Det känns bra att kunna bidra med ett nytt ämnesområde till akademien. Jag är väldigt övertygad om att varje säkerhetspolitisk analys som saknar klimatförändringsperspektivet kommer att betraktas som grund, ja till och med obsolet framöver.
I en rapport, The Budgets Compared: Military vs. Climate Security, som publicerades idag skriver den amerikanska tankesmedjan IFPF bland annat följande:
"Accepting his Nobel Peace Prize, Al Gore called on the nations of the world to mobilize to avert climate disaster "with a sense of urgency and shared resolve that has previously been seen only when nations have mobilized for war."
"This report measures in fiscal terms how far our own nation has to go to reach that goal. For the 2008 fiscal year, the government budgeted $647.51 billion for military security. It budgeted $7.37 billion to slow climate change. (...) For every dollar allocated for stabilizing the climate, the government will spend $88 on achieving security by military force. (...) The government is allocating 99% of combined federal spending on military and climate security to military security".
Vidare konstaterar IFP:
"In addition to laying out the disparities between the two budgets and analyzing where the money is going, this report traces the connections between military and climate security, including the following:
- Climate change will create enormous problems for the U.S. military, as the military itself has confirmed.
- The U.S. military contributes to the problem of climate change more than any other single institution worldwide.
- The Bush administration's foreign policy of leading with one (the military) and largely ignoring the other (stabilizing climate) are the two most prominent causes of the United States' loss of standing in the world.