top of page
  • bluesky
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Recent publications and videos

Jan 30, 2020
3 min read

3. Climate change

The world situation is much worse than generally acknowledged. This December, the coinciding meetings of NATO and of the climate change Conference of the Parties (COP25) were barely reported, much less analyzed, even though the delegates held the fate of humanity in their hands. To some degree, both meetings are secret, and their unelected delegates are not accountable to the public. COP has met far from the ‘maddening crowd’ ever since the large protests at Copenhagen COP15. NATO provides credibility, flexibility, and anonymity in equal doses and shields member states from legal and political accountability. NATO policy is not to reveal which member state participated in a military operation.1 NATO countries refuse to sign the nuclear ban treaty and now legitimize a nuclear weapons first strike. To judge by the results delegates in both organizations chose to ignore both science and the human situation.

The military is the single largest institutional emitter of greenhouse gases, but its emissions are exempt under the Kyoto Protocol, a convenient accomplishment negotiated by Nobel Peace Prize recipient Al Gore. In its practice of protecting property and oil installations, in its mandate to kill, and in securitizing borders, the military is also the single largest contributor to climate injustice. The many interconnections between militarization and climate change continue to be overlooked at all COP meetings, by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists, by green new deals, and by climate and anti-war movements. It is hard to understand the silence: anthropogenic climate change and global militarization continue to be driven by political decisions within government and financial institutions. The military’s attribution of violence to victims of climate disasters is used to justify permanent war, militarized borders, global surveillance, and strategies of pacification. Read more …

1. Introduction

The great majority of the population in most countries is now aware of global warming and/or some of its effects; the deniers become scarcer as the evidence mounts, discussion proliferates and the older generation drops out of sight. Increasing efforts have been made to address the problem. A very few countries have responded well, at least by the standards applied say a decade ago, and are on route to ending net greenhouse gas emissions within a few decades.

But the experts are now warning that the steps taken so far are not nearly adequate and that a serious crisis is closer than previously thought, perhaps arriving within 20 years (depending on how “crisis” is defined). Public confusion is prevalent because much of the information is hard to interpret, especially that of a more technical (scientific) or economic nature, and because it is mixed together with much misinformation, a good deal of which is deliberate. Accordingly, public beliefs vary widely both on the seriousness of the issue, on humanity’s responsibility for it, and on what can be done at what cost.

Among informed analysts there is little debate about the lead-in to today’s crisis. The upward trend in average global temperature dates from the 1920s, and is closely matched by that of the height of the sea level; both track quite closely the upward trajectory of global carbon emissions, or of all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Until about 25 years ago there was some professional debate as to whether the human race was substantially responsible for the rising temperatures; now there is none, although there remains discussion as to whether other factors have played a secondary role. In summary, the physical processes of global warming are relatively well understood, and have produced the now obvious conclusion that GHG emissions must be reduced sharply and rapidly if the planet is not to suffer the crisis that experts fear.

This essay focusses on the economics of climate change—the economic costs that are resulting and will result from it, and the economic price that will have to be paid to rein it in. These are, for various reasons, among the less understood aspects of the threat. Read more …

Posted in Climate change | Comments Off on An Economic Perspective on the Challenge of Global Warming

All archived publications

At the heart of Science for Peace’s publications programme is our extensive online archive of articles, statements, presentations, conference papers, and occasional papers. These are are augmented by audio and video files from many of our past events (see also our YouTube page for a comprehensive library of lectures and conference discussions, most of which have been recorded on video from 2012 onwards).

In addition, Science for Peace has published —using more traditional technology— books, a newsletter, and topical pamphlets, some of them also available for download.

A short collection of external links can be found here.

 
 
 

Comments


E-7705 

An important e-petition about Canada peacekeepers headcount

Science for Peace believes the UN peacekeeping mission program is an important tool for minimizing conflicts around the world. Guided by impartiality and undertaken only with the consent of warring parties, missions under this program are critical in the efforts to transition violent societies to peace.

 

We know that Canada has a long history of supporting these missions and has earned a significant reputation for its expertise in this area. Thus we have been dismayed by the fact that the actual number of Canadian peacekeepers has been drastically reduced over the last decade. Despite the paucity of our country’s contribution, we know that Canada is nonetheless recognized for its leadership and know-how.

 

We want to dramatically enlarge the contingent of Canadian Peacekeepers and play our part in the worthy project of reducing violence in this turbulent world. As well, in light of ongoing changes in Peacekeeping technology, we believe Canada should invest majorly in tech training and support for our Peacekeepers, and at the same time furnish such skill development to countries less able to provide this for their own contingents.

 

To focus public attention on this critical issue, we have created an e-petition to the government and are seeking your support.

Please have a look and sign e-7705 if you agree.

 

www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-7705

 

 

Gilles Fecteau

Treasurer, Science for Peace

Science for Peace

A Peace Education NGO

Based in Toronto

 

​355-15 King’s College Circle
Toronto, Ontario M5S 3H7 Canada

Follow Us:

Emailinfo@scienceforpeace.org

Registered Charity: 893240861 RR 0001

  • BlueSky
  • X
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Get Monthly Updates

bottom of page