Climate Change Mission Creep: Will the UN Security Council Establish a ‘Green Helmets’ Peacekeeping Force?

by Marlo Lewis on July 21, 2011

in Blog, Features

Post image for Climate Change Mission Creep: Will the UN Security Council Establish a ‘Green Helmets’ Peacekeeping Force?

Yesterday’s UK Guardian reports that a “special meeting” of the United Nations (UN) Security Council is “due to consider whether to expand its mission to keep the peace in an era of climate change.”

This was inevitable. With the Cold War many years behind us, and only a few important regional wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya) going on, the Security Council needs some kind of permanent, global crisis to justify its existence. Mission Creep thy name is Climate Change.

Germany called the special meeting via a “concept note” titled “Maintenance of international peace and security — the impact of climate change.” It outlines all the shopworn cliches about how global warming will intensify conflicts over food and water and, via accelerated sea-level rise, turn millions of people living in coastal communities and small island nations into climate refugees.

An obvious question for the German delegation is why now? Maybe they haven’t heard, but there’s been no net global warming in nearly 15 years

They’re also behind the times on climate refugees. As discussed in an earlier post, the UN Environment Program (UNEP) predicted in 2005 that warming-induced flooding, famine, and water shortages could drive as many as 50 million people from their homes by 2010. Not only did waves of refugees fail to materialize, but several areas UNEP thought would be hardest hit by global warming experienced rapid population growth.

Okay, but what about the future? Supposedly, global warming will exacerbate conflict and instability in poverty-stricken regions where people already struggle to feed themselves and cope with extreme weather, disease, and drought. But as economist Indur Goklany shows, even the UK Government’s Stern Review report, the most pessimistic assessment of climate change impacts under the UN IPCC’s high-end warming scenario (A1FI), implies that, despite climate change, developing countries in 2100 will be richer — and thus better able to adapt to climate change — than industrial countries are today.

Specifically, in the Stern Review worst case, developing country per capita GDP increases from $900 in 1990 to $61,500 in 2100. For perspective, Goklany notes (p. 17) that in 2006, GDP per capita was $19,300 for industrialized countries, $30,100 for the United States, and $1,500 for developing countries. In addition to being wealthier, future generations are bound to develop superior technologies in such critical endeavors as agriculture, medicine, water resource management, and disaster preparedness. So climate change is unlikely to be an important “threat multiplier” in the decades ahead.

Besides, is it even true that environmental stresses are a significant cause of armed conflict? Science journalist Wendy Barnaby found that, in the water-stressed, conflict-prone Middle East, Israel and her Arab neighbors have cooperated rather than fought over water. One reason is that the region’s nations import more “virtual water” in the form of grain than flows down the Nile River.

A new Cato Institute book, Climate Coup, has a superb chapter on global warming as a security threat. The author, Ivan Eland, points out that even if global warming does decrease agricultural production in some countries, this would not necessarily lead to conflict:

But some nations’ agricultural production will increase because of warming, and others will decline. This production differential will make it profitable to sell grain from those in surplus to those in deficit. Throughout history, markets and trade have survived wars, political upheaval, natural disasters, and pandemic diseases. Where there is a willing buyer and seller, there is usually an incentive to trade.

Eland also points out that, in the modern world, people with empty bellies are usually not the ones to launch wars of aggression: “widespread hunger reduces the capacity of nations or groups to make war effectively.”

According to the Guardian, “Small island states, which could disappear beneath rising seas, are pushing the Security Council to intervene to combat the threat to their existence.” So, the tail that’s wagging the dog is the same gang of mini-states who have hyped the threat of sea-level rise to demand multi-billion dollar climate reparations from Uncle Sucker and other industrial nations.

The Security Council is a relic from the Cold War. Clearly, these folks don’t have enough to do. The Security Council, of course, would not be the first UN body to turn fear of climate change into a lifetime meal ticket.

mememine69 July 21, 2011 at 3:21 pm

Meanwhile, the UN and the entire SCIENCE world had allowed carbon trading markets run by corporations and politicians to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 25 years of climate CONTROL instead of the obviously needed POPULATION control. Climate Change Crisis wasn’t sustainability. It was a 25 year old failed CO2 death threat to billions of children. Now who’s the fear mongering neocon?

oracle July 21, 2011 at 3:54 pm

“What failed at Copenhagen was not just the summit. A notion of establishing the UN as a sort of world government through the use of climate politics — has also failed.”
(Die Welt -german news paper -Refering to EU President Speech )

No Thanks.

In order to set up an effective carbon control racket they must have a ‘one world’ politically and legally with carbon as the default currency of the planet economically. Where energy can be controlled , and with that control over human activity , food production and population itself. This is exactly the end game elites operating via , NGOs , hedge funds and UN want. It has very little if anything at all to do with global warming or any climate issue . system. Their sense of urgency comes from a realization that they may face new power brokers in future if they do not grab it all and enslave mankind in carbon servitude. If this kind of ‘one world’ is something that you want come about then support the carbon racket , if not you should oppose it.

George July 22, 2011 at 6:24 am

Nice post.

Bill in Tennessee July 22, 2011 at 7:49 am

Would love to see them prowling around the southern US… we have been practicing shooting at blue helmets for decades, so shooting at green helmets would be a snap!

mememine69 July 22, 2011 at 7:49 am

I’m not the only former believer urging prosecutors to lay criminal chargers to the leading scientists and news editors for knowingly inciting this needless panic of CO2 climate crisis. Climate Change Crisis wasn’t sustainability. It was a 25 year old failed CO2 death threat to billions of children. Now who’s the fear mongering neocon? Scientists were the problem. They polluted the planet with pesticides in the first place and since every scientist had their own personal definition of crisis, safe to say it was a criminal exaggeration? Scientists gave us germ warfare, cancer causing chemicals, deep sea drilling technology, landmines……………….And we bowed to the thousands of scientists who strangely outnumbered the protestors somehow? The same countless thousands of scientists who sat on their hands as Oboma didn’t even mention the “crisis” in his last state of the union address? Those ones? And why are they not marching in the streets for what they are telling us is an emergency akin to a comet hit; unstoppable warming.
Climatologists and consensus climate change scientists and lazy copy and paste news editors and journalists have done to science and journalism what abusive priests did for the Catholic Church. All of you have your own personal definitions of climate change and expect us to still view it as science? It was a consultants w^tdream. You know it. We all know it. Criminal charges will come sooner or later as politicians need someone to blame.
REAL planet lovers are happy for the planet. The rest of you just hate humanity as you condemn billions of children to a death by CO2. This was progressive?

Bill July 23, 2011 at 11:34 am

I like that, the UN can’t do anything to stop wars, but they plan to militarize a cause for fake science.

Ed July 25, 2011 at 10:26 pm

One volcano will ruin all CO2 plans and any other gas excuse they can dream up.Any bandwagon they can find for the ultimate control of our hour to hour life is now possible.Green socialism worldwide as in UN AGENDA 21 written in part by GREEN PEACE at U.S.taxpayers expense along with tax excempt foundations of the left primarily based in New York of course and composed of traitorous Internationalists.Do your homework Pl.

BobRGeologist August 2, 2011 at 2:34 am

It seems that our Greenies are ashamed of humanity’s rise to the top of the food chain.
I would think they need reeducation. How about getting a a bunch of the more prominent membership together in a rugged tract of our beautiful intermountain west with only the bare essentials and let them try hunter gathering for a dose of reality for awhile.

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 3 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: