Jerry Cope at the Huffington Post quotes Cleo Paskal in article on the DoD Quadrennial Defense Review

Jerry Cope, in a post highlighting the importance of climate change in the just released  U.S. Department of Defense Quadrennial Defense Review, mentions Global Warring and quotes Cleo Paskal. An excerpt from Cleo's quote:


In the same way our physical infrastructure isn't taking into account environmental change, our legal infrastructure is not designed to take into account environmental change. A lot of our laws, treaties and agreements assume the environment is a constant, but it is becoming a variable. 


To read more, click here.

Article by Cleo Paskal in International Affairs Forum: The fallacy of growth

Reprinted from the Winter 2009/2010 issue of International Affairs Forum magazine (to see the issue online, click here).

The fallacy of growth: Climate change policy trade-offs

By Cleo Paskal, Chatham House 

In many areas, the debate around climate change has formed well-trodden pathways, making it increasingly difficult to broaden the discussion. As a result, analysis is sometimes flawed and some viable solutions are being overlooked. A case in point is the dominant assumption that there is a trade-off between economic growth and climate change policies, especially for developing countries. 

Part of the problem is the narrow definitions of climate change policies themselves. Almost invariably, the term connotes a reduction in carbon emission, usually through a reduction in the use of fossil fuels. While there are a range of other areas that produce substantial greenhouse gas emissions, including, for example, the livestock industry, they are rarely included in the discussion. Similarly, there are a range of existing, low-cost ways of absorbing emission, including urban reforestation. While that topic tends to get more attention, it is still underrepresented in the debate. 

Though there are sound reasons to look at energy use, at least part of the reason for the concerted focus is that, to a large degree, much of the discussion around the politics of climate change took shape in the economies where there are existing energy security concerns. Shifts to lower imported energy use dovetails well with established strategic goals. Meanwhile, for example in a U.S. context, lowering the amount of beef consumed (which would also reduce emissions) does little for strategic goals and would carry costs with the agricultural lobby. And planting trees/green roofs might provide some local jobs, but is not perceived as a—pardon the pun—growth industry, especially in comparison with potential carbon capture and storage megaprojects. 

Even though much of the developing world has differently structured economies and needs, it has been pulled into the dominant paradigm through the negotiations process, and now the vast majority of global discussions revolve around carbon emissions, and in particular those related to energy use. As a result, many in the developing world (and beyond) equate countering climate change with lowering fossil fuel use, something that is perceived to negatively affect economic development. This doesn’t take into account two factors. The first is that fossil fuel prices are likely to increase in variability, and possibly rise substantially due to other factors such as the specter of peak oil. That, in itself, can undermine economic development. 

A case in point is the Kingdom of Tonga in the South Pacific. Given the nature of its economy, emissions aren’t really an issue. Per capita emissions are minimal and likely to remain so. This nation of just over 100,000 citizens imports almost 100% of its energy in the form of fossil fuels. It was very badly hit during the recent oil price spike. The innovative and forward thinking government of the country immediately decided to convert its energy use to 50% renewables within approximately two years. Once accomplished, its economic development will be substantially buffered from variations in global energy markets, giving it a substantial advantage. This clearly shows that mitigation, even if largely as a by-product of energy security, can be an economic benefit, not cost.

The second factor involves assessing the cost not only of our impact on the environment, but of a changing environment’s impact on us. While the focus is normally on promoting growth, given the disruptive impacts of environmental change, we should also be concerned about limiting loss. 

Much of the world’s critical infrastructure, including the oil and gas installations in the U.S. Gulf Coast, the hydro dams powering large sections of Asia, and industrial powerhouses such as Shanghai, are in regions that are already being affected by a changing climate. Hurricane Katrina (2005) cost the Gulf Coast an estimated $100 billion and triggered spikes in global oil and gas prices. There were similar problems in the Gulf energy sector in 2008 when Ike and Gustav passed though. The increasingly unpredictable river levels in the Himalayas are causing problems with site stability and the ability to generate power. In coastal China, as a result of building in vulnerable areas and increasing climate extremes, during typhoon season there have been evacuations of hundreds of thousands of people almost every year for the past few years. 

The developing world understands how destructive a changing environment can be. And, when doing their assessments, they tend to quite rightly look beyond simple climate change when trying to understand their risks. 

Again, Tonga is a good example of this. In recent countrywide consultation sessions, local populations were asked about how their physical environment was changing, what it meant to them, and what their concerns for the future were. This was combined with scientific assessments on vulnerabilities. What emerged was a complex picture of a changing environment that included not only climate change but a range of interrelated factors such as subduction, volcanic activity, changing currents, El Nino, and others. Only when all these factors are combined can an effective defensive strategy be put in place. 

And such a strategy is desperately needed. In both the developed and developing world, if the ‘environmental change proofing’ of infrastructure, industry, urban areas, etc., is not addressed, loss may soon overwhelm growth. 

Increasing energy security and reducing vulnerability to extreme events are both necessary for economic growth. Bluntly put, there is no point putting up a solar power plant in what is now, or may soon become, a flood zone. 

It is not that there is a trade-off between economic growth and climate change policies; it is that without more rounded and sound environmental change policies, there may not be any growth at all. 

Interview with Cleo Paskal in the Montreal Gazette

Catherine Solyom from Cleo Paskal's hometown paper, the Montreal Gazette, just ran an extensive interview with Cleo, making her parents very proud, and confusing old high school classmates who thought she had died sometime in the mid-1990s on Butaritari atoll (a rumour started after she filed a story on Butaritari for the CBC mentioning how sick she got there -- though the fact she filed the story should have been an indicator that she survived). An excerpt:

In your book, you talk about the developed world's mistaken belief that it won't be significantly affected by climate change. What do you see happening in Quebec?

One question will be what happens with the St. Lawrence Seaway. If we see big reductions in the levels of the Great Lakes, then the St. Lawrence Seaway may reduce in level. That could mean a few things - one, that the big ships can't get up into the Great Lakes anymore and Montreal can become a bigger port, another might be the salt-water front in the St. Lawrence could move and we'd have to push back our water filtration plants. And with more mild winters and increasing winter precipitation, it's possible there will be more ice storms.

You mention the ice storm of 1998 in your book. What are the lessons to be learned from the ice storm here and Hurricane Katrina in the U.S.?

The developed world is heavily reliant on network-provided power, and when that power goes, we lose everything we consider to be normal components of modern life - our communications systems, our banking systems, our refrigeration, our heating, all goes. So what is sustaining the way we live is actually very narrow and potentially very fragile. I was lucky enough to be able to travel with the Canadian military during the ice storm and they did a phenomenal job - that really drove home the importance of having trained professionals who are capable of dealing with emergency situations, something that was visibly lacking in New Orleans.

There we saw that environmental change can create its own problems, but it can exacerbate existing problems. So if you have a society that is already fragmented, where the resources are already stretched, where the emergency services are understaffed and under-equipped, if you have a disruption, everything gets very bad very quickly. It's not just that the environment is changing, it's our reaction to that changing environment that really determines how bad the situation will be.

What is your analysis of what's happening in Haiti?

What's happening in Haiti is heartbreaking and tragic. There's not much that can be said. But what's interesting is that many of the houses were built to withstand hurricanes so they had concrete roofs that became a death trap in an earthquake. So when we're looking at how to build resilience, it's important to take into account the range of threats. The other thing is to see who is good at responding to these disasters. Which nations have been able to get people in in order to help quickly? It will take a few weeks to figure out who's done it successfully. But I would hope that the countries that didn't would take a look at their emergency services and see how they can be bolstered. Because unfortunately we will be dealing with many more national disasters in the years to come.

To read more, click here.

Article By Cleo Paskal and Scott Savitt: Copenhagen Consequences for the U.S., China and India

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.

"Going in to Copenhagen, the “Rashomon” narratives of the conference varied more than many realized. The West primarily thought it was negotiating a trade deal – as evidenced by the drop in EU carbon trading prices after the talks failed to deliver a climate market deal. China was negotiating for a trade deal, but kept options open for larger strategic advantages. And India wanted to drive home big geopolitical points.

"Coming out of Copenhagen, the narrative is clearer: This was geopolitics pure and simple."

Click here to read more....

Interview with Cleo on Zocalo Public Square

Swati Pandey from ZocaloPublicSquare.org interviewed Cleo on the interrelation of the three major shifts happening in the world today: geopolitical, geoeconomic and geophysical. Sample Q&A:

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.

Click here to read more....

Interview with Cleo on the Huffington Post

Jerry Cope writes in the Huffington Post about climate change and security in Copenhagen, and interviews Cleo on some specifics. Sample Q&A:

Jerry Cope: You seem to be quit clear that the concerns should be domestic as well as international.

Cleo: It's not a complete assessment and if anything contains the words climate change as opposed to environment change you know it's not a complete assessment. Climate change will feed into other environmental changes. If you are assessing climate change but not what the US Army Corps of Engineers is doing to your coastline you are not getting a complete picture.

Click here to read more...

Article By Cleo Paskal and Scott Savitt: New Security Beat blog post: The Real Take Home Message From Copenhagen Is Not What You Think

"A fascinating and potentially game-changing geopolitical pas-de-deux unfolded in Copenhagen. The international media and punditocracy christened the U.S. and China the new G2 in reference to the expected preeminent leadership roles the two hold among their respective developed and developing country contingents. What increasingly became clear, however, was that a different G2 was influencing the agenda:China and India."

To read more of the article, click here....

CalicutNet Interview with Cleo

One of the questions:

Rajesh Kumar Edacheri: Do you think climate change will worsen poverty, political instability and regional conflicts?

Cleo: It can, but it is not inevitable. With thought, effort and will we can get through this. We have to.

Think of a factory on the coast of Kerala. If it continues as usual, it might first have problems with erosion affecting its foundation; then power lines down the coast might fall over, affecting its electrical supply; then the building itself may flood. And flood again. It will face problem after problem until it is too much and it collapses.

Alternatively, it can defend itself, perhaps with anti-erosion techniques; can put in its own renewable energy supply, covering the cost of installation by selling off the excess energy it generates; and then become highly profitable as it develops and sells a new water purification system.

Business usual is not going to work anymore. But we all are in a position to turn that challenge into an opportunity and to create more stability and security for ourselves, our neighbors, our communities and our countries, and the world. We have to. The cost of failure is unimaginable.

Click to read more....

Profile in The Hindu

The Hindu just ran a nice profile about Cleo and her work in India. It includes sections like: 


On a visit to Kerala recently, she says: “This southern state faces a big challenge because its development is right on the coast. It is severely affected by rising sea levels, rising temperatures and changing rain patterns, including monsoon. This in turn will affect its tourism and crops: coir and plantations.” But there are solutions. Soil erosion that is threatening river banks across the world can be handled the way Kerala has done in the past, with the use of coir matting to protect river beds.


To read more, click here.