British Conservatives fight wars, not global warming

This 12 September 2019 video from the USA says about itself:

Costs and Consequences of US Post-9/11 Wars: Focus on Climate Change

As we observe another anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attack, Neta Crawford, political scientist and co-director of the Costs of War project, discusses the environmental impacts of the post-9/11 wars.

Although greenhouse gas emissions from war were excluded from country reporting during the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocols, a major consequence of war is increased use of fossil fuels. During this event, Crawford will share her recent research calculating the U.S. military’s greenhouse gas emissions associated with the post-9/11 wars.

Neta C. Crawford is a professor of political science and currently chairs the department of political science at Boston University. Her teaching focuses on international relations theory, international ethics, and normative change. Crawford received the Distinguished Scholar award from the International Ethics section of the International Studies Association in 2018.

Her research interests include international relations theory, normative theory, foreign policy decision making, sanctions, peace movements, discourse ethics, post-conflict peacebuilding, research design, utopian science fiction, and emotion. Crawford is also interested in methods for understanding the costs and consequences of war and is co-director of the Eisenhower Study Group “Costs of War” based at Brown University.

Co-sponsored by the Institute at Brown for Environment and Society.

From daily The Morning Star in Britain:

Monday, March 2, 2020

Military spending ‘is diverting much-needed resources from tackling unfolding climate catastrophe,’ says CAAT report

THE government spends more than twice as much on the military as on tackling the “unfolding climate catastrophe”, according to the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT).

In a new study published today, the group says that any loss to Britain’s status as a global military power does not pose an “existential threat to the UK and the world.”

Instead the research argues that the “first duty of government” should be to mitigate disease, natural disasters and growing inequality.

The report, Fighting The Wrong Battles: How Obsession With Military Power Diverts Resources From The Climate Crisis, is written by CAAT’s Dr Sam Perlo-Freeman.

It states: “It is striking that the maximum spending estimate for achieving the UK’s climate change targets is around the same level as what the government considers to be the bare minimum requirement for military spending.”

Mr Perlo-Freeman is the group’s research co-ordinator and former head of military expenditure at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

He said: “The climate crisis is not only an environmental crisis, it is also one of human security. It is already causing catastrophic damage and loss of life worldwide.

“The recent floods have shown how ill-prepared UK infrastructure and government responses are today. As climate change worsens then so will the impact of floods and extreme weather events.

“If we are to make the changes that are needed, that means moving towards a vision of climate justice and sustainable security.

“We must focus on the real threats to human wellbeing, recognise the interdependence of security for people around the world, and ensure that our economic systems remain within the bounds set by nature.”

Shadow peace minister Fabian Hamilton will host a lobby in parliament today from 11.30am where CAAT will present the report.