Bill Vague said:
You cannot have food, water, or energy security without climate security. They are interconnected and inseparable. They form four resource pillars on which global security, prosperity and equity stand. Each depends on the others. Plentiful, affordable food requires reliable and affordable access to water and energy. Increasing dependence on coal, oil, and gas threatens climate security, increasing the severity of floods and droughts, damaging food production, exacerbating the loss of biodiversity and, in countries that rely on hydropower, undermining energy security through the impact on water availability. As the world becomes more networked, the impacts of climate change in one country or region will affect the prosperity and security of others around the world.
What the hell does this mean? Man the bilge pumps! It makes no sense.
Four pillars on which three things stand. Is it an allusion to Trafalgar Square? What shall we put on the fourth plinth? I vote for a gibbet.
No nation or Earth or global government can provide 'climate security'. The most any can do is attempt to lessen the impact of severe weather through managing water resources, not ruining croplands and encouraging energy generation. We already have plentiful, affordable food but idiots at the UN and in other NGOs keep cocking up the distribution of it with trade tariffs and dumping. Charities are doing more to aid access to water than Governments are. Dependence on fossil fuels doesn't threaten climate security because climate security is a fiction (what are we going to do, pick an arbitrary global pattern of weather and engineer a means to make it repeatable?) Floods and droughts may or may not be increasing in severity but I would bet any increase is due to poor planning and poor water management. Gas in particular aids food production you prat - they make fertiliser out of it. Oil fuels the vehicles that move the food around and coal provides a means to cook it. Billy boy is making a leap of faith in assuming that we are reducing biodiversity let alone that it is being exacerbated by fossil fuels.
No-one can have failed to be appalled by the devastating floods in Pakistan. They overwhelmed the capacity of government to respond, and opened political space for extremists. While Pakistan has borne the brunt of the human impact, China too has been hit on a vast scale by a seemingly endless sequence of droughts, floods and deadly mudslides. The Russian drought last month damaged the wheat harvest, leading to an export ban. World prices surged, hitting the poorest hardest and sparking riots over bread prices in Mozambique.
I was appalled at the poor standards of construction in places that flood badly. Haven't they got planning officers and building regs? China is big enough and populated enough that at any given time someone, somewhere will be suffering from extremes of weather. Mudslides can be caused by deforestation and/or the building of reservoirs. As for Mozambique bread riots, it wasn't Russian wheat that caused it but the Government
, who also increased the price of water and electricity at the same time. How jolly nice of them.
To be honest I am struggling to find any sense in the Mekon's speech.
We need to shift investment urgently from high carbon business as usual to the low carbon economy – this means building an essentially decarbonised global economy by mid century. At the same time we must ensure development is climate resilient: otherwise the changes in climate that are already unavoidable will block the path for hundreds of millions of people from poverty to prosperity. These changes also threaten to sweep away the investments in development we have made -- and just as the bridges and schools in Pakistan were swept away.
Decarbonised? These people are anti-life. Development can be climate resilient. Build their homes on stilts. Every home to have a wheelchair ramp too, so it can double as a slipway if things get really bad when the Himalayan glaciers melt by 2035.
When I became Foreign Secretary in May, I said the core goals of our foreign policy were to guarantee Britain’s security and prosperity. Robust global action on climate change is essential to that agenda. That is why the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, under my leadership, is a vocal advocate for climate diplomacy. All British Ambassadors carry the argument for a global low carbon transition in their breast pocket or their handbag. Climate change is part of their daily vocabulary, alongside the traditional themes of foreign policy. They are supported by our unique network of climate attachés throughout the world.
A roving band of taxpayer funded Greenshirts with their Little Green Book waiting for the Green Leap Forward! Haven't they got anything better to do, like proper Foreign Office work. Our Government appears to be composed of little green men in more ways than one.
Collectively we share a responsibility to those most vulnerable to the impact of climate change.
No we don't. Climate is always changing but, there is a means to do it quickly and with the least cost and fuss. Free trade. Our cost of living falls. The income of poor places with cheaper labour prices increases and they can afford their own climate change adaption programmes. But then that wouldn't provide ample political PR, the chance to direct trillions of dollars of funding, the opportunity to feather your own nest or allow people the choice to find their own solutions to a problem they might not be all that worried about even if it were true.
Bangladesh, with its densely populated coastal region, is particularly susceptible to rising sea levels.
And always will be. It is not an unsurmountable problem but regular monsoon flooding is a far more pressing concern.
Glacial melt, sea level rises and El Niño-type events threaten the lives of millions across South America.
Threatens the livelihoods, maybe. Threatens their current way of life, perhaps. I assume the glacial melt claim is in reality overstretched fresh water resources - ie population and development growth that is unchecked by Governments until it is checked by nature. Sea level rises in their proper context are pifflingly small compared to just a few thousand years ago and pretty small anyway.
And the very existence of many small islands states is under threat.
I hope you don't mean the Maldives, Bill. They aren't sinking. Neither is Tuvalu which is compacting in places due to over development and growing in other areas. Actually, I think he secretly means Great Britain. We've pretty much gone already.
I must add: I wonder how much of this Hague himself believes. It is really the civil service message he is vomiting up.