4 ms·

While I agree with your general sentiment, I fail to see why 'national security' would trump 'destruction of habitat'. When my house is burning down I don't giv

While I agree with your general sentiment, I fail to see why 'national security' would trump 'destruction of habitat'. When my house is burning down I don't give diddly quak whether the doors are locked.

mathgeek 7y ago
When it’s your neighbor’s house, most people tend to care somewhat less than if it was their own. At least until your now-homeless neighbor notices how nice your house is. Climate change will affect some people more than others in at least the short term.
- jsilence 7y ago
  Short term thinking is not going to solve the global climate crisis.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Politicians are mainly incapable of thinking beyond their term - the next election. Just look at politician's willingness to commit deliberate national suicide via Brexit. All the current Tory leadership candidates are now trying to out-extremist all the others. There was no plan B, there remains no plan B. National security is perhaps the one issue that can partly escape being expressed solely in economic and short termism of this administration's term only. Now whether politicians can start to believe climate actually is an issue of security remains to be seen.
    - jsilence 7y ago
      There is no solution in building walls and upping border security. That is expensive fighting against the symptoms, draining resources and attention from the real issue at hand. Trying to trick politicians and decision makers into at least some action will not solve anything. On the contrary, it is going to be harmful for the overall cause.
      - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        Eh? What does building walls and border security have to do with solving the climate crisis? Nothing at all. Nor is it a case of tricking anyone. I'm talking in terms of treating it as an existential threat to national (and global) security. As it is for some countries already, and will inevitably become for all if we don't move orders of magnitude faster. Which deserves a reaction akin to the existential threat nations faced in WW1 and WW2. Directed production, rationing, war economy budgets, a long term view as well as short term tactics etc. If the world leaves it long enough conscription too. Right now we're in the equivalent of the appeasement years of the 30s. Cutting budgets that should be raised, tokenism, and ignoring the problem.
  - turk73 7y ago
    Neither is collectivism.
madaxe_again 7y ago
It isn't a question of one being more important than the other. Climate change is already having systemic impacts in the form of displacement and migration. This has, for the most part, been internal, however as ecosystems degrade, the people who depend on them will move farther afield to try to at the very least maintain the standard of living they had prior to their displacement. I think it's both important and relevant to raise the security issue - there is a militant core who are in absolute denial over climate change, and unfortunately, a substantial and vocal proportion of policymakers in major developed economies fit into this category. Those same policymakers tend to be extremely hawkish on migration and security issues, so to frame climate change as a threat to security is a potential route to getting them on board. Sadly, the effect so far seems to have been to encourage them to build walls and razor wire fences, as treating the symptoms is quicker and easier than treating the disease. Nobody wants to embark on a costly multi-decadal project that will see them out of power forevermore - so instead they go for the quick wins that they can shout about on the campaign trail. If climate change continues to be framed as a security issue, it will hopefully cause policymakers to think more holistically about their strategy for dealing with it, as if it ends up posing an existential threat to the continued existence of their state, then hopefully this would trump party interests. That said, the UK government seems to be putting party interests ahead of the state, unless of course brexit is actually an attempt to put a ring of steel around the UK to protect it from climate-change-driven mass migration, and the costs therein - but I am probably giving the powers that be too much credit.

mathgeek 7y ago

When it’s your neighbor’s house, most people tend to care somewhat less than if it was their own. At least until your now-homeless neighbor notices how nice your house is. Climate change will affect some people more than others in at least the short term.

jsilence 7y ago
Short term thinking is not going to solve the global climate crisis.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Politicians are mainly incapable of thinking beyond their term - the next election. Just look at politician's willingness to commit deliberate national suicide via Brexit. All the current Tory leadership candidates are now trying to out-extremist all the others. There was no plan B, there remains no plan B. National security is perhaps the one issue that can partly escape being expressed solely in economic and short termism of this administration's term only. Now whether politicians can start to believe climate actually is an issue of security remains to be seen.
  - jsilence 7y ago
    There is no solution in building walls and upping border security. That is expensive fighting against the symptoms, draining resources and attention from the real issue at hand. Trying to trick politicians and decision makers into at least some action will not solve anything. On the contrary, it is going to be harmful for the overall cause.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      Eh? What does building walls and border security have to do with solving the climate crisis? Nothing at all. Nor is it a case of tricking anyone. I'm talking in terms of treating it as an existential threat to national (and global) security. As it is for some countries already, and will inevitably become for all if we don't move orders of magnitude faster. Which deserves a reaction akin to the existential threat nations faced in WW1 and WW2. Directed production, rationing, war economy budgets, a long term view as well as short term tactics etc. If the world leaves it long enough conscription too. Right now we're in the equivalent of the appeasement years of the 30s. Cutting budgets that should be raised, tokenism, and ignoring the problem.
- turk73 7y ago
  Neither is collectivism.

madaxe_again 7y ago

It isn't a question of one being more important than the other. Climate change is already having systemic impacts in the form of displacement and migration. This has, for the most part, been internal, however as ecosystems degrade, the people who depend on them will move farther afield to try to at the very least maintain the standard of living they had prior to their displacement. I think it's both important and relevant to raise the security issue - there is a militant core who are in absolute denial over climate change, and unfortunately, a substantial and vocal proportion of policymakers in major developed economies fit into this category. Those same policymakers tend to be extremely hawkish on migration and security issues, so to frame climate change as a threat to security is a potential route to getting them on board. Sadly, the effect so far seems to have been to encourage them to build walls and razor wire fences, as treating the symptoms is quicker and easier than treating the disease. Nobody wants to embark on a costly multi-decadal project that will see them out of power forevermore - so instead they go for the quick wins that they can shout about on the campaign trail. If climate change continues to be framed as a security issue, it will hopefully cause policymakers to think more holistically about their strategy for dealing with it, as if it ends up posing an existential threat to the continued existence of their state, then hopefully this would trump party interests. That said, the UK government seems to be putting party interests ahead of the state, unless of course brexit is actually an attempt to put a ring of steel around the UK to protect it from climate-change-driven mass migration, and the costs therein - but I am probably giving the powers that be too much credit.