• Home
  • Biodiversity
    Avoiding climate breakdown depends on protecting Earth’s biodiversity – can the COP15 summit deliver?

    Avoiding climate breakdown depends on protecting Earth’s biodiversity – can the COP15 summit deliver?

    Long-standing systems for sustainable farming could feed people and the planet — if industry is willing to step back

    Long-standing systems for sustainable farming could feed people and the planet — if industry is willing to step back

    What is regenerative capitalism and why is it important?

    What is regenerative capitalism and why is it important?

    Mapped: The Network of Powerful Agribusiness Groups Lobbying to Water Down the EU’s Sustainable Farming Targets

    Mapped: The Network of Powerful Agribusiness Groups Lobbying to Water Down the EU’s Sustainable Farming Targets

    IPBES cochairs and press conference with transcripts

    IPBES cochairs and press conference with transcripts

    The Great Climate Disruption

    The Great Climate Disruption

    Global Catastrophic Climate Risks

    Global Catastrophic Climate Risks

  • Climate
  • Nuclear War
  • Social Analysis
  • Energy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Black Swan Strategic Intelligence
  • Home
  • Biodiversity
    Avoiding climate breakdown depends on protecting Earth’s biodiversity – can the COP15 summit deliver?

    Avoiding climate breakdown depends on protecting Earth’s biodiversity – can the COP15 summit deliver?

    Long-standing systems for sustainable farming could feed people and the planet — if industry is willing to step back

    Long-standing systems for sustainable farming could feed people and the planet — if industry is willing to step back

    What is regenerative capitalism and why is it important?

    What is regenerative capitalism and why is it important?

    Mapped: The Network of Powerful Agribusiness Groups Lobbying to Water Down the EU’s Sustainable Farming Targets

    Mapped: The Network of Powerful Agribusiness Groups Lobbying to Water Down the EU’s Sustainable Farming Targets

    IPBES cochairs and press conference with transcripts

    IPBES cochairs and press conference with transcripts

    The Great Climate Disruption

    The Great Climate Disruption

    Global Catastrophic Climate Risks

    Global Catastrophic Climate Risks

  • Climate
  • Nuclear War
  • Social Analysis
  • Energy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Black Swan Strategic Intelligence
No Result
View All Result

Climate Change, Violence and War

11 November 2021
in Nuclear War, Politics, Social Analysis
Reading Time: 6 mins read
A A

One does not need to be a climate scientist to work out that, in spite of government rhetoric to the contrary, there is absolutely no real movement in the direction of global emission reduction at the scale needed. That means in all likelihood we are headed toward a catastrophe that could easily pushed modern civilization to a breaking point.

By exploring possible parameters here, I hope to encourage more thinking and discussion about measures that might make sense as insurance against complete climate upheaval and the collapse of global civilization. In other words, the kind of thing we expect could happen with 5° or 6° C. warming—a worse case scenario so to speak. What would provide us with a “fallback plan” to preserve what we consider most valuable in our civilization should we fail to prevent dangerous levels of global warming?

What does a 5-6°C average global temperature increase really mean for humanity?
To answer that question, British author and journalist Mark Lynas spent 3 years of his life poring over 10,000 scientific papers and found that, although it doesn’t sound like a lot, a 5ºC or 6ºC temperature would be devastating.

The National Geographic documentary based on Lynas’ work describes how at 5ºC, two massive uninhabitable zones wouldspread into once temperate regions of Northern and Southern hemispheres. The snow packs and aquifers that feed the great cities would dry up. And climate refuges would number in the hundreds of millions. “I think in a world that is much warmer than now, 5ºC, it is going to be inconceivable that human civilization can withstand that kind of climatic shock,” said Lynas.

At 5ºC, suggested National Geographic, we in essence enter the twilight zone of climate change, a nightmare vision of life on Earth where traditional social systems break down.

With between 4°-5 ° C. warming, Earth becomes an entirely different planet, noted environmental journalist Richard Girling in the Sunday Times after interviewing Lynas. Ice sheets would vanished from both poles; rain forests would burn up and turn to desert; rising seas would scour deep into continental interiors. Populations would probably try to move from arid areas to the newly thawed regions of the far north, in Canada and Siberia. Of course, there is no guarantee that northern governments would willingly admit southern refugees, so Siberia and Canada could easily end up being invaded by China and the US militaries.

And even if southern governments don’t invade the north, certainly migrants would attempt to force their way into remaining habitable enclaves in a fight for survival.

Where no refuge is available, civil war and a collapse into racial or communal conflict seems the likely outcome. Isolated survivalism, however, may be as impracticable as dialing for room service, suggests Girling. How many of us could really trap or kill enough game to feed a family? Even if large numbers of people did successfully manage to fan out into the countryside, wildlife populations would quickly dwindle under the pressure. Supporting a hunter-gatherer lifestyle takes 10 to 100 times the land per person that a settled agricultural community needs.

A large-scale resort to survivalism would turn into a further disaster for biodiversity as hungry humans killed and ate anything that moved. Including, perhaps, each other. Invaders do not take kindly to residents denying them food. History suggests that if a stockpile is discovered, the householder and his family may be tortured and killed. Look for comparison to the experience of present-day Somalia, Sudan or Burundi, where conflicts over scarce land and food are at the root of lingering tribal wars and state collapse.

James Lovelock points out that extreme temperatures don’t necessarily mean that there are not areas when people could still live on the planet. The Arctic might again become tropical, as it was in the past, but it would probably be habitable, for instance. After years of being one of the environmental movement’s most influential figures (according to one British newspaper), in the face of an honest assessment of future climate impacts, he finally concluded that our best strategy might be not sustainable development, but rather sustainable retreat.


“We suspect that we have little time left to deal with climate change, overpopulation, food and water shortage, and other adverse consequences of our accelerated way of living,” wrote Lovelock. “But how do we choose between the remedies on offer? Do we try sustainable development and renewed energy? Or do we bite the atom and rely on nuclear energy? Some offer to geoengineer the Earth to an ideal composition and climate. I think we might do worse than have trust in Gaia to regulate the Earth as she has done since life began, and retreat to the best [cooled] cities that we can design and build with the objective of saving as many of us as we can; and entirely abandon the absurdly hubristic idea of saving the planet.”

Climate Conflicts


As our climate heats up, the risk of war increases. And of course, that includes the risk of nuclear war.

Syria is one good example. A recent study published in the U.S. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences details how the drought in Syria, exacerbated to record levels by global warming, pushed social unrest in that nation into an open uprising in 2011. And subsequently, this conflict became a major civil war with international involvement.

It’s not hard to see why this can happen. The drought in Syria from 2006 to 2011— the worst on record there —destroyed agriculture, causing many farm families to migrate to cities. This influx added to social stresses already created by refugees pouring in from the war in Iraq. And the drought also pushed up food prices, aggravating poverty.

“We’re not saying the drought caused the war,” Richard Seager, a climate scientist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory who co-authored the study, told Scientific American. “We’re saying that added to all the other stressors, it helped kick things over the threshold into open conflict. And a drought of that severity was made much more likely by the ongoing human-driven drying of that region.”

The Syrian situation is far from unique. According to the U.S. Department of Defense, climate change is now regarded as a “threat multiplier” that can exacerbate other problems. Droughts and other climate-related resource scarcity can intensify conflicts over resources, for example.

Ex-C.I.A. analyst Paul R. Pillar goes so far as to argue that climate change as a “threat multiplier” could not only put the world on course toward worsening chaos, but even extermination as nuclear-armed nations scramble to cope with environmental dislocations and resource shortages.

In other words, as the impacts of climate change become more catastrophic, these exacerbate other problems and so increase the risk of nuclear war.

One troubling thought is that as we start moving to temperature and weather extremes, with increasing droughts and floods, nuclear war might be seen in some warped way as a solution to over-population. In theory at least, significantly reducing the Earth’s population could also significantly reduce our greenhouse gas output. More and more, we are starting to hear that true planetary sustainability may only be possible if we reduced Earth’s population below 500 million.
CNN founder Ted Turner, for example, has argued, “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” Dave Foreman, the co-founder of Earth First, says that reducing our population down to 100 million is one of his goals.

Mikhail Gorbachev, who focused on environmental issues by founding the Green Cross International after stepping down from Soviet leadership, argues that the ecological crisis is really a population crisis. “Cut the population by 90% and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage,” he has said.


Not that any of the people who have suggested that we need an extreme population reduction would ever contemplate measures like a thermonuclear war to achieve it. But who is to say that some future government leader with a finger is on the nuclear trigger won’t consider this? It is an unnerving, morbid thought, but we shouldn’t forget that psychopaths like Hitler do occasionally rise to the pinnacles of political power.”

Share122Tweet76Share30
Previous Post

Seeking a Resilient Society

Next Post

The Looming Energy Gap

Blake Harris

Blake Harris

A fulltime journalist, writer and social analyst for over four decades, Blake Harris now explores how we might shift modern civilization away from its current trajectory toward global catastrophe to create a more sustainable, rewarding and equitable future.

Related Posts

The Doomsday Clock is now at 90 seconds to midnight — the closest we have ever been to global catastrophe

The Doomsday Clock is now at 90 seconds to midnight — the closest we have ever been to global catastrophe

25 January 2023
‘Drop Fossil Fuels,’ Over 400 Scientists Tell PR Firm Handling UN Climate Talks

‘Drop Fossil Fuels,’ Over 400 Scientists Tell PR Firm Handling UN Climate Talks

8 November 2022
New Jersey Sues Five Oil Companies, Alleging Decades of ‘Concealment’ and ‘Public Deception’ on Climate Change

New Jersey Sues Five Oil Companies, Alleging Decades of ‘Concealment’ and ‘Public Deception’ on Climate Change

20 October 2022
How Canada’s Oil Sands ‘Bankrolled the Assault on Truth’

How Canada’s Oil Sands ‘Bankrolled the Assault on Truth’

23 September 2022

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy/Terms of Service.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

About Us

Black Swan Strategic Intelligence

Black Swan Strategic Intelligence

Using intelligence-based research and analysis tools, we seek to develop and promote “black swan sensitive” leverage point strategies that could bring about a rapid and positive shift in humanity’s trajectory away from a confluence of global catastrophes toward a sustainable, rewarding and equitable culture on Earth.

Recent Posts

  • Court Hears Appeal in Canadian Youth Climate Lawsuit
    In Climate
  • The Doomsday Clock is now at 90 seconds to midnight — the closest we have ever been to global catastrophe
    In Climate, Nuclear War, Politics
  • No quick fix for climate change
    In Climate, Technology
  • UAE Selects Fossil Fuel Exec to Lead COP28
    In Climate, Energy
  • Avoiding climate breakdown depends on protecting Earth’s biodiversity – can the COP15 summit deliver?
    In Biodiversity, Climate

Topic Categories

  • Biodiversity
  • Climate
  • Energy
  • Future
  • Inequity
  • Migration
  • Nuclear War
  • Politics
  • Population
  • Social Analysis
  • Sustainability
  • Technology
  • Uncategorized

Posts by Date

Privacy Policy/Terms of Service

Black Swan Research Methodologies

© 2021-2022 Black Swan Strategic Intelligence All Rights Reserved

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Biodiversity
  • Climate
  • Nuclear War
  • Social Analysis
  • Energy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
This website uses cookies. By continuing to use this website you are giving consent to cookies being used. Visit our Privacy and Cookie Policy.