|
Warming leads to widespread warfare that risks a major nuclear exchange.
Pauchari 07 [R.K., IPCC chairman, December 10, p. 4, http://www.ipcc.ch/]
Neglect in protecting our heritage of natural resources could prove extremely harmful for the human race and for all species that share common space on planet earth. Indeed, there are many lessons in human history which provide adequate warning about the chaos and destruction that could take place if we remain guilty of myopic indifference to the progressive erosion and decline of nature’s resources. Much has been written, for instance, about the Maya civilization, which flourished during 250–950 AD, but collapsed largely as a result of serious and prolonged drought. Even earlier, some 4000 years ago a number of well-known Bronze Age cultures also crumbled extending from the Mediterranean to the Indus Valley, including the civilizations, which had blossomed in Mesopotamia. More recent examples of societies that collapsed or faced chaos on account of depletion or degradation of natural resources include the Khmer Empire in South East Asia, Eastern Island, and several others. Changes in climate have historically determined periods of peace as well as conflict. The recent work of David Zhang has, in fact, highlighted the link between temperature fluctuations, reduced agricultural production, and the frequency of warfare in Eastern China over the last millennium. Further, in recent years several groups have studied the link between climate and security. These have raised the threat of dramatic population migration, conflict, and war over water and other resources as well as a realignment of power among nations. Some also highlight the possibility of rising tensions between rich and poor nations, health problems caused particularly by water shortages, and crop failures as well as concerns over nuclear proliferation.
Climate change causes war – 5 reasons.
Pauchari 07 [R.K., IPCC chairman, December 10, p. 4, http://www.ipcc.ch/]
Peace can be defined as security and the secure access to resources that are essential for living. A disruption in such access could prove disruptive of peace. In this regard, climate change will have several implications, as numerous adverse impacts are expected for some populations in terms of: - access to clean water, - access to sufficient food, - stable health conditions, - ecosystem resources, - security of settlements.
***OIL DEPENDENCE***
Oil Dependence Turns Poverty
Oil Dependence increases poverty- aid given to subsidize oil industries instead
BIC 6 [November 13, Bank International Center, http://www.bicusa.org/en/Article.3014.aspx]
"Oil Aid" is the government’s practice of diverting taxpayer money, intended for poverty alleviation, to instead subsidize the international oil industry. According to the just-released Stern Report, climate change is “the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen,” and it will have massive costs for the global economy. A major underlying reasons for this market failure is the perverse incentives and signals created by subsidies to the oil industry. Yet, as world leaders continue to search for solutions to the global problem of climate change this week in Nairobi, our public funds continue to flow into the pockets of the oil industry. Since 1992, the publicly-backed World Bank has provided more than $5 billion in subsidies to the oil industry, while devoting only five percent of its energy budget to clean, renewable energy sources. The U.S. government has spent even more money subsidizing Big Oil internationally. America’s misguided policies have fueled global warming, encouraged oil dependence, led to increased conflict, and increased poverty and debt. In addition, soaring oil prices are undermining the benefits of limited debt cancellation in many of the world’s most impoverished countries, particularly those that are oil importers. For example, the estimated cost of Tanzania’s oil imports rose from $190 million in 2002 to $480 million this year – for the same amount of oil. In comparison, debt cancellation is expected to only free up about $140 million for Tanzania in 2006. Furthermore, this cancellation doesn’t even touch on the debt held by large private banks in London, Paris and New York. At the same time, oil companies are raking in record profits, with ExxonMobil reporting profits of $4.7 million an hour in July 2006. Publicly-supported international institutions routinely protect the interests of private investors, whether they are oil companies or Wall Street banks that profit from their activities. In Chad, the World Bank provided critical assistance to a project led by ExxonMobil that has only exacerbated conflict and poverty. As oil started flowing, Chad’s authoritarian president increased military spending and ripped up an agreement with the World Bank that was supposed to ensure that oil revenues were used to fight poverty. At first the Bank objected, but it backed down as soon as the president threatened to cut off the oil if his terms were not accepted. In Ecuador, when the government wanted to use oil revenues to alleviate poverty, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank withheld promised new lending in protest, pushing the country to instead pay its debt to the IMF, World Bank and other creditors.
Oil Dependence Turns Asian/Middle East Stability
Oil dependence damns Asian, Middle East stability- bankrupts their economies
Richardson 7 [Michael, former Asia editor of the International Herald Tribune, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, http://www.iseas.edu.sg/tr12007.pdf]
An average of about 17 million barrels of crude oil transited the Hormuz strait each day in 2004, approximately 20% of the world’s daily consumption of oil.22 In 2004, this consumption amounted to 81.4 million barrels per day.23 But a significant amount was used in the countries that produced it and was not exported. However, the Persian Gulf is a huge energy export hub. Oil flows through the Hormuz strait account for about 40% of all the crude oil traded in the world each day.24 While some of this oil could be diverted into overland export pipelines, any interruption to the supply from the Persian Gulf by sea would panic markets, making prices soar. It would jolt the world economy which struggled for much of 2006 to absorb the impact of oil costing over $US60 a barrel.25 However, the repercussions would be most severe in Asia. The US gets about 22% of its oil imports from the Gulf. This meets about 12% of America’s total oil demand. Europe buys 30% of its imported oil from the Gulf.26 But most of the rest of the oil goes to Asia. Japan, for example, imports all its oil and 89% comes from the Middle East, defined as the Gulf oil exporters plus Oman and Yemen. Asia’s two emerging economic giants, China and India, are also heavily reliant on the Middle East for their oil, India for about 70% of its imports and China for around 46%. South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand and the Philippines each depend on the Gulf for over 70% of their oil imports. Overall, the Middle East supplies nearly 75% of Asia’s import needs, making the region by far the most important customer. This relationship is expected to strengthen even further as Asian oil production plateaus and demand rises.27
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
