Kent claimed that the Kyoto protocol “will not work” when China and USA is not participating and that the global climate change agreement doesn’t “represent a way forward for Canada”.

“As we said from the outset, the Kyoto Protocol did not represent the path forward for Canada”, Kent said in a statement to the House of Commons.

“Before this week, the Kyoto Protocol covered less than 30% of global emissions. Now it covers less than 13% — and that number is only shrinking. The Kyoto Protocol does not cover the world’s two largest emitters – the United States and China – and therefore will not work.”

The Kyoto protocol, Kent said, would force Canada to implement “radical and irresponsible action” that would result in “the loss of thousands of jobs.” Kent also expressed criticism against Canada’s obligation under the protocol to transfer about $14 billion to poorer countries to help them to mitigate and respond to the effects of climate change.

And so the conservative government in Canada ignores both the economical differences between the North and the South as well as the historical responsibility Canada has when it comes to climate change.

“The Harper government has imposed a death sentence on many of the world’s most vulnerable populations by pulling out of Kyoto,” said Greenpeace climate and energy campaigner Mike Hudema.

But why is Canada really withdrawing from the Kyoto protocol? The Canadian government blames it on USA for not being part of the global climate treaty, saying it stops Canada from competing economically on the world market. But others say that the real reason is Canada’s climate killing tar sands.

“One of the reasons that Canada is not meeting its goals is because it has opted not to hobble oil-sands production — in fact, the government has encouraged it. And although many sectors of its economy have drawn down emissions, the tar-sands industry has more than made up for those drops. So Canada was faced with a choice: money from tar sands or climate change. It’s choosing climate change.”

Back in Europe, another conservative government led by PM David Cameron has secretly been helping Canada to push its dirty and deadly tar sands project on EU markets. Conservative governments and politicians around the world are busy trying to delay the implementation of climate policies and now even abandoning the world’s only global climate treaty. At the same time socialistic governments are trying to device the “radical” changes needed to confront the climate crisis. Such as the red and green coalition in Denmark which has set plans in motion to completely end their reliance on fossil fuels.

So what does Canada’s withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol mean? Considering the fact that Canada has increased their greenhouse gas emissions with nearly 20% since 1990 they never really were a part of the Kyoto protocol anyway. So for the climate crisis it doesn’t do much difference. But future UN negotiations will certainly become even more polarized and the mistrust created will surely delay, or in worse case even sabotage, efforts to secure a global climate deal for 2020 and beyond. But one thing that is painfully clear now is that a legally binding climate deal does not guarantee countries won’t ignore or walk away from their commitments.

A report released by the China Council of International Cooperation on Environment and Development included the influential opinions of over 200 experts (both international and domestic), and it ultimately concluded that China has the potential to create more than 9.5 million jobs over the next five years. The catch is that this would be contingent upon China replacing the current industry jobs that are less eco-friendly with jobs that focus on renewable technologies and green energy.

The aforementioned council has thus advised China’s government to move forward fiscally and to spend 5.8 trillion yuan toward green ventures. The council calculated that doing such would result in a green GDP boost of 8 trillion, and that the energy-saving processes would also save 1.4 trillion yuan. The current, dirty parts of the economy result in both a loss of jobs and GDP. Li Ganje, the vice minister of Environmental Protection, explains, “The industrial sector is still the prime energy consumer and a major cause of pollution, so greening the sector is key for China’s green transformation.”

The council’s report was not altogether positive; it also outlined the repercussions of the current environmental state, and says, “The blind pursuit of economic growth has now become a huge obstacle for China’s green growth.”  Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN’s Environment Program, commented with the release of the report, citing health repercussions: “They are paying a price first of all individually by premature deaths. . . . Respiratory diseases and premature deaths in the hundreds of thousands.”

Is China serious about making big changes, or are they too dependent on the current system? Join in the discussion in the comments below and/or share the piece.

IEA predicts that over the next five years the world will build so many dirty factories, fossil-fuelled power stations and energy inefficient buildings that it will become impossible for us to stop global warming from rushing past safe climate levels. And so they warn that our last chance against dangerous climate change will be lost forever. Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, said that “the door is closing.”

“I am very worried – if we don’t change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum for safety. The door will be closed forever.”

Everything that produces greenhouse gas emissions, such as dirty coal plants and other fossil-fueled power stations, which are being constructed from now on, will continue to spew out carbon for decades to come. And this will lock the world on a path towards irreversible climate change with disastrous effects. The Guardian reports:

“If the world is to stay below 2C of warming, which scientists regard as the limit of safety, then emissions must be held to no more than 450 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; the level is currently around 390ppm. But the world’s existing infrastructure is already producing 80% of that “carbon budget”, according to the IEA’s analysis, published on Wednesday. This gives an ever-narrowing gap in which to reform the global economy on to a low-carbon footing.

If current trends continue, and we go on building high-carbon energy generation, then by 2015 at least 90% of the available “carbon budget” will be swallowed up by our energy and industrial infrastructure. By 2017, there will be no room for manoeuvre at all – the whole of the carbon budget will be spoken for, according to the IEA’s calculations.”

A couple of days before the IEA “bombshell” the US department of energy released another gloomy report which showed that global carbon dioxide emissions rose with 6% in 2010, greatly exceeding the worst case scenario outlined by the IPCC. Al Jazeera English reports:

“In 2007, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its last large report on global warming, it used different scenarios for carbon dioxide pollution, and said the rate of warming would be based on the rate of pollution.

Tom Boden (director of the Energy Department’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee) said the latest figures put global emissions higher than the worst case projections from the climate panel. Those forecast global temperatures rising between 2.4 and 6.4 degrees Celsius by the end of the century with the best estimate at four degrees Celsius.”

According to the report the world released around 564 million more tonnes of carbon emissions into the air during the last year compared to previous levels in 2009. The increase in emissions mainly comes from China and the USA which alone stood for more than half of the emissions in 2010. But more and more emissions come from developing countries. “We really need to get the developing world because if we don’t, the problem is going to be running away from us,” climate scientist Andrew Weaver from the University of Victoria said. “And the problem is pretty close from running away from us.” But “the more we talk about the need to control emissions, the more they are growing,” John Reilly, co-director of MIT’s Joint Programme on the Science and Policy of Global Change, said.

It’s now clearer than ever. We must start to aggressively change our high-carbon energy systems to more clean and renewable energy sources, scrap our massive fossil fuel subsidies and deploy a myriad of climate policies such as a carbon tax. We only have a few remaining years to make a difference until we must face certain and worldwide climate catastrophe. It looks grim, really grim to be honest. But we can’t give up just yet. Let’s put up a good fight.

Recipe for an oil war

Heritage Oil and Tullow Oil are guessing the 2.5 billion barrel or larger field is the largest onshore field found in sub-saharan Africa in more than two decades. Production of 150,000 barrels of oil per day by 2015 place Uganda among top 50 oil producing nations is planned. The latter company, Irish Tullow Oil, is now accused of having bribed three Ugandan ministers with 100 million USD in July 2010 in return for concessions. The ministers resigned October 2011. Tullow denies allegations, maintain an anti-bribe image and have funded a lake rescue station which they claim have already saved the lives of more than 70 local fishermen. Also in the deal are French Total and Chinese Cnooc. Those corporations are expected to claim 2/3 of the 3-4 billion USD hoped to be made annually.

A leaked US embassy cable (Wikileaks, #08KAMPALA393) reveals Uganda have been asking for help stepping up security in and around the oil rich area. John Morley of Tullow Oil is quoted for saying that as oil activity on Lake Albert increase a security presence would be vital. The cable mention “several clashes on Lake Albert between oil companies and entities from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) demonstrate that oil production has increased local tensions and exacerbated cross-border hostilities”. In 2007 a British drilling platform worker was killed by Congolese soldiers who claimed the barge had strayed into Congolese waters. Although the Ugandan and Congolese governments are talking and are in agreement concerning the precise geography of the border the armed forces on the Congolese side of the border are not always government-related.

An intervention overdue?

Several militias fight in the area and in just recent months thousands have had to fled their homes, hundreds have been kidnapped. Adding to the Congolese militias the Democratic Liberation Forces of Rwanda (FDLR) rebels as well as the infamous Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) led by Joseph Kony add to the insecurity. FDLR is a Hutu group whose two top leaders are held in France and Germany on charges of crimes against humanity yet whose troops raped at least 154 civilians from July 30 to August 3, 2010, in the town of Luvungi. LRA is the Ugandan theocratic militia of self-proclaimed prophet Joseph Kony, who claims to be acting on orders from spirits sent by God, and whose ranks have been inflated by an estimated 66,000 children abducted for soldiering. October 2005 the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants on Kony and four other leading members of LRA; the 33 charges include murder, enslavement, sexual enslavement and pillaging.

Recently, the Ugandan presiden spent US$780 million on six Russian jet fighters. A decision that raises eyebrows in a country with a GDP of less than 500USD per capita.

“We don’t live in an enemy-free neighbourhood. So, don’t look at the purchase in terms of cost. The Great Lakes region is one of the most unsafe regions.”
- Ugandan presiden Yoweri Museveni

Since 2008 the US have donated more than 40 million USD on supporting the Local counter-militia efforts. And now 100 Green Berets have been sent as military advisers for the governments of the region. They are receiving a warm welcome.

“For 20 years, the government of Uganda has been pleading with our American and European friends to help in the LRA problem, because these are international terrorists. We wanted our friends to help in providing technical support — such as intelligence — because they have the best.”
- Uganda’s acting foreign minister Henry Okello Oryem

“Any support to tackle the LRA is a good move [...] South Sudan is already working with Uganda’s army in operations against the LRA, and we will be pleased to work with anyone who can help us combat the threat [...] We have large communities whose lives are ruined by these rebels, so the sooner we can end this once and for all will be something we will look forward to.”
- South Sudan army spokesman Philip Aguer

“The Central African Republic today more than needs external assistance like that of United States [...] Many hundreds of our people have been killed, others kidnapped or displaced, their homes ransacked, destroyed, their possessions looted. It is unbearable.”
- CAR Deputy defence minister Jean-Francis Bozize

Thus, the link between the US troops and the oil is still a “conspiracy theory”. Obama and the US is simply making friends while helping the world get rid of monsters. Human Rights Watch has advocated for intervention for years.

Yet at home knee-jerk reactions are dominated by right-wing isolationism/grudges and left-wing anti-war sentiments.

The enemy within

A recent report, “Oil Extraction and the Potential for Domestic Instability in Uganda”, warns about other dangers than cross-border guerrilla warfare: the possible side-effects of a sudden large scale resource industry entering a developing economy. President Museveni, who first seems to have orchestrated the addition of a third presidential term to the constitution then won a low turnout election disputed by international observers, is already speaking of “his” oil.

“If Museveni gains access to substantial oil revenue, the combination of considerable oil funds and strong presidential powers could increase the ability of his government to remain in power indefinitely. [...] Increases in corrupt behavior would essentially require secrecy in government dealings. A reduction in government transparency in oil and tax revenue management would then incentivize Museveni’s government to become increasingly autocratic in its relationship with the public and political opponents, as has so often been the pattern in other oil producing states.”

Also, susceptibility to the Dutch Disease should be considered:

“If the government does not reinvest revenues into public works to soften the blow of economic change, domestic instability may ensue [...] The poor and disaffected youths are the most likely to turn to violence in order to redress socio-political grievances. A young, growing, and increasingly urban population indicates the potential for civil strife in Uganda. The added stress of urban migration associated with oil production may only exacerbate the dynamics behind civil strife. [...] If Museveni’s government makes its decisions public and is held accountable, it is more likely to choose anti-corruption policies that are favorable to the public interest.”

The report estimate the risk of civil war in Uganda as 1.96% if the new found resource wealth is handled wisely, 14.05% if not. Dutch Disease effects could be both mitigated and worsened by the fact that multiple industries are likely to boom: in 2010 firms from Russia, China, India, Australia and South Africa started operating in Uganda after finds of copper, iron ore, cobalt, tin, gold and platinum.

“We must be Africa’s Norway. We must manage our oil resources in the stellar manner in which Botswana has managed its wealth from diamonds.”
- Bank of Uganda Governor, Emmanuel Mutebile

We haven’t heard much from the hopeful Iraqi politicians who once voiced similar intentions with their oil. However, it does seem Obama is at least trying to do better than his predecessor(s). And if a US president can’t even go to war against someone as evil as Joseph Kony he truly can do nothing at all – yet, who knows if the Tea Party will side with Kony and his lunatic army?

Learn more: The Independent (Uganda) / Oil could cause war, Capital News (Kenya) / Uganda welcomes US troops to hunt rebel leaders, Sunday Monitor (Uganda) / Here is what is at stake with Uganda’s oil, The Atlantic / Why Is Obama Sending Troops Against the Lord’s Resistance Army?, allafrica.com / Uganda: Scramble for Minerals Begins.

The Chinese government announced this on the back of record investment in renewable technology in 2010 overtaking the U.S. for the first time in 2010 with an astounding $54.4Bn being invested in the renewable sector. This compares with the US at $34Bn and the UK about a tenth of that at $3.3Bn. $54.8Bn equates to about 56,000MW of installed hydro power, 44,000MW of installed wind capacity and 800MW of installed solar power. The BBC reported that a total of $211Bn was invested globally last year with a 32% growth rate in the renewable sector. Using my back of the envelope calculation, this equates to the renewable market doubling every two-and-a-bit years, a formidable growth.

China, it would seem, is a good place to invest in renewable technology. So good in fact, that back in June of this year the World Bank awarded China and seven other countries grants to be used directly in organising, implementing and developing climate change mitigation technologies.

This all sounds very promising but, as with nearly every bit of good news, there is an important addendum which highlights a more subdued reality. Last year China emitted 7.7Bn tonnes of carbon equivalent which is a 13.3% increase on last year’s total. Since 2000 China’s CO2 emissions have risen by 170.6% and have been closely related to the country’s Gross Domestic Product growth. This is why the huge investment in renewable technologies is so important, as it is the only way to break the link between carbon emissions and GDP growth. In a world where GDP growth is king, the Chinese government could be showing the way in sustainable energy production and low carbon emissions.

The coming few years are going to be very interesting.

The KWP officials said that the main purpose of their visit was to learn from China’s experience in the geothermal sector. CPC officials said that “China would like to enhance its exchanges with the DPRK in the field in order to jointly improve their capability to develop and utilize renewable energy.”

Share of combustible renewables and waste steadily increased between 1989 and 1996 after which its share has become stagnant. The country is also rich in hydro power resources which, according to available data constitutes about 50% of the total generation capacity.

Renewable energy would prove extremely helpful for North Korea’s economic growth as the country is heavily dependent on imported fuels. North Korea depends on oil imports from Russia, China and Iran.

The U.N. chief warned that humanity is “running out of time.”

He told the gathering of heads of State, international economists, business leaders and representatives of civil society that to avoid national and global “disaster” will require balanced development that will lift millions out of poverty and, at the same time, protect the planet and ecosystems that support economic growth. He said, “It is good business – good politics – and good for society.”

“China is going to leave all of us in the dust,” Christiana Figueres, head of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change declared the previous day, the Associated Press reported.

The diplomat leading the U.N. Climate talks said that China is surpassing the U.S. and Europe in developing clean and low-carbon energy as a way to spur its economy.

“China is committed to winning the green economy race,” she said. “And honestly they are not doing it just because they want to save the planet. They are doing it because it’s good for the economy.”

Last year China increased spending on low-carbon energy by 30 percent to $51.1 billion, “by far the largest figure for any country,” according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The accounting firm Ernst & Young reported in September that China for the first time surpassed the U.S. in its quarterly index of the most appealing countries for renewable energy projects.

“You can leapfrog – you don’t have to follow the model of the north,” Figueres declared. “China is showing this.” China’s chief climate negotiator Su Wei has said his country will boost energy efficiency in its next five-year plan being worked out this year.

European Union Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard called on U.S. business to take greater initiative in embracing a more energy-efficient economic model.

Governments can provide the conditions for green growth by setting “a price on carbon,” Hedegaard said. “If it costs a lot to pollute a lot, then business has an incentive to pollute less.”

This article was first published in People’s World on February 4th, 2011.
Author: Juan Lopez.

The photo shows the second hydrogen explosion at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi No. 3 reactor in Japan.

The ongoing nuclear crisis in Japan has sparked new life in the nuclear energy debate in many countries. And the fear for possible nuclear accidents in other countries forces politicians to reconsider and review their current energy policy stance.

The continued protests against nuclear energy in Germany has seen an upswing during these past days. About 60,000 people formed a chain around a nuclear power station in Germany this weekend to protest its continued operation. And chancellor Angela Merkel is expected to announce the suspension of the country’s plans to extend the life of its nuclear power stations later today, the Guardian reports.

In USA people and politicians are starting to question President Barack Obama’s plans to expand and build new nuclear power plants to meet growing energy demands in the country. The independent and strongly pro-nuclear Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, have said that the USA should “put the brakes on nuclear power plants“:

“I don’t want to stop the building of nuclear power plants. But I think we’ve got to kind of quietly put, quickly put, the brakes on until we can absorb what has happened in Japan as a result of the earthquake and the tsunami and then see what more, if anything, we can demand of the new power plants that are coming on line.”

In Britain the Green lawmaker Caroline Lucas have said that the Japanese nuclear crisis strengthens the case against new nuclear construction. “You will never be able to completely design out human error, design failure or natural disaster,” she said. Walt Patterson, associate fellow at London’s Chatham House thinktank, said that, the financial damages of a potential nuclear accident also played a big role in shaping the energy debate in Brian and Europe.

“That is undoubtedly going to filter back to the debate in Europe as a further factor in the very dubious economics of these plants,” he told Reuters.

The plans to expand nuclear energy in India for around $175 billion might, in light of the current situation in Japan, see a strong public backlash, analysts and experts say:

“The Japan accident has created a very, very tough situation for India, actual implementation of nuclear power projects will now certainly take a backseat,” said Debasish Mishra, Mumbai-based senior director at Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. “It will be very difficult to sell the idea of nuclear power to people for any political party after the Japan disaster.”

While the nuclear crisis in Japan might not change the Chinese government’s plans to develop more nuclear power it could force China to review their energy policies. The current situation in Japan “may become a factor in the drafting of China’s energy plans, Xie Zhenhua, vice chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission, said in Beijing.”

“The accident in Japan may trigger increased public concerns over building atomic plants,” said Dave Dai, a Hong Kong-based analyst at Daiwa Securities Capital Markets Co. “China will become more cautious while developing nuclear-power plants but is unlikely to alter its long-term nuclear development plans.”

E-waste stands for electronic waste. This includes anything from discarded and broken cell phones, computers, iPods, and small appliances.

Developed nations are dealing with a crisis of overconsumption, which produces many harmful consequences. One of these consequences is e-waste, which is created when electronic products are thrown away. Unfortunately, the production, consumption and ultimate disposal of e-waste is sped up with planned obsolescence, when products are intentionally designed to have a short lifespan—they either break quickly and cannot be repaired inexpensively, or new versions are continually being designed to replace older ones. With the technology available to us, products can be designed to last for decades, if not longer. However, things seem to be lasting for less and less time. This is all in the name of profit, benefitting corporations that want consumers to keep buying products. According to Greenpeace USA, the average lifespan of computers in developed countries has dropped from six years in 1997 to just two years in 2005, and mobile phones have a lifecycle of less than two years in developed countries.

But the dangers don’t come solely from the waste itself; even more severe problems occur when the waste is broken apart. When e-waste is disposed of, it is often sent overseas where people in struggling developing nations take apart the products to recycle the e-waste and attempt to salvage parts with any value. Some recycling companies that appear to be reputable engage in this careless practice as well. North America and Europe are known to export a large percentage of their e-waste to countries like India, China, and Ghana.

In the process of taking apart the electronics, these overseas workers are exposed to dangerous toxins, putting themselves, their families and their environment at risk. These toxins include heavy metals such as lead, beryllium and mercury, as well as chlorinated solvents, flame retardants and polyvinyl chloride (PVC). These are all deadly chemicals. Why should people in developing countries have to pay for the greed of our wasteful consumer society? 

What can you do about E-waste?

1. Rethink the amount of electronics you buy: don’t buy a new cell phone just because your contract expires and you can get the newest version that everyone else is getting. Also, look into getting your small appliances repaired before buying new ones. Reduce, re-use and recycle, in that order. Remember that no matter what advertising tells us, things don’t make us happy.
2. When you do have to get rid of electronics, recycle them with reputable companies. You can also contact the company where your product came from in the first place, and ask them if they have a take-back program. Always ask the recycling depot or company if they send the electronics overseas. If they don’t give a clear answer, choose somewhere else. Or, do some research and check with environmental organizations that would be able to direct you to a recycling depot in your area.
3. Support groups that are against e-waste. Recently, students from Simon Fraser University have formed a group to ban e-waste on campus. With plans to make an educational documentary to raise awareness of e-waste, teach people where they can safely recycle their electronics, challenge the amount of electronic waste people produce, and create an “E-waste Day” at SFU, the group is determined to tackle the issue of e-waste. To support them, join the Facebook group “Stop E-waste at SFU”, and follow the blog http://e-waste2011.blogspot.com/, which they update with their weekly progress, and you can find links to educational resources on e-waste and recycling depots around Vancouver.

Photo credit: Greenpeace India

For those of us with academic backgrounds in ecological science and/or a couple of years of climate debate behind us several of its chapters are climate change science and policy repetition. But for me – working on mapping the links between natural resources and conflict – chapter 1 is a great summary with extra insights to the geopolitics of predicted climate change impacts.

And the factual chapters are interspersed with scenarios which are great and briefly outlined below. Being eager to dissect the book for information I find the structure of the factual / non-scenario chapters a bit too mixed up to help make the book as a whole more of a page turning thriller. COP15, for example, is summarized in chapter 6, Real World Politics. Perhaps I could have done with the part about the Copenhagen Accord [p. 209]:

Only a last minute intervention by the British, Americans and Australians, who called for an adjournment and used it to bundle the hapless Rasmussen out of the chair [My emphasis. I have a thing about the obvious incompetence of the Danish prime minister], prevented the ‘Copenhagen Accord’ from being formally rejected at the plenary session. During the recess, they managed to negotiate a last minute compromise in which the accord was neither accepted or rejected. It was simply ‘noted’. And with that, everybody went unhappily off to bed and thence to the airport.

But not only is that entire chapter about COP15 – the topic is mentioned several other places in the book. Similar little issues with, for example, the necessary scientific explanations which come and go in different chapters. Exactly where they are needed, perhaps, if you don’t know them already and isn’t a “book dissector” like me. And underlining the fact that diplomacy and war are each others extensions.

The Dyer scenarios

The future scenarios are not predictions. They are more like not unlikely cases told with some necessary filling from Dyer’s imagination. The longer into the future one tries to imagine the more uncertainty is in play – but the first scenarios are quite imaginable. Although summed up in chronology below they are not necessarily interlinked while also not mutually exclusive.

Incident scenarios

Scenario 2, Russia 2019: The Colder War. The oil and gas revealed beneath the melting North Pole and the new trade routes opening between fewer and fewer icebergs does not lead to war between Russia and the USA. Of course. But it does lead to a lot of discussions on interpreting traditions for drawing sea borders as well as incidents of alleged violations of said disputed borders. Not just regarding drilling but also with incidents of detained fishermen. After years of non-violent conflict – during which the negotiations under UNFCCC has suffered greatly – Russia comes out much stronger: Its northern shores have benefited most from new sea routes due to their head start with a strong fleet of sea ice capable ships and well settled infrastructure, they have strong claims for some of the new resources and it’s all coupled with some positive climatic impacts on the nations agriculture.

Scenario 3, United States 2029: The US-Mexican border is finally sealed off forcefully and completely after surges of refugee influx caused by runaway desertification in a country whose farmers are already struggling financially. The United States of Mexico collapses and several northern regions are effectively ruled by warlords. Inside the USA a strong ethnic group of Mexican heritage is increasingly in opposition to the rest of the country.

Scenario 4, Northern India 2036: India and Pakistan have shared glacier fed rivers for their water supply for decades although otherwise having a periodically hostile relationship. Droughts worsened by climate change, growing populations and increasing consumption have tempted governments to blame the hardships of their peoples on externalities – the neighbours – and forced Pakistan to ration food. After years of fragile peace a military coup and an attack on a dam escalates into an exchange of nuclear warheads. The result is hundreds of millions of casualties and two devastated countries still ruled by the same governments.

Scenario 7, China 2042: During the ’30ies two kinds of terrorist groups are added to the ones previously known to be desperate enough: some from disgruntled oil exporting countries experiencing unforeseen financial losses and some from within the West made up of “leftists” furious at their governments for doing much too little of what they have been asking for (renewable energy etc.) while stepping up efforts on what they have been arguing against (geo-engineering, nuclear power etc.). The former cannot attack inside the West and instead aim at those of their neighboring countries who have begun exporting, for example, sunlight generated power. The latter accomplishes some minor attacks on airlines and even a more serious one on a nuclear power plant. While the world heats and the people of the West become increasingly divided over geo-engineering suddenly China and Indonesia acts without anyone’s agreement. The Earth is dimmed by “artificial volcanic sulfur” being released into the atmosphere. Unfortunately, shortly after the project has begun working a real mega-size volcanic eruption triples the effect. The following years harvests fail world wide: hundreds of million of people die from starvation and almost as many from the armed conflicts, local genocides and mass-migration it incites.

Scenario 1, The Year 2045: The EU has collapsed and the Northern Union of Scandinavia, Poland, Germany, Benelux and France is fending off hordes of immigrants while the north of Italy has separated itself from the south of Italy. Russia is enjoying relative prosperity due to positive effects on its agriculture but is also facing some trouble over disputed Siberian territories eyed by a re-united China. Britain and Japan is guarding their shores fiercely while stacking nuclear arms. Temperatures are up and still rising.

Scenario 6, United States and United Kingdom 2055: The American people never learned to understand the problem of climate change. Peak oil hits hard and the globalized food trade largely collapses: “in this new and unforgiving world, self-sufficiency was the sole basis for security” [p. 182]. Gulf Coast states are devastated by hurricanes and floods, California’s agriculture collapses from perpetual drought. A third party – called “The Goddies” – gains major political influence and the borders are shut tight. Similarly in Europe, the northern countries are getting overrun by people leaving the southern EU states. European Union collaboration starts to strain as food aid is sent south and northern borders tighten despite treaties. Increasingly, the border patrols sealing off Africa and the Middle East is made up of soldiers from northern Europe but eventually these countries decide to pull back and guard only their own territories.

Multi-year scenarios:

Scenario 5: A Happy Tale: Sincere and determined action is taken to combat climate change – but only after conversely harsh shocks from peak oil causing price leaps, a series of brutal natural disasters around the world and a Bangladesh threat a radical geoengineering initiative on their own if the rest of the world does not cooperate in combination shake up humanity. Global diplomacy works – but too late and too little. A green society keen on geoengineering is created but only some are fortunate enough to survive with it.

Scenario 8, Wipeout: 150-200 years into the future the average temperature has climbed by about 9 degrees from failure to curb climate change. Two groups of civilized settlements survive along the Arctic shores and small, more primitive societies here and there where conditions allow. Inland territories on continents suffer complete desertification. Increasingly, the oceans start to smell like rotten eggs. A process is being initiated in which hydrogen sulfide is being released to deteriorate the quality of air for all breathing forms of life while also breaking down the ozone layer. Which in turn will help scorch the remaining life in ultraviolet radiation. Only the harshest and luckiest life forms will make it to the other side of the “greenhouse extinction” event. A phenomenon that was known to paleontologists, not climatologists. The progress of which no human will live to experience, only few will recognize as it starts.

So, Dyers book is really good. But my own will be even better!

Related info

Video interview with transcript: Democracy Now!, July 2010 / Gwynne Dyer on “Climate Wars: The Fight for Survival as the World Overheats”, Gwynne Dyer at Wikipedia, Gwynne Dyer’s website. Plus the following video interviews / speeches: