6 ms·

UK intelligence censored report on global warming and homeland security

101 points by ewidar 6mo ago

lschueller 6mo ago
The article makes the impression, that this security threats caused by climate change are somewhat new to gov bodies. As this is not true, the risks for political and societal stability and security have been very well researched in depth in the respective scientific disciplines since the Club of Rome firstly broad this topic to the larger public attention in 1972. But the contradicting forces are not long-term perspectives but short term gains on the political agenda, which makes it much harder to lobby for solutions against threats, which will happen "only" in 5 to 10 years in the future.
- mschuster91 6mo ago
  That doesn't mean that efforts to suppress awareness and subsequently action against climate change isn't being done to this very day. Some of it is done by governments (such as mentioned here, or with the EPA dismantling in the US), some by hostile governments (e.g. Russia funding a lot of the Western far-right parties that all run on climate change denial), some by fossil fuel companies (e.g. BP creating the "CO2 footprint" to individualize responsibility), and the rest by utterly braindead clown individuals (we used to call them "village idiots") that, thanks to the Internet, now have a global audience.
  - actionfromafar 6mo ago
    Or are presidents!
  - georgemcbay 6mo ago
    > or with the EPA dismantling in the US In the US I feel we have entered the stage beyond trying to suppress awareness. Not that the government is being honest about it, but they also aren't really trying to hide it. They've just moved to not directly talking about it, and since our mainstream media is fully captured nobody is pushing them to talk about it. We've moved from trying to downplay the impact to just announcing what we plan to do about it as the impacts continue to manifest into reality. We're going to continue down the path of fossil fuels (we have no intention of trying to lessen the severity at the cost of economic growth, number MUST GO UP) and we're going to attempt to take countries (Greenland, Canada) that "benefit" from the changes (at least in terms of having more livable/arable land). Migrants trying to enter the US to escape the catastrophes in their own countries will be thrown into concentration camps or worse. Large parts of the US will be impacted, of course, but those are sacrifices they're willing to make (and, hey... large scale displacement is good for the GDP!). Better double check your insurance policies. Almost all of Trump 2.0's actions to date make a sort of sociopathic sense if you assume the various groups pulling his strings have accepted that large impacts from severe climate change are coming soon and have just decided to YOLO it.
onlyjanand 6mo ago
[dead]
secondcoming 6mo ago
> If collapse happens, it notes the UK does not have the ability to absorb global shocks through higher domestic output. It lacks enough land to feed its population or rear livestock to maintain current consumption patterns and price levels. Yet they're pushing to use farmland for solar farms and social housing. There's a real hatred of farmers among the UK Leftist/Green crowd.
- defrost 6mo ago
  There's certainly a justified hatred of faux-farmers of convenience such as Clarkson et al. I suspect that's the hatred being mischaracterised and amplified by the GBNews Farrage crowd.
  - secondcoming 6mo ago
    No. It's because farmers sometimes pollute rivers (despite household sewage being pumped into UK rivers daily), want to kill badgers to stop TB spreading, and because they work large areas of land they're obviously wealthy.
    - defrost 6mo ago
      Sure, someone always believes such things, .. is that really widespread and a core belief of the "the UK Leftist/Green crowd." ? The constant observation made about the UK is there's always an excess amplification of what various groups are alleged to believe. Last I checked, the current King is in the "Leftist/Green" camp and pro-farmer. (by default, he'd be "UK" and not a "crowd" though).
    - hermitcrab 6mo ago
      Is there any strong evidence that killing badgers reduces bovine TB?
  - hdgvhicv 6mo ago
    To his credit Clarkson has done more form farming with his show than countryfile or the archers has done in decades. He bought it as a tax break, but I’d leave not ire for “farmers” like the musician and vacuum cleaner salesman. Nothing caused me to laugh more at the “woe is the millionaire march” than seeing Lloyd Webber and his dog out on the march.
sunshine-o 6mo ago
Here is the solution nobody is talking about: The population of the UK or Europe did not explode in the last hundred years. It did not even double. The population used to be more rural and relatively self sufficient in terms of food. There is actually enough land in Europe to feed everybody, especially considering the great progress we made scientifically. You can actually sustain yourself on a few hundred square meters of land and you won't get fat and be healthier (in your body and mind). The great migration of the local population to the city to get a good factory or a bank job is over I believe. But the country side is still empty. The reason is it is hard to make the jump first and ending up in the middle of nowhere living with a few old people. Also your politicians hate independent people so they are not gonna encourage it. They would rather keep you in a constant guilty state about their vision of "climate change" while letting you board a 10 GBP Ryanair flight for a week-end city trip or order useless things on Temu. For Europe and many other places, the solution to a more sustainable future is actually quite straightforward.
- supliminal 6mo ago
  I think you’re talking about subsistence farming, which plenty of places in Europe do practice. But it is hard work.
  - defrost 6mo ago
    Subsistence farming would be farming to only feed the farmers with little excess left for trade, it's a little too keyhole in this context. They're talking more in the direction of EU scale closed loop / closed cycle agriculture, in which a network of farms across countries interop to exchange resources (pig and chicken waste, for fertilizer, for example) in order to reduce or eliminate outside inputs (synthetic fertilizers from the Gulf, for example), but still work to maximise production for EU consumption.
- hdgvhicv 6mo ago
  Europe’s big problem is the hindered of millions of climate refugees on the doorstep. Even the most open heart liberal will baulk at the population doubling or more in 20 years. The only ones promising a solution will be the neofeudalists
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
cynicalsecurity 6mo ago
Smells like Soviet censorship.
beejiu 6mo ago
The UK is consistently amongst the lowest household expenditure on food in the entire world. Only 3 countries in the world are self sufficient in food. If this "reasonable worst-case" scenario happens, surely the UK is one of the better placed to deal with it?
- AlBugdy 6mo ago
  Most countries could easily adapt to other types of food. There are multiple source for carbs, fat and proteins, as well for various micronutrients. Some countries where obesity is rampant could also adapt to eating a lot less than they do now. That would bring the number from 3 (assuming that's true) to a lot more.
- 3eb7988a1663 6mo ago
  For only three countries to be self-sufficient, I suspect there is some funny definition like, "Well Americans eat 100pounds of pork each year, and they have to import pork to hit that number, ergo America is not food self sufficient." When instead you could switch calories to any number of alternatives.
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
- JCattheATM 6mo ago
  > The UK is consistently amongst the lowest household expenditure on food in the entire world. How? > Only 3 countries in the world are self sufficient in food. Surely a small island nation is not one of them?
  - sheikhnbake 6mo ago
    The UK achieves this by having a diet relatively unchanged from that of Londoners during the Blitz
    - JCattheATM 6mo ago
afh1 6mo ago
"The climate", not decades of political mismanagement, has led the UK to its current predicament... In the specific case of immigration the article touches, inexistent border controls and welfare programs and incentives for "refugees" who cross several safe countries to get to England have a lot more impact then the days getting hotter.
metalman 6mo ago
self serving garbage from the "intelligence" aparatus designed to maintain the status quo mumble gump, dressed up as THE WORD

101 points by ewidar 6mo ago

The article makes the impression, that this security threats caused by climate change are somewhat new to gov bodies. As this is not true, the risks for political and societal stability and security have been very well researched in depth in the respective scientific disciplines since the Club of Rome firstly broad this topic to the larger public attention in 1972. But the contradicting forces are not long-term perspectives but short term gains on the political agenda, which makes it much harder to lobby for solutions against threats, which will happen "only" in 5 to 10 years in the future.

mschuster91 6mo ago
That doesn't mean that efforts to suppress awareness and subsequently action against climate change isn't being done to this very day. Some of it is done by governments (such as mentioned here, or with the EPA dismantling in the US), some by hostile governments (e.g. Russia funding a lot of the Western far-right parties that all run on climate change denial), some by fossil fuel companies (e.g. BP creating the "CO2 footprint" to individualize responsibility), and the rest by utterly braindead clown individuals (we used to call them "village idiots") that, thanks to the Internet, now have a global audience.
- actionfromafar 6mo ago
  Or are presidents!
- georgemcbay 6mo ago
  > or with the EPA dismantling in the US In the US I feel we have entered the stage beyond trying to suppress awareness. Not that the government is being honest about it, but they also aren't really trying to hide it. They've just moved to not directly talking about it, and since our mainstream media is fully captured nobody is pushing them to talk about it. We've moved from trying to downplay the impact to just announcing what we plan to do about it as the impacts continue to manifest into reality. We're going to continue down the path of fossil fuels (we have no intention of trying to lessen the severity at the cost of economic growth, number MUST GO UP) and we're going to attempt to take countries (Greenland, Canada) that "benefit" from the changes (at least in terms of having more livable/arable land). Migrants trying to enter the US to escape the catastrophes in their own countries will be thrown into concentration camps or worse. Large parts of the US will be impacted, of course, but those are sacrifices they're willing to make (and, hey... large scale displacement is good for the GDP!). Better double check your insurance policies. Almost all of Trump 2.0's actions to date make a sort of sociopathic sense if you assume the various groups pulling his strings have accepted that large impacts from severe climate change are coming soon and have just decided to YOLO it.

onlyjanand 6mo ago

[dead]

secondcoming 6mo ago

> If collapse happens, it notes the UK does not have the ability to absorb global shocks through higher domestic output. It lacks enough land to feed its population or rear livestock to maintain current consumption patterns and price levels. Yet they're pushing to use farmland for solar farms and social housing. There's a real hatred of farmers among the UK Leftist/Green crowd.

defrost 6mo ago
There's certainly a justified hatred of faux-farmers of convenience such as Clarkson et al. I suspect that's the hatred being mischaracterised and amplified by the GBNews Farrage crowd.
- secondcoming 6mo ago
  No. It's because farmers sometimes pollute rivers (despite household sewage being pumped into UK rivers daily), want to kill badgers to stop TB spreading, and because they work large areas of land they're obviously wealthy.
  - defrost 6mo ago
    Sure, someone always believes such things, .. is that really widespread and a core belief of the "the UK Leftist/Green crowd." ? The constant observation made about the UK is there's always an excess amplification of what various groups are alleged to believe. Last I checked, the current King is in the "Leftist/Green" camp and pro-farmer. (by default, he'd be "UK" and not a "crowd" though).
  - hermitcrab 6mo ago
    Is there any strong evidence that killing badgers reduces bovine TB?
- hdgvhicv 6mo ago
  To his credit Clarkson has done more form farming with his show than countryfile or the archers has done in decades. He bought it as a tax break, but I’d leave not ire for “farmers” like the musician and vacuum cleaner salesman. Nothing caused me to laugh more at the “woe is the millionaire march” than seeing Lloyd Webber and his dog out on the march.

sunshine-o 6mo ago

Here is the solution nobody is talking about: The population of the UK or Europe did not explode in the last hundred years. It did not even double. The population used to be more rural and relatively self sufficient in terms of food. There is actually enough land in Europe to feed everybody, especially considering the great progress we made scientifically. You can actually sustain yourself on a few hundred square meters of land and you won't get fat and be healthier (in your body and mind). The great migration of the local population to the city to get a good factory or a bank job is over I believe. But the country side is still empty. The reason is it is hard to make the jump first and ending up in the middle of nowhere living with a few old people. Also your politicians hate independent people so they are not gonna encourage it. They would rather keep you in a constant guilty state about their vision of "climate change" while letting you board a 10 GBP Ryanair flight for a week-end city trip or order useless things on Temu. For Europe and many other places, the solution to a more sustainable future is actually quite straightforward.

supliminal 6mo ago
I think you’re talking about subsistence farming, which plenty of places in Europe do practice. But it is hard work.
- defrost 6mo ago
  Subsistence farming would be farming to only feed the farmers with little excess left for trade, it's a little too keyhole in this context. They're talking more in the direction of EU scale closed loop / closed cycle agriculture, in which a network of farms across countries interop to exchange resources (pig and chicken waste, for fertilizer, for example) in order to reduce or eliminate outside inputs (synthetic fertilizers from the Gulf, for example), but still work to maximise production for EU consumption.
hdgvhicv 6mo ago
Europe’s big problem is the hindered of millions of climate refugees on the doorstep. Even the most open heart liberal will baulk at the population doubling or more in 20 years. The only ones promising a solution will be the neofeudalists

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

cynicalsecurity 6mo ago

Smells like Soviet censorship.

beejiu 6mo ago

The UK is consistently amongst the lowest household expenditure on food in the entire world. Only 3 countries in the world are self sufficient in food. If this "reasonable worst-case" scenario happens, surely the UK is one of the better placed to deal with it?

AlBugdy 6mo ago
Most countries could easily adapt to other types of food. There are multiple source for carbs, fat and proteins, as well for various micronutrients. Some countries where obesity is rampant could also adapt to eating a lot less than they do now. That would bring the number from 3 (assuming that's true) to a lot more.
3eb7988a1663 6mo ago
For only three countries to be self-sufficient, I suspect there is some funny definition like, "Well Americans eat 100pounds of pork each year, and they have to import pork to hit that number, ergo America is not food self sufficient." When instead you could switch calories to any number of alternatives.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
JCattheATM 6mo ago
> The UK is consistently amongst the lowest household expenditure on food in the entire world. How? > Only 3 countries in the world are self sufficient in food. Surely a small island nation is not one of them?
- sheikhnbake 6mo ago
  The UK achieves this by having a diet relatively unchanged from that of Londoners during the Blitz
  - JCattheATM 6mo ago

afh1 6mo ago

"The climate", not decades of political mismanagement, has led the UK to its current predicament... In the specific case of immigration the article touches, inexistent border controls and welfare programs and incentives for "refugees" who cross several safe countries to get to England have a lot more impact then the days getting hotter.

metalman 6mo ago

self serving garbage from the "intelligence" aparatus designed to maintain the status quo mumble gump, dressed up as THE WORD