Saturday, January 30, 2010
Interview (video) with Cleo Paskal by Geoff Dabelko, Director of the Woodrow Wilson Center's Environmental Change and Security Program on the vulnerabilities of energy infrastructure to environmental change
[...] in Paskal’s new book, Global Warring: How Environmental, Economic and Political Crises Will Redraw the World Map, the changing world is creating a new playing field in which the Great Powers will struggle for power and influence. A cool, clear-eyed analysis of the emerging geopolitics, Global Warring does not engage in climate change-induced scenario speculation nor does it offer emotional appeals to curbing emissions. It simply explains what the new realities are, and what we can do to adapt to them.
To read more, click here.
If you’re looking for a debate on global warming, however, you’ll have to look elsewhere. In Paskal’s analysis, climate change is a given. In fact, she often opts for the term “environmental change,” and prefers to look beyond specific theories of the causes of climate change to focus on its effects and implications on the ground. [...] This experienced journalist shows her academic chops when laying down the historical background of the geo hot spots discussed. She needs little time to make her synopses clear and condensed.
To read more, click here.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Martin Walker, UPI Editor Emeritus and Senior Director of A. T. Kearney's Global Business Policy Council, wrote a great review of Global Warring for UPI that brings to the fore some of the books key points. In it he also writes:
Paskal, a Canadian who is a fellow of London's prestigious Chatham House think tank and a consultant for the U.S. Department of Energy, has been a pioneering scholar of the new terrain where climate change confronts national security, where geopolitics, geoeconomics and global warming all collide.
To read more, click here.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
In this commentary for UPI, Cleo Paskal and Scott Savitt analyze what really happened at Copenhagen and why it was a potentially groundbreaking moment in geopolitics.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Q. What are the effects now and what are the effects in the future?
A. A lot depends on what the reactions of the different players will be. For example, in the U.S., over 50% of the population lives in areas that are considered coastal. Unless there is a great understanding of what rising sea levels, increasing storm surges, and things like that will do to those areas, it’s going to become increasingly costly, and could have quite a series effect not only on economic development but also on social stability. China has a very serious water supply problem and it also has major infrastructure and industrial areas right on the coast, in a typhoon zone, such as in Shanghai. There are different regions that have different vulnerabilities. What will happen will depend very much on how much of an effort is made to integrate those changes into future planning, and to try to counter the detrimental effects.
We do know certain things are going to become increasingly problematic. Energy supplies will be increasingly compromised by environmental change. The offshore platforms in the Gulf of Mexico are very likely to face more shut downs due to increasing storm activity or intensity. Hydroelectric installations are designed for very special operating parameters — certain amounts of rainfall, particular river levels, glacier melts. All of that is in flux now. Nuclear stations require an enormous amount of water for cooling. In France, for example, increasingly high temperatures have made it difficult for plants to operate at maximum capacity in the summer. So energy sector disruptions are happening already, and are very likely to accelerate. It’s like putting together pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. We can see certain critical areas being affected but it’s hard to see what the whole picture will be, because so many of the pieces of the puzzle are changing as our reaction to these events changes.
Article By Cleo Paskal and Scott Savitt: New Security Beat blog post: The Real Take Home Message From Copenhagen Is Not What You Think
Klimatske promjene opasnije za globalnu sigurnost od terorizma
Više nije dovoljno samo procijeniti koliko mi utječemo na promjene okoliša. Sad je kucnuo čas da procijenimo koliko će promjene okoliša utjecati na nas, poručila je Cleo Paskal iz Londona, kao da je naslućivala fijasko na summitu UN-a u Kopenhagenu
Interview (video) with Cleo Paskal by Geoff Dabelko of the Woodrow WIlson Center's Environmental Change and Security Program on Global Warring, Vulnerability, and Climate Change
Monday, January 4, 2010
In an article on Bangladesh, the New York Times, wrote:
Paskal, of the Royal Institute, said Bangladesh, by pouring money and research into new ways to deal with climate change, is actually protecting the world from conflict.
"We need a stable India, and [climate migration] has the potential to destabilize India," she said. "If we try to put pressure on India to take in refugees, we're undermining our credibility in India's eyes."
But, Paskal said, Bangladesh "is a nation of serious, hard-working people. It is their adaptive capacity that is cushioning us from some of the worst impacts."
In an article about the Arctic, Bloomberg quotes Cleo:
``The situation is changing very quickly because of climate change,'' Paskal said. ``There's unquestionably going to be dramatically increased traffic through the Arctic.''
Another article about the Arctic, this time in The Telegraph, also quotes Cleo. You can read that one here.
If you click here, you can read The Guardian's report on Cleo's work on maritime boundaries and the potential for countries to legally disappear.
And in the lead-up to Copenhagen, the BBC's The World Tonight