Prosperity Amidst Chaos

"While scientists are converging toward consensus on future climate projections, uncertainty remains. But this cannot be an excuse for delaying action." – Chuck Hagel, Secretary of Defense 2014 Climate Change Adaptation Report by the Defense Department.

Hagel, a main contributor to the Kyoto Kill Bill back in ’97 has definitely altered his tune. Much of that has to do with the fact that he is no longer tied to a conservative constituency and the fact that we works for a president that in some ways may be staking his presidency on an international climate treaty in Paris in 2015. More likely, as secretary of defense, he now views the world through very different shades of grey than he once did.  The responsibilities to defend, and prepare to defend the United States lay directly on his shoulders, and one must imagine that this is a very heavy burden to bear.  Whatever the reason is, Hagel “gets it” that the United States must prepare for low probability, high consequence risk.

Like all phenomenal catastrophes, climate change not only presents monumental challenges, but also grand opportunities.  Countries boarding the Arctic Circle recognize this.  Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, all traditionally more pacifist than not, are following suit with the likes of Russia. They are using precious national treasure to hedge their bets that climate change will present an opportunity to exploit energy resources in previously unobtainable areas.  International relations tell us that countries rarely do things for altruistic purposes.  The world is too large and complex and resources too finite to go sinking them into every potential conflict or net gain scenario. On the surface the moves made by these northern neighbors seem to be more self serving than the comments and potential actions that Hagel mentions for the United States.  One must then ask what it is Hagel and the military industrial complex views as the potential gain for the United States in preparing for climate change? A simple answer is mere stability.

Gidden points out that despite the huge strides that have been made toward the millennium development goals, particularly in regards to the elimination of poverty, there are still huge swaths of people living on this planet that are just below or just at the subsistence poverty line.  It is well known and documented that although these groups did not produce the majority of the carbon in the oceans and atmosphere, they are the most vulnerable to the consequences it will bring. These consequences range from droughts and floods to mass starvation and migrations. It is possible that the U.S. recognizes these events will bring about and even more chaotic world and that the best way to prepare to continue in its role as a global power broker is to maintain stability for its economic and political structures. The disconnect then, in my mind, is how one can view these events as potential risks and feel that the need for preparing for them outweighs or is more valuable than the need for mitigating them altogether. To ask it simply, is a chaotic world with few states of relative stability more valuable and prosperous for the United States than a world with a more widespread stability and economic prosperity?