Climate change has been mentioned as a national security threat by some governments. I don't like such an inflationary use of the term, but I suppose in some places you can only work with so many levers, and "national security" happens to be one that's not stuck.
The video shows how early the basic mechanism of global warming / anthropogenic climate change was understood, and even brought to the public's attention. It's astonishing to see the propaganda-driven (and I suppose wilful) ignorance of large parts of Western societies on this issue, but also on other much-discussed issues. One should expect that much attention yields much clarification, but intentional propaganda efforts and dysfunctional motivations often lead to poor results.

(German students skipping school for demonstrations for action against climate change)

More or less related: The USAF keeps having bad luck.


  1. No emission reduction until there has been political reform, all you need to work out how likely that is, is to open your eyes.

    Things are a bit of a mess aren't they?

    If we survive the next war, the peace dividend could be spent of reform.

    1. Emissions per capita actually stagnated in developed countries since the early 70's, and have begun to shrink.

    2. Although it stagnated, the results from what have been done will become visible not today but in the next decaddes / the second half of the century. The climate have changed for different reasons in the history of mankind and always catastrophic results has happendend. Tody this results of climate change would hit the mankind and the especialy the modern western tm civilisation more than any other kind of civilisation in the history of mankind, simply we have become so dependend on specific assets and circumstandes that billions of peopole will die if this specific circumstances will change.

      This will inevitable result in many wars and other similiar forms of organised violence.

      The only solution is not climate protection or other such ridicolus and naive attempts, but the re-militarisation of the westen tm societies from above. We need to addapt and that means before anything to change our western tm culture and become militarily strong nations with a will, the skills and the equipment to figth the wars that will inevitabel will come because of climate change.

      Otherwise we will not survive, neither as societies and even not physically.

      Instead of fantasizing about climate protection we should invest every moeny available in the necessary societal adaption and this means between many other things to invest as much as possible into the militarisation of the society. Not only into weapons systems, ammmuntion etc, but especlliay into an culture of compulsary military service and a belligerent overall society. This will of cause not happen in "Schland" the todays "german" society, because of its acutal completly different culture.

      So therefore western europe will not survive this century, neither its human rights approach nor the people physically.

    3. I disagree about what's necessary.

    4. That guy you're replying to sounds like the NZ shooter. Build a wall to shoot all of the black people who will flee Africa when the climate fails. I can't really see a constituency for that. Would suggest that lot are more in a purity civil war than an expansionist outward looking phase. "I am the sole true Scotsman!"

      Global emissions are the only metric, per capita doesn't matter, some countries cutting their emmisions does not matter.

      More than a bit nausitating but the "Third industrial revolution" video on YouTube from Vice does a good job of explaining the scope required.

  2. The people are fleeing africa not because of climate change, but mainly (!) because of the following reasons:

    1 an economic upswing in many african countries (which is not understood or even recognised by most europeans). This factor is from enourmous importance because without it the africans could not pay the necessary costs of the travel to europe.

    2 Overpopuluation, which is understood from many more clever africans as an problem that will destroy africa in this century (i have spoken with many african refugees about that)

    3 as an economical investment. For example: The moeny transfers from african refugees in germany alone to africa are today higher than the total german developement assistance and in oppositioin to the developement assistance this moeny reaches realy the people because it is transfered directly to them.

    4 because the african regimes are corrupt, incompetent and kleptocratic and therefore the more clever africans are convinced that africa will fail and that they and their families must flee before (!) this will occure

    Therefore: then the climate fails most of the black people will not be able any longer to flee but they will die in africa. No wall will be necessary, the arabian/Muslim countries in northern africa and the sahara desert will become a insurmountable obstacle.

    Black people from africa will therefore be not so much the problem, but arab/muslim people because the climate change and the overpopulation will result in more and more wars in their countries. For example egypt will collapse in the next two decades in civil war and will become a failed state. Millions of egyptians will then flee in the direction of europe etc

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. @KRT:

    IMO the climate change for itself is not so much the damocles sword hanging over our heads, but the instituional, system inherent inability to adapt our western tm societies in the necessary way.

    In the nature (the biological evolution) everything which do not adapt to changing circumstances, changing enviroment, changing climate etc will be wiped out. This happened many times in the history of live. Any kind of species or system which had become to dependencet on very specific circumstances, the availability of very specific assets etc and is not able to adapt to change, will not survive.

    Today the answer of the social-culture in the western tm societies to this fact ist a religious one: science. Most people agree that their is this problem but they believe (!) in a religious way that there will be a way to solve it through science. But this religion of the paradise through science which will lead to the perfect society tommorrow is not scientific. It is only a religion which is misused to legitmiate the unchanged non-adaption to the changing enviroment.

    Today we have the technological evolution, the social / cultural and political evolution etc. The same basic principle as in biological systems, that nothing survives that is not able to adapt and to change is the same in this kind of evolutions. But because of our religious belief on a science-solution we ignore this fact.

    This will inevitable lead to the eliminiation of our western tm societies within the next 100 years. Of cause something will survive, but neither will this be democratic states, nor free states, nor a technological way of life as we live it today. It will be a new dark age with violence beyond our todays understanding.

    There is no solution for this, because the failure is system-inherent. There are only two options: first: we change not and then the dying will be beyond understanding. second: we change in the necessary way and there will be much dying but more of us and our culture etc would survive.

    For this change we must first accept and realise what is happening, and then we must understand, that not all humans can be rescued and must do the necessary steps to rescue at least as much of "us" as possible.

    But the religious beliefe on a science-solution prevents this and therefore option 1 will become our future.

    Billions of people will and must therefore die within decades then the critical point is overstepped which will happen this century.

    1. "instituional, system inherent inability to adapt"

      I wrote two pieces relevant to this:

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. @KRT:

    IMO there is at least one predictability: Violence. The only answer for this violence is "to arm himself". This i do not mean only tangible, but especially in the question of the intangibles, the overall social-cultural ground swell of the society. Weapons and soliders will not be enough, but only a truly and highly belligerent society with a high cohesion will be able to conduct the means then necessary against other human beeings. To change the todays western tm societes to such an state of social-culture is not possible within a decade or more and even difficult with drastical short-term changes in the circumstances.

    I do not claim that this "solution" is in any kind anything good or desirable, but the forces of the development in my opinion leave no other achievable choice because the logic behind the current development will not allow that the current problem will be addressed in any other way.

    Lets take one of my favourite examples: two "medieval" or "ancient" kingdoms neighbored and both very similiar in size, technology and population and even in the enviroment of their country (woodland). They clear the forest to get fields, more fields mean more population. But the destruction of the forest lead to high waters, erosion and in the end in the overall collapse of the kingdom because the agriculture will cripple without forest. Although both do understand this, they have no other choice but to clear as much forest as possible because otherwise the one that clear recklessly more trees will get an greater population and will overcome the other. Therefore this will lead inevitable to an loose-loose situation. Even if one kingdom will conquer the other early (which is extremly difficult without an big advantage in population) this will not be an solution because then civil war / uprisings and the competiton between different fracitons / power groups will lead inevitable to the same result.

    In such a situation we are today as mankind. The difference to earlier history is, that today all mankind is in the same "boat". I earlier times i was irrelevant then in one place civilisation ceased to exist because only one are was affected by this.

    Today we will all be affected as mankind. We will all fail together.

    The only solution is therefore imo to accept this fate and to accept that our future will be one of extreme violence and mass-murder in which the most reckless society / group / culture will have an tremendous advantage over the other.

    1. Bollocks. An emphasis on the military as answer to climate change will only lead to wasteful arms races, and nations stealing land from others.

      The challenges of climate change will be mastered much easier by allocating resources to the limitation of climate change and especially to adapting to it. Adapting will be quite easy for us, for the process of climate change takes decades. The changed climate will become the new normal.
      Europe will remain inhabitable and fertile through this climate change. We can produce our food differently and maintain what military power is needed to deter invasion.

      You're merely using climate change as an excuse to bring forward your preconceived preference for militarism.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. Actually, appetite for small wars against functioning countries has largely disappeared in Europe post-2003. The later small wars were either with toleration of a host government (AFG, Syria, Iraq) or against failing states (Libya).

      The salami slicing tactic has normalised stupid small wars, but the disaster of the Iraq occupation is still very well remembered and blocks stupid politicians from starting any comparable military adventures.
      Even Russia appears to be disillusioned about the unsatisfactory and inconclusive state of affairs in Eastern Ukraine and hasn't launched any new military aggressions since. Their great power policy has led to inconclusive results in Ukraine and Georgia, only the annexation of Crimea appears to become de facto settled.

    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. My idea is not to put an emphasis on the military and here is the main difference between us and the reason you do not understand my idea completly - because you differ between the military and the civil society. The emphasis should not be on the military but in an change of the society as an whole in which also the seperation between the military and the other parts of the society must be abrogated. That is also the reason why i do not write about arms races, armament, weapon systems etc but about social-cultural changes, about the intangibles of the warfare and about the psychological and social side of organised violence against other humans.

    Moreover the climate change will not be mastered at all. You underestimate as most people what is happening here. Moreover the climate change is only one factor out of a dozen which will inevitable lead to the total collapse of the todays status quo. The changes are much more drastical as you think and at most the indirect results for europe especially. It does not matter if europe will stay innhabitable and fertile in a world with 10 billion people and mass migration into europe from the muslim world and africa, civil wars in europe, a complete collapse of the economy as also of the welfare state etc.

    Our social peace germany is today totally bought and the moment we cannot longer afford the costs it will end.

    To deter invasions in the form that will then happen you also do not need to maintain what military power is needed, but you have to change the social culture of the society as an whole. The todays military in europa (such as it is) is not able to apply the necessary means, neither is the society.

    Despite this your last sentence is for the most part true, and i would not even use the word militarism, i am an warmonger. But my logic is not an excuse for my warmongering, but reverse a change of our society and social culture in this direction is imo the only realistic and achievable solution. Not because i like it because of personal deficits (to the contrary) but because i am very sure that nothing else is in reality achievable.

    I also think that this social developement will perhaps come anyway the same moment the economy collapses and the social peace in europe can not longer be bought through the welfare state we will have an reincarnation of fascism in europe anyway. So i am not trying to bring forward a warmonger-agenda, but only describe what will happen with a higher possibility.

    And violence will always have the higher possibility than a peaceful future in which food will be produced differently and we can hold our current state of civilisation. I truly see no other real way. Only naive illusions about what could do theoreticially which will even increase the problem as the achievable solutions are not approached now, as we have now still the time, the moeny and the technology, which we will have not tomorrow.

    1. "change of the society as an whole in which also the seperation between the military and the other parts of the society must be abrogated."

      That's called militarism, and it's nonsense.

      The military is a non-productive effort of a society, government providing a public good to the nation.

      There's usually a "too little" and always a "too much", for the military effort exists in a world with scarce resources.
      We have occasionally a choice between a military and a civilian solution for a problem, and climate change is very much a civilian challenge. The obvious answers are all of civilian nature.

      I understand that some people have militaristic preferences, but those are bollocks, inevitably leading to suboptimal if not disastrous results.
      We need no militarism for defence, and stand almost nothing to gain from conquest.
      Our food production requires a tiny share of our GDP. A tripling or quadrupling of food production costs would devastate poor countries, but it would be a mild change in Europe if it happens over the span of 20 years.

      Economic collapse is nowhere in sight for the wealthy countries.

  7. Last Dingo:

    The intangibles of warfare, the social-cultural parts of it, the psychological approach has directly nothing to do with scarce resources. I must repeat myself here: i am not writing about expensive (technological) systems which need moeny and scarce ressources but to the opposite to invest in the intangibles and the social culture, about the will to use violence, not about the weapon systems used for it. For the practical side this means for example an dramatic increase in civil defence, a milita kind of military, a compulsory military service combined with a strong and militia structure (for example here also an cyber-war milita instead of a centralised conventional military structure, based on private it companies etc), laws that allow to use military force inside the country, the de-digitalisation of crucial parts of the infrastructure and the most important assets, self-reliance, resiliance and redundance in as many aspects of the society as possible, a high grade of autarkie in as many aspects as possible etc etc etc

    All this efforts are not non-productive as you wrote, but in many cases they even go paralell to your so called civilian answers (as for example in the question of energy autarky through renewable energy).

    IMO any attempt to divide between military and civilian solutions, the strict separation of this two is only an legacy of the cabinet-war era and is to be overcome for the next war that will come. I will give only one example of many: the internet of things (5g) that will come will be a civilian (productive) answer for the challenge of the future. But this same net will also allow the enemy to destroy our whole society without any tank or airplane simply through an kill switch which is part of the net from the beginning.

    Any seperation between military and civilian is therefore obsolete here. The same principle applies because of the dual use nature of most of the technology that will come to so many things, that the old thinking of a military seperated from the society is only obsolete and wil result in a crushing and ultimate defeat. Not a convential military is here the answer, neither the "militarisation" of the society, but an society with an strong political myth and the will to induce organsied violence - not through the military, but as the society as an whole, as an new kind of total war in which every part of the society contribute to the war effort. Not in the old and obsolete sense of an subordination of the civilian part under the military but to the opposite with an complete abolishment of such kind of thinking and any kind of seperation here at all.

    This means also to end the conventional armed forces as we knew them today. We have to through away all this "soldier-culture", all this obsolete cabinet-war military thinking, to put it all together: we have to overcome the soldier as a archetype and replace him and the military through something complete new. This is the most important military revolution necessary. As necessary as the soldier was as he replaced the warrior and the mercenary. New circumstances, new role-models for the organised violence. To exxagerate it to the extreme: we have to replace the military and its soldiers through an warrlike society and its warrior militas. Of cause this is an exxagaration, but this should be the way to secure the defence of our society in the world of tommorow in which the climate change will threaten our very existence because in combination with so many other factors it will result in the extinction of big parts of the mankind.

  8. In such a world without true seperation between war and peace (which will come anyway) and without a seperation between military and civilian any attempt to sustain the old system of the cabinet-war will be the end of the society in this century.

    As the defence will not be in the old form of the cabinet-war, will not be the restricted and ritualised warfare of today, the defence of the society will then need complete new and different forms than the traditional status-quo military of today.

    Because the military is to conservative and to inflexible it will not change fast engough for the more and more faster changing circumstances.

    Also again as you wrote here about food production and a assumed quqadrupbling of its costs this alone shows me clearly, that you drastically underestimate the changes that will come withing the next decades.

    Climate change is not alone. It is the combination of the climate change with many many other factors, among them in particual our inflexibel thinking and solidified views, that will leave us no chance at all to prevent the then fast collapse of our european societies.

    The economic collapse you do not see in the wealthy countries can come much faster than you can imagine. It must not come 100%, but the possibility is to high to ignore it.

    Its your overestimation of the status quo, the structural extrapolation of yours that blinds you for what is evident. Because many think like that and always simpel extrapolate the status quo and use reduced theories about the reality instead of overlooking the whole complexity, this very common error occurres.

    1. Your militaristic fantasy won't happen only because you dream it up, and there's no foundation in history, or science that supports your idea that I am aware of. In fact, any effort to reduce the national division of labour by blurring the separation between civilian and military is going to be inferior to a more specialised approach ceteris paribus.

      We can cope with our actual challenges by getting used to change, maintaining deterrence and investing in the economy (including energy and agriculture sectors).

      "Also again as you wrote here about food production and a assumed quqadrupbling of its costs this alone shows me clearly, that you drastically underestimate the changes that will come withing the next decades."

      Yeah, well, this shows me where you pull your ideas from. Hydroponics farming is extremely water-efficient, has extremely high yield per area and costs about twice as much as normal production of foods and fodder. Quadrupled agricultural costs are a very, very pessimistic scenario.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  9. Our food production requires a tiny share of our GDP.

    In this context:


    30:32 ff