by frog
Defence and security seems to be my meme for the day. Tane has noted that:
in a resource-constrained post-peak, climate changing world, there won’t be enough to go around. We won’t be able to help the whole world, therefore removing all incentive for them to attack us.
And that seems to be the problem that small islands around the world are struggling with too – what does peak oil and climate change mean for international security?
This week small island nations are tabling a UN resolution [pdf] calling on the UN Security Council to address climate change as a pressing threat to international peace and security. The resolution is sponsored by the states of Fiji, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu and … Canada (which is not quite as small and islandy?)
Avaaz has a supportive petition you can sign that island ambassadors aim to present to the UN General Assembly & Security Council saying action is needed now:
global climate negotiations must accelerate to deliver a strong deal in time to prevent catastrophe, as well as protecting those forced to relocate as a result of global warming. Our common future requires the United Nations to address the international climate crisis with at least as much urgency as it gives to matters of war and peace.
According to Avaaz Palau’s President Remengesau recently said:
“Palau has lost at least one third of its coral reefs due to climate change related weather patterns. We also lost most of our agricultural production due to drought and extreme high tides. These are not theoretical, scientific losses–they are the losses of our resources and our livelihoods…. For island states, time is not running out. It has run out. And our path may very well be the window to your own future and the future of our planet”.
The blog Islands First covers the issue of climate change and security well and in some detail if you want to read more.
Published in Environment & Resource Management | Justice & Democracy | Society & Culture by frog on Thu, September 4th, 2008
Tags: climate change, defence, International Aid, pulau, security, security council, small islands, United Nations
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
“in a resource-constrained post-peak, climate changing world, there won’t be enough to go around. ”
We live in a resource-constrained world now. Always have. And there’s never enough to go around: humans are dying of starvation as you read this.
But the central lesson I got from “Collapse” – Jarrod Diamands history of collapsed civlisations – is that ecological collapse and social crises go together. Collapse of resources means social crisis, which causes rulers to adopt short-term measures to try to manage their urgent problems, even if they know these will long-term aggravate the issue.
Still – the apocalypse isn’t coming. If Green policies are ignored then we face a slow and sad decline, a future less bright. We make things hard for our children – possibly very hard for our grandchildren. But it ain’t the end of the world. Not yet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Agreed, it’s not the end of the world, or even the human species. I guess I focus on something a little less robust. Like NZ society. I like that ours is a (relatively) free, egalitarian, equal, democratic and open society. I like that our ladies can wear short skirts, that homosexuals can be free to love who they want and that people from disadvantaged backgrounds can rise to be millionaire politicians.
And while there’s still a lot of work to be done to improve this situation, I think there’s a lot there worth preserving.
So my focus is on saving NZ society; it’s too late to save ‘the world’, meaning global human civilisation. We missed the boat there decades ago. But we need to prepare for the coming hard times that will lead to enemies within as well as those without. If people like the British National Party can look to Peak Oil as an opportunity, then there will be people in NZ who will use that same chaos and dislocation to take away our freedoms.
I think I can live without my TV, and I’m fairly certain that we won’t starve in NZ. But I’m not so sure about my rights. That’s what really worries me about NZ.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Foreign investors encouraged to buy up
Aug 27, 2008 9:16 AM
Foreign property investors are being encouraged to eye up New Zealand real estate bargains.
A thinning supply of local buyers for higher value investment properties has seen real estate agency Bayleys increase its offshore marketing activity.
Executive Director David Bayley says sales at the top end of the market have slowed in the last few years. He says because of that, they are focusing more attention on promoting properties in Hong Kong, Shanghai, Dubai and Europe.
Bayley says if the recent fall in the kiwi dollar is sustained, he’s expecting a significant pick up in offshore interest – especially out of Asia.”
Hullo, hullo anyone home?
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1318360/2038185
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Tane,
Hear, hear.
- “If people like the British National Party can look to Peak Oil as an opportunity, then there will be people in NZ who will use that same chaos and dislocation to take away our freedoms.”
That would be The Green Party.
– “I think I can live without my TV, and I’m fairly certain that we won’t starve in NZ. But I’m not so sure about my rights. That’s what really worries me about NZ.”
The Green socialist agenda of enforced collectivism is certainly a huge threat to all our freedoms. Just look at how the RMA essentially gutted property rights. Then look at how they stomped all over freedom of speech with the support for the EFA. Look at advertising bans so we’re not allowed to see products which the state disaproves of. The smoking ban. The monstrous and absurd emissions trading scheme. Authoritarianism run amok.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
w d
That conclusion is so funny, and diametrically the opposite of current policy in development, that I have laughed enough to make my ribs hurt.
If those of us who are prepared to think clearly about the consequences of unrestrained consumption change our habits, the only problem you will have is scrabbling to catch up with us, when the consequences of your actions come to your attention.
That is all.
You can maintain status quo for as long as you like, but the consequences will still catch up with you.
Whether you can adapt yourself quickly enough to escape those consequences will be your task, not ours.
Already on the news tonite, I’ve seen rich men bemusedly realising that cliff-top homes are not really worth the millions they paid for them, when the true nature of geology is revealed. Cliffs fall. It’s natural.
So are some of the constraints of living on a bunch of islands in the Pacific.
With compassion, we find solutions for those who are being penalised for the consumption habits of the (northern hemisphere) first world.
Continental Northern America can find it’s own solutions, we’ve got our hands full here just working out what is constant, and what is rapidly changing, for ourselves and our near neighbours.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
wd,
Needless to say I disagree with your analysis. Don’t worry mate, when the Libertarianz sweep to power, having presented a sane, compelling and popular election manifesto, you’ll be safe from all that hideous government intervention. All you need to do is actually convince a couple of million voters.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Tane,
Well, your professed concern for people’s rights certainly didn’t last very long, did it? Suddenly it’s all about how might is right and how control of the government means you get to impose your agenda on everyone else.
Katie,
I understand very well that you’ve got all the excuses in the world for taking away people’s freedoms. You sort of people always do. I understand that you see more clearly than me; that you are a more concerned and caring person than me; that you are selfless while I am selfish; that you are smarter and more informed than me; and I understand that this is why you feel that your agenda trumps my rights and indeed compels you to force your views on everyone else. And so you justify the removal of free speech. You support state censorship. And you support the removal of basic property rights which have always been a prerequisite of a free society.
And I understand that you don’t like my presenting these facts back to you in such stark terms. It’s just not how you see yourself, is it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Of course it is not only small islands that are at risk – all are. Isn’t it interesting that Greens and the left get accused of attempting at every turn of ‘taking away rights’ when it’s always the ‘right’ who pass laws specifically designed to do just that. Like all the repressive, dangerous and un-necessary ones to do with ‘security’ and ‘terrorism’.
As for ‘property rights’, where did this quaint idea come from that somehow we all have ‘the right’ to own property (land) in perpetuity. All land ‘owned’ in the present was taken by force or ‘treaty’ from those who ‘owned’ it in the past. Common land in Europe was enclosed by the rich & powerful & titles handed out to cronies of the ruling elite who bequeathed it to their descendants.
Land in NZ was appropriated by the crown and then sold or given away to all & sundry. The then occupiers in turn had done the same to their predecessors. And so on and so on.
My point is that property ownership is not a right but a man made custom that can and should be changed for the good of all. Perhaps a form of custodianship that had responsibilities as well as rights inherent in it would better serve us all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bigblukiwi says,”Land in NZ was appropriated by the crown and then sold or given away to all & sundry.”
& ” Perhaps a form of custodianship that had responsibilities as well as rights inherent in it would better serve us all.”
Yes, really the crown owns/has control of all the land, ask anyone who has been subject to compulsory purchase for a motorway or similar.
I consider the Russian Anarchist, Peter Kropotkin’s idea of the crown only leasing land, not “selling” it, is worth considering. By this means:-
1. The rights of people regards use of land would be open and honest.
2. The rents from land would enable income tax to be reduced or eliminated.
3. The wealthy would pay proportionately more because of their desire for prime positions and larger areas.
4. Land speculation would not be possible because nobody could buy up land.
5. Overseas investors could only lease land.
6. The NZ people through their government (the crown) would retain control of land use.
This is all from my memory of Kropotkin’s ideas so it is not a thorough outline and may have errors.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)