With the Trump administration denying climate change and de-fanging the EPA, what is the US military thinking - and planning to do? Can their power and influence help the climate movement succeed? Who will be protected, who will be neglected, who will suffer, and who will pay, if the military get their way? What about the intelligence agencies? What are the consequences of viewing climate change through the lens of national security? Is there a better way?
What if government and corporate elites have given up on stopping climate change and prefer to try to manage its consequences instead? In the weeks running up to the major UN Climate Change Conference in Paris (COP21), this event examined issues raised by a new book, 'The Secure and the Dispossessed: How the Military and Corporations are Shaping a Climate-Changed World'
The desperate search for ways to combat climate change gives rise to new mitigation policies and projects, such as the support of large-scale ‘sustainable ’ forestry plantations. However, climate justice and climate mitigation cannot be met as long as large-scale industrial plantations continue to marginalise small-scale indigenous forest users who actively protect biodiverse forests.
The EU could play a valuable role in preventing another flawed climate deal if it neutralises the US and brings other ditherers on board while starting talks on future obligations for the emerging economies.
Theman-madeclimate changeis one of thegreatest challenges of ourtime.How canclimate changeon a global scalebe fair and just?What ideasandconcepts are therefor thepeople in the Southto live a goodlifewithout imitatingtheconsumption and production patternsof the North?And whatis the rolein this process ofpoliticaland civil society?
Climate talks in Lima will be subject to intense lobbying by some of the biggest industrial polluters. They not only cause serious social and environmental conflicts where they extract fossil fuels, their capture of decision-making also prevents a real solution to the climate crisis.
This public event will highlight the risks that provisions negotiated as part of trade agreements – such as ISDS – can pose for governments’ ability to regulate to protect the environment and act on climate change.
Philippa de Boissière, Joanna Cabello, Thomas McDonagh, Aldo Orellana López, Jim Shultz, Pascoe Sabido, Rachel Tansey, Sian Cowman
01 December 2014
An examination of the destructive environmental record of Repsol, Glencore Xstrata and Enel-Endesa in Latin America and worldwide is clear evidence that transnational corporations should have no place in decision-making around the climate.
There is no shortage of words in the latest negotiating document for the UN climate negotiations taking place in Paris at the end of November – 32,731 words to be precise and counting. Yet strangely there is one word you won’t find: military. It’s a strange omission, given that the US military alone is the single largest user of petroleum in the world and has been the main enforcer of the global oil economy for decades.
A new Canada-EU trade deal, called the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), could expose Canada and Europe to a wave of corporate lawsuits that would restrict governments’ power to regulate in the public interest—including in confronting climate change.