Climate, conflict and the transition away from fossil fuels

I'm just wondering if we can talk a bit more about the significance of these outcomes and of this process more generally, given the current developments that we're seeing in the world at the moment.

We have major conflict in the Middle East, where we've already heard reports of environmental and climate implications.

We're seeing also a global militarization and this drive towards rearmament, particularly within the countries that are the biggest problem.

producers of emissions and consumers of fossil fuels.

So what are the links here between these climate and environmental discussions with these emerging challenges that we're seeing in the peace and security environment?

context of what we're seeing in the world, it is so important that we have a conference like the Santa Marta conference that's actually talking about fossil fuels, because we've seen that 25 to 50% of conflict has been linked to the extraction or exploration or just trying to get a hand on the fossil fuel industry and fossil fuel resources.

And we've seen that in addressing the fossil fuel industry and hopefully getting rid of subsidies, hopefully moving more and more away from the fossil fuel industry in this way of extraction.

But I do also have this warning where even when you were asking me the link between climate change, peace and security, I want us to link climate change and peace, but I would be very careful in how we link climate change and security.

Because so often this link has been why the climate change has been treated as a security issue and so as a militarized issue.

If we think of the term that even the International Panel on Climate Change has used, that climate change is a threat multiplier, the climate change is a threat multiplier phrase comes from the U.S. State Secretary of Defense.

And it comes from this resource that is really looking at the climate crisis as a way to militarize the world some more.

For example, in 2013, there was a push for the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement in the Philippines between the US and the Philippines, which basically allows U.S. military to use some Philippine military bases, which is unconstitutional because we'd kicked out the U.S. military bases in the Philippines.

And then the Senate, there was a lot of pushback on this.

But then after Super Typhoon Haiyan or Typhoon Yolanda has been supercharged by the climate crisis, they actually used this and their humanitarian aid of the U.S. military in this disaster response where they used a lot of warships in order to respond to then say, hey, this is actually why you need more militarization.

This is why you need more military bases.

This is why you need us to be there in position.

And what does that mean in this world conflict is that we become a target in the US's war on aggression in Iran because some of the ships that go to Iran have to fuel up in the Philippines.

And so we're already seeing them practicing the same missile that was used to bomb a school in Iran.

The Tomahawk missile was tested in the Philippines in the direction towards China.

And so you're seeing that this is already them saying, oh, it's for climate.

But really, it's more and more towards a militarized world order is really part of this whole geopolitical thing against China from the West.

And so I have a big warning, I guess, when I talk about climate change and security, because we also see that in this same frame of thinking, climate migrants are seen as threats.

And so how do we see climate change and peace linked together, but in a different way, moving away from this same model of extractivist and patriarchal really kind of system that thinks that the way to solve the problems is through fighting it out, because you can't fight it out with the climate crisis.

This needs collaboration.

This needs cooperation.