After the attacks of last November 13th in Paris, much has being said about how risky the setting for the Conference of the Parties on Climate Change (COP21) could be as a potential political “target”, because of the number of Heads of State that will be gathered. Its cancellation or postponement was an option; however, the French Government pointed out that the event will be held, and that security will be strengthened to ensure the event maintains its course. In spite of this, The French Government took the decision of focusing the encounter only on the negotiations, and cancelled demonstrations, such as the protest marches contemplated for November 29th and December 12th.
In this sense, and although civil movements and networks are looking for a “Plan B” to mobilize and send their messages, we are facing a scenario that enhances the complex situation faced by the international community. It is not only the fact that civil society will have higher levels of security and that other events outside the COP headquarters will be cancelled, which could remind us what happened in the COP15 in Copenhagen when, for “security” reasons, civil society was out of the negotiations during the second week was also feared that Heads of State who had confirmed their attendance to the COP could cancel, at the last minute, their participation for the same security reasons, putting at risk the political momentum to reach a global climate agreement.
Yes, as a civil society we are concerned about these scenarios; however, there are other elements that should also draw our attention. The world is facing a critical moment. While some speak about the arrival of a Third World War, others talk about “The New Order”. The truth is that the forces that are being aligned are not necessarily sending a positive message to the world.
Terrorism, as some politicians called it, has being theorized to talk about a model of political pressure that consists on attacking geopolitically strategic points to arouse the fear of the enemies. In this occasion, it was Paris, as a so-called response for the support France has provided to attack Syria. A global outrage for Paris awakened after 100 people were killed and more than 300 were injured. But what about thousands of people that has lost their lives by hydro meteorological phenomena such as hurricanes? Or, what about those who die of starvation due to drought? Both related with climate change. Why outrage is not the same? Hurricane Haiyan in the Philippines claimed 1,200 deaths, 12 times more than the attacks in Paris, just to mention one example. But it is not about the casualties. It is about the sad reality we are facing as humanity in the presence of two activities caused by man himself.
Financing War and Changing the Climate
The interesting thing about this scenario is that, if we analyze the whole context we realize that war, terrorism, and climate change share at least one root: the desire to control and exploit fossil fuel.
Terrorism as a form of control has been unleashed by the existing confrontations between countries in the Middle East and western ones such as the United States. The last ones argue that the first ones are non-democratic and threaten international stability, although deep inside, their confrontations are due, in a large part, to territorial control especially in areas where natural resources such as oil are found. Climate change, for its part, is a result of this same battle, although “more subtle”, where countries want to control fossil fuels due to their dependence on them. And as a result of the accelerated consumption and exploitation of these fossil resources, the emissions of greenhouse gases have increased, leading to the current stage of emissions of more than 380ppm of CO2, which could lead to an increase in temperature of more than 2oC (what today is considered an ideal scenario, in which even the most vulnerable would lose), and, according to the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC for its acronym, in English) possibly even more tan 4oC.
But, who is responsible for war and terrorism, and who is responsible for climate change? For years, war theories point out that these could not being carried out without agents that finance them. The same goes for climate change. If investment in fossil fuels were not as high, and thereby the interests were not so powerful, the problem would be solved more quickly, or perhaps would not exist.
The global military expenditure was estimated at $1,776 billion in 2014, representing 2.3% of global gross domestic product, or what would be equivalent to $245 per person, according to the Stockholm Peace Research Institute. This represented only 0.4% less than in 2013. Of this expenditure, the United States is the largest investor (exceeds the combined total of 32 of the world’s richest countries), and who is known for its role in the provision of armament in civil wars in Africa, Latin America and Middle East. The mentioned Institute points out that North America (primarily the United States) spent $627 billion in 2014. Although this trend has been falling small steps, it is an expense that has been subject to criticism from years ago, when in 2005 the United States was accused of spending more than a billion in weapons, when they only invested 79 thousand dollars in aid for development. In other words, for each $100 delivered to the gun industry, only 7.9 reach the poorest on the planet.
So, while the Unites States accounts for 68.4% of the weapon business, it represents more than 25% of greenhouse gas emissions in the world, besides being the largest per capita emitter, this is, a US citizen emits more CO2 equivalent than any citizen in the world.
However, the historical responsibility of the United States, both terrorism and climate change, brings new players to the scene. China makes its debut as war sponsor while, at the same time, it is also positioned as the world’s largest emitter. East Asia, mainly China, spent $309 billion in weapons in 2014 (only after North America); surpassing the 292 billion USD Central Western Europe spent the same year, which in addition is also the major emitter of greenhouse gases.
Coincidence? Or is it a part of a whole? Climate change is an economic problem that has exceeded the field of environmental issues, and has been placed as a problem of social security by its impact, but above all for the interests caused by it.
Terrorism and climate change will not end if the problems caused by both of them are not faced from their roots: mainly control, use and exploitation of fossil fuels (at least terrorism witnessed today). So, as guilty is the one that makes war as the one that finances it.
Within the framework of the climate change negotiations, it has being stated the need of transferring 100 billion USD per year starting in 2020. In every negotiation session all countries ask themselves the same question: how are they going to get this money? It has been said that in order to attack the climate problem, we would need at least 300 billion USD annually. If only the Unites States, China, and the European Union would invest the 1,228 billion USD destined annually for weaponry to solve the climate change problem, it could be attacked from its roots, and promote the energy transition in many countries in the world. In spite of the previous, both China and the Unites States are offering just 3 billion USD, a much lower figure compared with what they spend in war. Therefore, this moment allows us to reconfirm that it is not lack of money, but unwillingness to invest in the fight against climate change.
A COP for peace
The COP21 is going to be held in a state of war. But is not the first time it happens. What should be different in this COP is a call to reason, not only because of climate change that it is obviously already claiming lives, but to end war. Because lets remember that fighting for resources is something that we could experience in the not-too-distant future, when communities are left without water and food caused by climate change. War should not be the answer to these problems.
In this sense, for the COP to be successful we must ensure two elements: one technical and one political.
Technically: countries must integrate an agreement that determines a long-term goal, both in terms of mitigation and adaptation and financing. Such agreement must mark the guidelines for a broad cooperation, which will not remove responsibilities to developed countries, but which allows sustainable intervention from other countries cooperation that have the desire and the ability to do so. This agreement must approve a coherent, sustainable, predictable and sufficient financial architecture, and should ensure at least the immediate protection of highly vulnerable countries. In addition, it should call for climate financial investment in the world, so in the short term financing becomes climate-friendly and ensures the sustainable development of the entire international community.
Politically: countries must recognize that a triumph in Paris will depend on ensuring the participation of countries such as the Unites States and the European Union in financing and mitigation goals. But they must also recognize that China, India and other countries should play a role. A role which not only depends on control of emissions, but also with the fact that that their economic growing power is consistent with climate protection. This also includes Latin American countries, including Mexico.
Responding to the attacks of November 13th with bombs in Syria is like attacking climate change saying that consuming and exploiting gas (fossil fuel) will end the problem (when it emits more methane than CO2).
Fighting will not end war. Emissions will not decrease with more emissions. For example: in Mexico, despite the fact that gas will increase emissions, the gas industry wants to include gas as a “clean” energetic in the Act of Energy Transition. These interests have stopped the passing of the bill in the Senate, and with it the opportunity for Mexico to become a real climate leader.
Democracy is not achieved by silencing the voters; democracy is built through dialogue. As Alfredo Jalife states, what we need is not a clash of civilizations, but a dialogue of civilizations and the COP is a scenario that needs to bring that element. A COP for peace is what we need, where parties that have already launched their INDCs (even if they are very limited) set forth to increase their ambition and meet their goals, and those who have not done so are forced to do it. And that is where we will have to focus our attention.
Terrorism, war and climate change are great threats to humanity that can be controlled by the human being, as is his boundless ambition what causes them. Therefore, Paris should be for climate change, Paris should be for peace; Paris should be for the future of humanity.
