As a result of the developments of the global economic crisis and its repercussions, the implications of environmental disputes were put on the back burner following the ‘half failure' of the Copenhagen Climate Summit in late 2009. In truth, the potential dangers of environmental deterioration and climate change are equal in magnitude to – if not greater than – the perils of the economic crisis. In truth, all the rather complex scenarios are in agreement with what regards the hypothesis that Earth's inhabitants are ‘committing suicide'. Not a mass simultaneous suicide, but a slow suicide that they have delegated to nature to execute, as they harm it, alter its equilibrium, and render the warming climate a fuel that melts the glaciers that formed over tens of thousands of years, and which helped bring about climate moderation and the succession of seasons in a timely manner in general. The most optimistic scenario is based on achieving a global consensus regarding the reduction of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, in order to maintain the increase of temperatures within the 2 degrees range until 2050, and this scenario requires that the green industry booms and prospers. Despite this, pundits, geologists and climatologists are recording a rapid pattern in the melting of the polar ice caps and the ensuing increase in the flow of water and rising sea levels that may flood islands and shores, and cause massive displacement, resulting in higher population densities in smaller tracts of land. In the worst case scenario, large tracts of rain forests and major estuaries such as the Nile, the Ganges, the Amazon and the Congo will disappear, desertification will increase, and arable fertile lands will shrink while drought and hunger will expand. Consequently, more deaths will result from diseases induced by climate change, while natural disasters such as hurricanes will increase in frequency, especially when many experts have noticed that their annual frequencies have doubled and quadrupled in the areas usually exposed to hurricanes. The obligatory results of ecological change alter economic reality, whether in terms of the inevitable impact of natural disasters and shifting temperatures, and subsequently the availably of arable land and water, or in terms of gaining access to new areas that had been hitherto difficult to exploit as a result of their snow cover. For instance, both poles contain precious resources, ranging from oil and gas to precious metals or metals that go into heavy industries or energy industries such as uranium. Ecological shift will lead in the beginning to water shortage, which can already be seen in large areas of Africa, India, China and the Middle East, with the first signs being the depletion of groundwater aquifers and the transformation of rain into powerful devastating hurricanes that do not feed water reserves or supply springs and streams. According to strategists, this water shortage will lead not only to wars between the upstream and downstream countries, or in the least to disputes (e.g. the Nile, the Tigris and the Euphrates, Hasbani/Lebanon, the Jordan and others), but also to internal conflicts over access to water in tandem with decreasing resources and increasing numbers of people displaced or uprooted from coastal areas and/or islands. In addition to the scarcity of water, there is the issue of reduced land, marine and aquatic biodiversity, which will lead to less food resources in a time of accelerating population growth where the population will become 9 billion in fifty years. Even in normal conditions, or in the conditions that existed a century ago, the Earth's resources will not be sufficient for such a population number, let alone with the reduced size of arable lands. However, pessimism regarding the planet's future is motivating rescue attempts that are still in their infancy, and which must be doubled side by side with the efforts to curb global warming. According to several observers, there are eco-friendly industrial experiments underway that may be beneficial and could be further expanded despite the inherent difficulties in adopting them widely, as this may lead to inhumane damages such as when the adoption of biofuels led to the increase of foodstuff prices. Moreover, the use of renewable energy from the sun, wind, water, geothermal energy, and even the safe use of atomic energy, definitely reduces pollution that causes global warming. In parallel, the reforestation of rainforests and areas vulnerable to desertification or soil erosion helps in absorbing tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and in collecting rainwater and diverting it towards aquifers. Also, there are efforts by international organizations to find seeds for grains including wheat, maize, and barley that thrive in harsh conditions such as heat and water scarcity. Such seeds can be used in the climate conditions expected to prevail in the future, while noting that agricultural laboratories are also creating plants, saplings and seeds that are more suited to the climate conditions mentioned above. The central dilemma, however, lies in the position of developed countries that have been the major source of aid, grants and funds to poor and underdeveloped countries: this is because these developed nations have been overwhelmed by the global financial crisis and recession, and are now seeking to break free from financial obligations in order to rescue themselves before rescuing others, and consequently, before making a commitment to provide aid to the countries that have lower greenhouse gas emissions, equivalent to between one and two percent of the global output! Because of the above, ecological shift is threatening to cause a rift among countries. In fact, the environmental issue is a subject of much debate between the North and the South, according to Philippe Le Prestre, a professor of international relations, because of ‘green expansion' and ‘the hijacking of the environment' by the countries of the North. The concern regarding green expansion has both commercial and security-related implications. This is because the aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by half by 2050 may have a significant impact on global trade, and could be possibly used as an excuse for protectionist measures. It could also lead to new trade agreements among the countries that have the greatest emission levels of greenhouse gases. On the other hand, the stakes resulting from climate change also pose security questions, as a result of the dangers that global warming will engender, and which will threaten regional and international stability (food shortage, weather disturbances, and ecological migration). In 2007, for instance, the UN Security Council discussed the relation between climate and security, which the Group of 77, several NGOs and the Group of African States perceived as laying the groundwork for ‘environmental intervention'. In other words, some environmental disturbances may have cross-border repercussions, which may justify deploying forces in order to restore environmental stability under the authorization of the Security Council.
