make unilateral declarations of action - even if that means reduced economic growth. This would also translate into greater pressure upon the other nations to make their own commitments.