Generals and admirals around the world with long experience of planning military operations are taking the threat of climate change seriously. They have seen what can happen when a river running across borders or disputed territory begins to dry up. They are also aware of an emerging need to defend newly exposed resources opened up by global warming and new sea channels in the north as Arctic ice disappears.

One-time chairman of the Global Military Advisory Council on Climate Change, Major General A.N.M. Muniruzzaman, has stressed the importance of governments and citizens around the world understanding climate change, not just as an environmental challenge but also as a security threat.

Food prices can skyrocket when a local crop has failed. Countries relied upon as major global producers may suddenly have to redirect crops intended for export to feed their own hungry people. Conflict can erupt and spiral out of control very quickly.

Densely populated, low-lying Bangladesh, with more people than geographically vast Russia, is expected to witness the world’s largest migration once water levels rise as expected in the decades ahead. A reality war game run by Washington’s National Defence University has forecast the geo-political chaos that a mass migration of climate refugees could cause in South Asia.

By 2050, the population of this crowded nation is likely to soar to 220 million. By that time, well within the lifetime of the millennium generation, much of Bangladesh’s current landmass may be under water.

As shown by a computer simulation, up to 30 million refugees fleeing to neighbouring India are likely to spark religious conflict, bring chronic shortages of food and fresh water and heighten tensions between two nuclear-armed adversaries, India and Pakistan.

It’s clear why the world’s military consider climate change to be a ‘threat multiplier’.

The military in both Europe and around the world are working to gain a better understanding of the stakes involved and how they will affect both global stability and individual nations’ interests.

Climate change is not just an environmental concern, it is a national security issue, and failing to address it effectively with a tough greenhouse gas emissions reduction target now will ultimately threaten our way of life

Despite seasonal and regional variations, the earth’s temperature continued to rise in 2013. Before the end of the year, environmentalists were wary about the way the European Commission’s energy department was pushing for business-friendly climate goals beyond 2020. The goals for the decade beyond focus on energy efficiency in buildings energy, yet they come across as being soft on industry, power and transport sectors.

As things stand, climate and energy goals for 2030, laid out last month by the Commission, may see the world falling short of what is needed to steer us clear of the worst effects of climate change.

So far, the EU has been a world leader in climate change mitigation, setting the tone for the international negotiations through which the world is grasping at some form of agreement on how to manage the threat posed by greenhouse gas emissions.

A shift was anticipated after the recent integration of Germany’s Environment Ministry into the Economics Ministry under a new coalition, with the new minister swinging toward the defence of German industry interests and lower energy costs.

On hearing that climate and energy targets were to be made less stringent, green groups accused the Commission of being too influenced by the fossil fuels industry and countries like the UK, Poland and Spain (See text box).

Oxfam EU economic justice policy adviser Lies Craeynest had been hoping for the current emissions target to be increased to 55 per cent. The current proposal of 40 per cent will give the world only half a chance of meeting the global goal of keeping below two degrees Celsius, according to scientists.

Dismissing accusations of a weak proposal, Climate Action commissioner Connie Hedegaard was convinced that a more ambitious plan would have been politically dead. If other economies followed Europe’s example, she argued, then the world would be a better place.

Commenting in January on the need for a robust climate target, Rear Admiral Neil Morissetti, a former commander of the UK maritime forces, has highlighted the risks that a changing climate poses to global security.

In the words of Morissetti, failure to set an ambitious greenhouse gas emissions reduction target for 2030 means a failure to achieve the necessary resilience to cope with the impact of a changing climate.

“It would be gambling with not just the environment but also global stability and prosperity today and for generations to come.

“More than the environment is at stake,” said the former special representative for climate change, as he cited the need to secure “sustainable and affordable supplies of key natural resources (food, water and energy) that are essential for economic prosperity and well-being.”

“Climate change is not just an environmental concern, it is a national security issue, and failing to address it effectively with a tough greenhouse gas emissions reduction target now will ultimately threaten our way of life.”

Paradoxically, the car industry – a large contributor to greenhouse gases – is among the enterprises which have already been hit by the side effects of an increasing number of extreme climate events.

Supplies of vital car parts and computer chips to European and US companies went dead when floods hit Thailand in 2011. Seven major industrial estates were suddenly under three metres of water. Disruptions to manufacturing supply chains affected regional automobile production and caused a global shortage of hard disk drives which lasted throughout 2012.

The Dirty Men of Europe

Britain’s government is promoting controversial oil fracking, while Poland has been dubbed ‘Coal-land’ for cosying up to the coal industry.

Spain is in a tangle, with a tariff regime for wind and solar energy abandoned in July while waiting for a new law, after sweeping changes rocked the country’s renewable energy sector.

The underlying problem that legislators in Spain are trying to address is the rapid growth of the electricity system deficit, which now stands at €26 billion. This deficit has been created over the past 15 years as the costs of generating electricity have risen faster than what utilities can lawfully recover from rates.

The Spanish government has for too long prevented utilities from recovering the true costs of the electricity system through rates.

Spain tried to have it both ways, setting out to transform its electricity system but failing to establish a credible mechanism to pay for it.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.