OIl Rig Disaster

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/30/oil-spill-reaches-us-coastline

The Wall Street Journal reported that the well lacked a remote-control shutoff switch required by some oil producing countries, including Norway and Brazil. BP was at the forefront of recent lobbying of the US government against stronger safety controls for offshore drilling.  Fund managers and analysts in the City of London said they were deeply worried about the financial cost to BP of the kind of legal action that could be taken in the US by those damaged by the accident. More than £13bn has been knocked off the oil company's stock market value since the rig caught fire.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/30/oil-spill-bp

Under George Bush the need for lobbying muscle was minimal, but since the arrival of a new president in the White House, BP has poured millions into Washington, mainly through third-party lobby groups. Organisations such as the American Petroleum Institute, funded in part by BP, have done the company's dirty work for them. Supposedly spontaneous citizen demonstrations against climate legislation have sprung up around the US, before journalists revealed they were actually populated by employees of the oil companies themselves....What BP will never admit, among their glossy corporate brochures and extensive environmental assessments, is that its entire business model is predicated on an ever increasing demand for oil, decades into the future. These growth predictions rely on a world in which there is no collective action to tackle global emissions, no concerted effort to transfer clean technology to the developing world, and almost no chance of maintaining anything like a stable climate.

The oil spill is washing up on Louisiana's shores amd destroying the fragile ecosystems there as I type - and fund managers are worried that BP will face legal actions! 
  
Do we really want a world in which BP can profit?  That would be a world in which democracy is subverted by lobbying -  one where the developed world continues to hog most resources - and a world where no one does anything meaningful about climate change because fossil fuel extractors might not be able to make a profit.

Climate Change, Conflict and Fragility

The US Pentagon has acknowledged that climate change increases the possiblity of conflict around the world.  "The Pentagon will for the first time rank global warming as a destabilising force, adding fuel to conflict and putting US troops at risk around the world, in a major strategy review to be presented to Congress tomorrow. The Pentagon, in acknowledging the threat of global warming, will now have to factor climate change into war game exercises and long-term security assessments of badly affected regions such as the Arctic, sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asia." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/31/pentagon-ranks-global-warming-destabilising-force

 International Alert, an independent  peace building organization funded by the European Union,  has spent twenty years attempting to create peace.  "Effects of climate change such as more frequent natural disasters, long-term water shortages and food insecurity could combine with other factors and lead to violent conflict." http://www.international-alert.org/press/Climate_change_conflict_and_fragility_Nov09.pdf

 In spite of these two organizations' diametrically opposed missons, they agree on the security implications of climate change. Unlike the Pentagon, International Alert attempts to understand and  prevent conflict. They conclude that, by instituting good governance,  peaceful solutions to the problems caused by global warming are more likely to be created.  Do you doubt their conclusions?   Fragile states are characterized by an elite that controls economic and political opportunity - think of Guatemala.  Conflict risk is increased when  resources are hogged by by elites and the poor have no access to institutional structures through which their grievances can be addressed.     Hmmmnnnnn  - now I'm wondering if the BC pipeline bomber feels he has no other way to express grievances besides violence.     (Goerge Monbiot did call Canada a thuggish petro state.)

I conclude that climate change activists must be politically aware and work towards increasing participation in democracy if a velvet climate revolution is to be successful.

I Don't Really Need To Add Anything

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/30/canada-tar-sands-copenhagen-climate-deal

This country's government is now behaving with all the sophistication of a chimpanzee's tea party. So amazingly destructive has Canada become, and so insistent have my Canadian friends been that I weigh into this fight, that I've broken my self-imposed ban on flying and come to Toronto. 

So here I am, watching the astonishing spectacle of a beautiful, cultured nation turning itself into a corrupt petro-state. Canada is slipping down the development ladder, retreating from a complex, diverse economy towards dependence on a single primary resource, which happens to be the dirtiest commodity known to man. The price of this transition is the brutalisation of the country, and a government campaign against multilateralism as savage as any waged by George Bush.

Until now I believed that the nation that has done most to sabotage a new climate change agreement was the United States. I was wrong. The real villain is Canada. Unless we can stop it, the harm done by Canada in December 2009 will outweigh a century of good works.

In June this year the media obtained Canadian briefing documents which showed the government was scheming to divide the Europeans. During the meeting in Bangkok in October, almost the entire developing world bloc walked out when the Canadian delegate was speaking, as they were so revolted by his bullying. Last week the Commonwealth heads of government battled for hours (and eventually won) against Canada's obstructions. A concerted campaign has now begun to expel Canada from the Commonwealth.

The purpose of Canada's assault on the international talks is to protect this industry. This is not a poor nation. It does not depend for its economic survival on exploiting this resource. But the tar barons of Alberta have been able to hold the whole country to ransom. They have captured Canada's politics and are turning this lovely country into a cruel and thuggish place.