Sustainability – Government Denial

“A lobby group funded by one of the world’s largest oil companies has offered scientists and economists $10,000 each to undermine a major report on climate change due to be released today.” Guardian science correspondent Ian Sample recorded in his report dated Friday, February 2, 2007. “Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an Exxon Mobil-funded think tank with close ties to the US federal administration. The US offered payments for articles that highlight the shortcomings of a report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), travel expenses and additional payments were also offered, “he continued.

Incidentally, the UN report was authored by international experts and is widely considered the most comprehensive review yet of the science of climate change.
On September 19, 2006, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), a ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform, has just released a series of emails from the Commerce Department suggesting that Bush officials “tried to to prevent a federal scientist from discussing the link between global warming and hurricanes. In a letter to Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, Waxman details how CNBC requested an interview with NOAA scientist Tom Knutson in October 2005, a month after Hurricane Katrina, “to discuss whether global warming is contributing to the number or intensity of hurricanes.

I mean, who are we kidding by doing all this?

None except us. Just for a moment, let’s forget about everyone else in this world. How much more is required to claim that masking the truth will only kill you, your living parents, children, grandchildren, and everyone and everyone close and dear enough to care.

We are all partners in arrears, within the process of global warming. Responsible governments must realize that our unsustainable practices are an integral part of our daily lives. But we must know this fact, that absent some decisive action on our part, the true cost of our actions will be borne by our own future generations, even beginning with our own. As UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warns, “That would be an inconceivable legacy; one we all must come together to warn of. As it stands, the damage already inflicted on our ecosystem will take decades, perhaps centuries, to reverse.” If we act now.”

Effect of war on the environment:

Dr Stuart Parkinson. The Executive Director, Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR), analyzed very well the relationship between war and the environment.

We all have to agree on three basic truths.

• Environmental resources are one of the main causes of war and conflict.
• War and Conflict, in turn, cause Environmental Pollution that hinders Sustainability.
• Lack of sustainability creates stress on environmental resources, leading to wars and conflicts to gain access to scarce resources.

This is a cyclical process, one causes the other and, in turn, leads to the extinction of all perceptible living things on earth.

to analyze how environmental influences Conflict/Warand how that in turn affects Sustainability, let’s review the following truths:

• The 1960s saw the peak of new oil reserves. The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO) argues that peak annual production will occur in the next few years (or possibly just happened), with global demand outstripping production soon after. Prices are likely to rise rapidly, and the current price shocks are just an early indication of that.
• Whatever world oil reserves remain, they are concentrated in small areas, for example the Middle Eastern states that hold 65% of the reserves, although there is growing concern that they have exaggerated the size of their reserves.
• Domestic consumption far exceeds domestic production in most major countries
• The projected growth in consumption is enormous
• With oil supply concentrated in a politically unstable region of the world and the possibility of demand outstripping supply in the near future, economic problems are likely to increase the possibility of conflict.
• We urgently need to move away from our high dependence on oil; even President George W. Bush has acknowledged the need to end “the addiction to oil” in his 2006 and 2007 State of the Union addresses.

References: Energy Information Administration (2006); ASPO (2006); Nour (2006); Wikipedia (2007b); The White House (2007)

Now let’s perceive what war/conflict does to the environment:

During the 1991 Gulf War:

• Oil well fires – over 600 wells burned, some burning for 9 months – sun blocked by smoke – temperature dropped 10°C; approximately 1,000 people died from the acrid smoke; 300 million tons of CO2 released contributing to climate change
• Oil-polluted groundwater: 60 million barrels seeped into the ground and poisoned 40% of groundwater (Kuwait has less water per capita than any other country)
• Oil spill at sea – at least 6 million barrels of oil leaked into the sea causing the largest oil slick ever seen – devastated local populations of birds, mammals and fish – decimated shrimp fisheries
• Landmines and other UXO, eg cluster bombs: 1.6 million landmines planted by Iraqi forces in Kuwait; about 5% of bombs fail to explode on impact (higher % in desert) – many people killed/injured
• Depleted Uranium (DU) – super dense metal used in armor-piercing weapons – approximately 290 tons spread throughout the Gulf – source of toxicity and low-level radioactivity
• Damage to desert ecology: Obvious bomb damage, but also armored vehicle movements broke the fragile ground surface: approximately 50% of Kuwait’s land area was damaged.

References: UNEP (2003); Additional information from: New Scientist (2003); Friends of the Earth (2003); Meditate (2002)

Also, the following figures will give you a better idea of ​​what armed conflict between governments has and can do on this earth.

• Oil consumption by military forces
• USA – 133 million barrels in 2005
• 2% of total US oil consumption
• similar to the total consumption of Sweden
• only 2 out of 56 African countries consume more oil than the US military
• the actual figure could be up to double due to accounting errors abroad
• United Kingdom – 7 million barrels in 2004
• 1% of total UK oil consumption
• similar to total Namibian consumption
• CO2 emissions from the military
• USA – ~60Mt in 2005
• 1% of total US emissions
• similar to the total emissions of Finland
• UK – ~5Mt in 2005
• 1% of total UK emissions
• similar to the total emissions of Senegal
• Large military forces are contributing significantly to the depletion of oil resources and climate change; both are likely to increase the risk of conflict that military forces are said to be there to prevent!
• Climate change could increase the risk of conflict, especially in developing countries:
• Water scarcity will increase with rising temperatures (and with rising populations): the number of people living in “water stressed” areas is expected to rise from 1.7 billion in 2000 to 5 billion in 2025
• Rising sea levels and increased storm events will increase the risk of flood damage, especially in densely populated coastal areas: tens of millions more people are likely to be affected by the 2080s.
• Disruption of agriculture is likely
• Together, these factors could lead to a large increase in the number of “environmental refugees.”

References: Military consumption figures/CO2 emissions estimated by SGR-based data from DESC (2006) and MoD (2006). Additional information from: IPCC (2001), Karbuz (2006), UNEP (2007)

Bottom line:

It is one thing to know the facts like the above and recognize the truth that “what we are doing is wrong.” All governments and all military corporations must simply not recognize the damage they are doing to this world. They need to accept responsibility. Continued censorship of the truth will only drive the truth away and bring the destruction of this world closer.

The government can do many things to put things right and ensure sustainability. To begin with, they can reduce the consumption of fossil fuels, especially oil, and implement and simply not establish policies and measures to support the changes, such as green taxes, carbon trading, regulation, R&D support, etc. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change can be strengthened, especially with binding targets for the largest emitters (the largest being the US) based on the “Contraction and Convergence” principles. The global flow of small arms to the poorest countries can be stopped, as their environmental resources are already under pressure and therefore conflict is likely. This can be achieved by strengthening the UN program of action to eradicate illegal small arms by having all countries agree to a UN arms trade treaty. The United States, which has the highest levels of small arms in private hands and is the world’s largest arms exporter, resists these efforts. Another great effort that every government can make is to reduce dependence on the military as a way of dealing with international problems. This will also help reduce your carbon emissions!

The first step towards Sustainability must be acceptance…acceptance of responsibility for the resulting catastrophe, following current trends of military action and government denials. The power of corporations, especially military corporations, with their ability to lobby for favorable policies, needs to be curbed. Denial is merely fooling oneself and fooling the world; although the truth remains. Governments and military corporations must ask themselves: “Can we live with the truth that we have destroyed the world?”