Swap weather bombs for real bombs: Debate on climate change as national security intensifies
At a recent press conference in Seoul, there was a very prominent moment in which participants from 50 countries debated climate change and its impact on the world’s writing and political landscape.
Although this consensus is a rough consensus, the public (from Azerbaijan to Zaire) is exhausted by the issue. It’s hard to get their attention, and people increasingly adjust their attention, even in some cases, their homes are actually blown away.
As the debate was debated, hills outside the Press Association last spring were damaged by wildfires – only a few weeks after catching the ground from winter.
This week, thousands of people were forced to flee their homes and communities from western Canada to Newfoundland in the face of intense wildfires. Although this is an organized Exodus, it is not much to suggest that evacuators, tied to their cars and buses, and tied to their property, like civilians fleeing the advancing enemy forces.
These people are exhausted, but in different ways.
When we talk about climate, it usually belongs to some fine bins – science, policy, protest and politics.
Canada is already experiencing the effects of climate change. But global climate issues can also affect Canadians. Robert McLeman, a professor of geography and Tiktoker, explains this together with Andrew Chang.
It rarely talks about its impact on national national security, and it is obvious when you listen to journalists from around the world, describing the situation in their respective countries (I was one of the journalists who attended the meeting).
Climate as a national security threat is hardly the most important.
But, we are here.
In a recent wildfire brief, a senior federal official was admitted to a particularly serious one, who suggested that the government’s ability to respond was close to the point of rupture.
“What we see today through these disaster-driven events is that they are increasingly outpacing the Canadian emergency management system’s capabilities,” said Matt Godsoe, director of the Office of Implementation of Emergency Management Strategy.
“A key example is the increasing reliance on Canadian armed forces in terms of disaster response and support. It is unsustainable in the long run, which may hinder the ability of Canadian forces to respond to other threats at home and abroad.”
This is not without warnings for years.
In 2008, a U.S. National Security and Intelligence Assessment noted that climate change “will have broad impacts on national security”, whether it is the opening of Arctic seals, the destruction of unpredictable weather or forced immigration to the entire population.
A decade ago, during the decline of the Obama administration, the White House raised another sharper warning in its national security strategy.
Commented in 2015, “Climate change is an urgent and growing threat to our national security, leading to natural disasters, refugee movements and conflicts against basic resources such as food and water.”
“The current impact of climate change from the Arctic to the Midwest. Increased sea level and storm surges threaten coastal areas, infrastructure and property.”
Does it sound familiar?
Many governments, including Canada, have issued similar warnings. But, as participants at that press conference last spring pointed out, the prophecy seems to have turned a deaf ear.
Part of the problem is that many in the political, environmental and defense communities do not see the impact of climate change as purely a national security issue.
Extreme weather or natural disasters are not bombs, missiles or malware. It’s hard to defend against, although, for example, wildfires have the same effect on wasteful towns as those who drop explosives.
Perhaps more sinister climate change is becoming the driving force of geopolitics. If the retreating ice sheet does not present the tempting prospect of resource extraction, will anyone talk about annexation of Greenland?
In this country, natural disasters have prompted military responses for several years. But as the argument develops, it is not trained for its proper functioning when the military is helping to evacuate or clear trees that are flooded by hurricanes.
A few years ago, the House of Commons committee committee committee tried to define whether soldiers should wield chainsaws as frequently as rifles. If anything, it can be said that in Canada, it is still difficult for us to define the role of military play in our society.
If anyone wishes to do some wholesale reorganization, which will relieve the burden of destroying communities or exhausted forces, they will be disappointed.
It seems that invisible efforts have been made.
At the NATO Summit in 2021, Canada provided that the NATO Climate Change and Montreal Security Centre for Excellence was subsequently established.
However, it focuses on the long-term, such as finding ways to reduce the impact of military activities on the climate. Large and heavy military equipment produces a lot of carbon. The same is true for combat.
One of the biggest aspects of the center’s research is mitigating the impact of climate change on military institutions.
As the Center notes: “Climate change tests the resilience of military facilities and infrastructure, with strategic locations vulnerable to sea level rise, melted permafrost and extreme weather events.”
But there are some interesting and innovative ideas about how the federal government can restructure itself to better mitigate disasters and provide relief faster are getting attention.
It was a hazy weeks for parts of western and central Canada as the burning smoke from Saskatchewan and Manitoba spread across North America. While the direct danger of fires is usually obvious, it is not always obvious how wildfire smoke affects human health. Medical columnist Dr. Melissa Lem talks to the CBC about the measures to breathe easily during this wildfire season.
Eleanor Olszewski, Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience, recently said the federal government is considering establishing an agency that better coordinates federal responses – an organization that may have strategic water provider reserves and perhaps even mechanisms to deploy humanitarian working groups.
“We think that the formation of such institutions could have a very positive impact on our ability to coordinate how we respond to national disasters across the country,” Olszewski said. “We are investigating what the details might look like.”
Given the overlap of jurisdictions with provincial governments, which is responsible for crisis response and management, careful reflection may be a good idea. But hopefully no one in the federal bureaucracy tried to reinvent the wheel.
Many other countries, especially Germany, have strong civil defense structures and systems.
Eva Cohen, Canada’s civil protection youth, has been arguing for years about establishing a volunteer-based civil protection agency in Canada to complement the country’s emergency management system.
Cohen has testified before the House of Commons National Defense Committee. But until recently, her thoughts seemed to have turned a deaf ear.
The most important thing is: the federal government already has a good understanding of what a Civil Protection Agency should and can look like.
In an interview with CBC News, Cohen suggested that key elements of the federal government’s mindset involve not only disaster responses, but also expectations.
“For me, resilience is more than just a rebound,” Cohen said. “It’s really about avoiding being hit first and being able to keep in control when things go wrong.”
However, this will involve paying attention to warnings and redefining the shots of us looking at climate-driven disasters.
A step beyond the earlier Red Flag report, the Foreign Relations Commission last fall announced that climate change is increasingly a driver of conflict.
In other words, a weather bomb can be replaced with a real bomb in some places.
“In various countries, climate change increases the likelihood of civil wars,” the report said.
“Study found that an increase in average temperatures of 1.8°F was associated with a 4.5% increase in the incidence of civil wars that year. The climate was also associated with making such wars last longer.”
