I recently watched the latest episode of the BBC's Spooks (the last episode in Season 5 downloaded courtesy of uTorrent and ISOHunt). The episode's main plot, besides the obligatory end-of-season cross-over emotional subplot, was about environmental terrorists threatening to blow up the Thames Barrier that serves to reduce the impact of flood waters on the low lying London. Their one demand before everyone involved became manifestly irrational was that the British Government publish in full a planning document code named 'Aftermath.'
The premise of the fictional Aftermath plan? Accept that climate change is not only inevitable, but already too progressed to be corrected, altered or mitigated in any way, and simply get on with adapting to the tectonic like changes by securing existing energy supplies, key infrastructure that will survive and generally capitalising on the ensuing chaos while squashing any trouble at home or with those pesky EU neighbours. The plan's co-authors were, of course the United States.
Stepping back into reality, this far-fetched plan isn't such a stretch.
Some could argue it's what is already the implicit planning of most industrialised nations to varying degrees, with various commentators picking their favourite target/s like the US, China and the UK. But it wasn't that long ago that GBN futurists Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall published An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security, generating a lot of international press like this.
In addition, the British Ministry of Defence has recently updated their 2001 vision (PDF) of their future strategic context with the publication of Global Strategic Trends 2007-2036 Edition 3 (PDF) by the Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre (DCDC). Interestingly, both the original sketch and the updated and expanded trends report include the same assumption of the Aftermath plan – we're environmentally doomed, and not likely to competently recover – but you'd have to look deep and sideways to tease out the same action agenda of course. In addition, the report details a cornucopia of probable eventualities, none of which are pretty, but worth checking out.
To take the mainstream consequences from Defence to media, and since the UK's Guardian has provided my main references for above, here's a plug for their equally rosy 'Business As Usual' map of global climate related problems out to 2050. The BAU map summarises declining fishery stock, crop yields, deforestation and increasing storms, sea levels and disease risks. One might say it's rather conservative, but perhaps that’s just the global abstract view. For example. Australia's fisheries, well known by the CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems Research group to be in perilous decline, don't rate a mention.
A voice of hope against the din? Well, sticking with the British MoD I have to turn to a speech by Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, Chief of the Defence Staff, at Royal United Service Institute (RUSI) on Monday, 4 December 2006:
Our vision of the future strategic context is not simply of existing threats set against a steadily more challenging physical, social and technological environment. The future is inherently uncertain. And the speed with which powerful trends are developing, the range of unpredictable ways in which they could interact, and the vulnerability of an increasingly interdependent international system to potential shocks serve to increase both complexity and uncertainty.Of course, it need not be all bad news. There are opportunities as well as threats. The powerful forces of globalisation, technological advancement and the rapid development of emerging economic powers should help drive sustained global growth, and thereby create new levels of relative wealth in the world. And amidst this, I suppose it’s always possible that the lion will lie down with the lamb, and that everyone will beat their swords into ploughshares. But for my part, I’d want to be prepared in case they don’t.
The good news in this beyond the naive continued economic prosperity line? At least he demonstrates a futures literacy that conveys a considered understanding of the difficulties and importance of conducting systematic futures research. I can only hope that given his position, that such futures literacy is reasonably encouraged within the British MoD. And yet, I have my doubts…as LeftWrites' main blogger Jeff Sparrow comments:
Like most mainstream futorology, the report reads like a pulp SF novel—a crude extrapolation of current themes and buzz words into the future.
If only he hadn't used the word futurology, I'd almost say he obviously knows about futures studies and strategic foresight.
Now last, but not least, I'd like to tail off this long post into the realm of the bizarre but damn scary and possible. It has been touted by a small world wide minority for some years now that the US has completed development of their Canadian based High-frequency Active Aural Research Program (HAARP) as part of the ("Star Wars") Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI). This is an atmospheric tool that is claimed to be able to cause climate change on local and global scales, all in the name of advanced weapons and defence measures. If you're excited by this, there are several books on Amazon about it…
I think I need a glass of red now…