Scientists’ warnings will not have been enough: the Earth is warming too quickly. Will we listen more to the military? For them too, climate change has concrete effects: everywhere on the planet, it amplifies crises, creates violence and fuels conflicts. In Afghanistan, Somalia, Mali or the Arctic region, proof of this close link between climate and security has been made for a long time, explains General Tom Middendorp in an astonishing book, General Climate (Editions La Butineuse), drawn from its long experience in the field. One more reason to put in place a real war plan against global warming? Humanity knew how to do this for the coronavirus. But he has little time left. As another general, Douglas MacArthur, the chief of staff of the American army during the 1930s, said, “losing battles come down to two words: too late.”
Two sides of the same problem
Ask a soldier to think about his carbon footprint: he will probably turn his back on you and call you crazy. “On this subject, I felt for a long time like Don Quixote, fighting in vain against windmills,” General Middendorp told L’Express. However, through observations and field reports, the link between climate and security is coming to light. “When in a distant country there is not enough water for farmers and the survival of the population depends enormously on agriculture, this creates all kinds of tensions. And a favorable breeding ground for extremism. We can see it in Afghanistan, where the Taliban use the lack of water in villages to gain influence,” he laments.
In Somalia too, droughts and extreme rainfall are undermining people’s ability to meet their needs. As a result, many young people are turning to illegal activities, such as piracy, or giving in to the lure of extremist groups like Harakat al-Shabab al-Mujahidin. The same phenomenon is observed in Mali. Experts from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri) have found that in times of low rainfall, some Malian families are more inclined to send their children to join the ranks of armed groups to earn money. In the Arctic, another score is playing out. The thaw opens new trade routes and promotes access to enormous mineral resources, whetting the appetite of China and Russia, which has launched a vast military modernization program in the region. We could multiply the examples. Even if the climate does not explain everything, it helps to disrupt balances. We have been warned.
The Achilles heel of energy
Less water also means less energy. In periods of prolonged drought, reservoirs empty and dams stop producing electricity. Power plants also risk shutting down more frequently due to less cooling capacity. “This applies not only to countries around the Mediterranean, such as Spain, Italy, Greece and France, but also to countries located along the main rivers,” warns the general. And to cite the work of scientists from the University of Leiden (Netherlands), who estimate that by 2030, the number of vulnerable regions in terms of energy supply “will have increased considerably”, due to the enormous quantities fresh water needed for cooling. If there is not enough water or if it is too hot, energy production will have to be reduced or even shut down coal-fired power plants altogether. Poland experienced this in the summer of 2015. If this phenomenon becomes widespread, then major social upheavals are to be feared.
Especially since another risk is on the horizon: in order to ensure water and electricity resources, numerous dam projects have emerged in Africa and Asia, accentuating tensions between countries located upstream. and downstream of rivers. Like Ethiopia and Egypt, for example. The first considers that the construction of the Renaissance Dam on the Blue Nile, decided in 2011, is a vital necessity. The second retorts that it is an existential threat. Will the two nations one day defend their interests by force? “We cannot exclude it,” notes Tom Middendorp. We would then witness the first modern water war.
Theodore Roosevelt, the precursor
During the pandemic, many countries have taken unprecedented measures and released hundreds of billions of dollars to help those affected by the virus. Why can’t we do the same thing for the climate? “Today’s world is fragmented. Countries defend their interests before the rest, which makes any form of international response to the climate problem more difficult,” analyzes the former commander of the Dutch armed forces. There aren’t many great leaders either. “Theodore Roosevelt, the American president who governed from 1901 to 1909, was able, in his time, to protect the environment by doubling the number of national parks and by stipulating that millions of hectares of public forests would become protected areas. In making these choices, Roosevelt trampled on many boundaries, but he remains considered one of the most effective peacetime presidents the United States has ever known.”
A new role for NATO and the EU
Climate change is entering intelligence analyzes and serving as a basis for planning military missions. A small revolution. Scientific studies estimate that conflicts can be predicted with an efficiency rate of 86% by combining demographic data and information captured by meteorological satellites! “Within our network of experts – the International Military Council on Climate and Security (IMCCS) – we are currently developing a matrix in which researchers link the databases of the World Bank, the UN and “other organizations. The results obtained will allow us to calculate the probabilities of climate-related risks – floods, droughts, etc. – for each country at a regional level”, explains the general. It’s a good start. But once the information has been analyzed, how to act? Should we opt for everyone for themselves or entrust action to a conflict prevention unit? “We have an organization to find,” agrees Tom Middendorp. Undoubtedly a new role for NATO or the European Union to take on.
A greener army
If the US military were a country, it would rank as the 55th largest emitter of CO2. The EU forces are not to be outdone. Their annual greenhouse gas emissions are equivalent to those of 14 million combustion engine vehicles. “It is clear that the military sector cannot be excluded from the debate on climate action,” concludes Tom Middendorp. It won’t be easy: renewing equipment is not always synonymous with greening. For example, the four new multi-purpose M.-class frigates that the Netherlands are building with Belgium are powered by fossil fuels, and are much larger than current frigates. Likewise, the new American F-35 Lightning II fighter jet, scheduled for deployment in the next 30 years, uses kerosene and consumes more than the F-16.
“We must be aware that by reselling obsolete devices to other countries, we are not helping to reduce CO2 emissions. However, I am hopeful that things will change for cost reasons,” said the general. . If troops become more self-sufficient in their water and energy needs, there will no longer be a need to set up huge convoys of trucks traveling several hundred kilometers before arriving on a battlefield. Small nuclear reactors in the army or water production techniques using variations in air temperature have a future. But the future is still distant because innovating takes time, even in an industry at the forefront of technology.
.