Age of Consequences Responses

The documentary screening, The Age of Consequences, followed by a panel discussion with experts from BU’s Political Science department and program in Earth and Environment, MIT’s Sloan School of Management, the U.S. military, and industry was a powerful co-curricular that reinforced the general principle behind Kilachand’s curriculum: To deal with global challenges, like climate change, we will need to deploy the insights and tools of every discipline. The film’s core argument is that climate change is a conflict accelerator that contributes to global insecurity. Daniel Lorden described a core example: “The film posited that the Arab Spring was significantly influenced by the food shortage (a direct result of the drought brought about by climate change). Millions of people move to cities, and this unemployed, dissatisfied group of individuals provides a prime environment for revolution.” As Sarah Golden pointed out, some of the unemployed men living in urban areas ended up “joining terrorist organizations to release their frustration and distress.” Sruti Raja described another example that supports the argument of the film: “Bangladesh is a country particularly susceptible to flooding. This is made worse by climate change, which contributes to rising sea levels. According to the film, if the sea level rises by 1.5 meter, Bangladesh will lose 20% of its land area. This loss of area will displace millions of people who live in coastal regions of the country. As a preemptive measure, India has built a double-barbed wire across its entire border with Bangladesh to prevent the entry of Bangladeshi refugees.” I found the film’s prediction of a new wave of “climate refugeeism” particularly troubling given the already-horrific refuges crisis we see around the world.

I think it is important that we recognize that climate change is not only a conflict accelerant for foreign nations, particularly those in the Middle East and Africa that are already associated with tremendous violence. Climate change has had and will continue to have the same destabilizing and destructive impact much closer to home. Madeline Ross pointed to the rioting, refugee crisis, and violence that occurred after a powerful hurricane hit New Orleans: “Climate change causes extreme weather patterns due to general climate destabilization. The result is devastating floods, droughts, and hurricanes as seen in New Orleans. Hurricane Katrina, although seemingly extreme in 2004, is ‘what we can expect to become common in the future’ (paraphrased) given current climate trends.”

Age of Consequences suggests that the U.S. military plays a crucial role both in promoting global security and in combatting climate change. It might seem counterintuitive that the U.S. military would be cited as an effective force against climate change because, as Kirstie Turnbull acknowledged, “I have always associated the military with the more conservative sector of our government, and in our country, climate change is unfortunately a partisan issue that conservatives tend to claim does not exist. However, the film frames climate change as a national security issue, and when I consider the military’s role in the battle against climate change from this point of view, it completely makes sense.” Nicole Rizzo added that “Some may think that this leadership is surprising because the military is thought to fight wars, which brings violence and destruction rather than peaceful resolutions and protection of our global resources.” Madeleine Roepe found the film’s description of returning veterans particularly interesting: “…since many of them go overseas and witness firsthand what a dependence on foreign oil looks like, many of them return home and enter the energy and tech field, searching for alternative energy solutions.” For many of us, this depiction of the U.S. military as an institution and individual veterans challenged stereotypes.

As the panelists acknowledged, The Age of Consequences is a bleak film that very convincingly argues that we are in a time of crisis with dire consequences. Several students, including Jamie Clark, expressed concern that, as Jamie wrote, “The Trump administration’s current stance does not bode well for our environmental protection nor our national protection.” Jamie voiced a compelling call for action: “Climate change is armed and ready to be extremely dangerous if action is not taken– so we must take action, we must raise awareness, and we must not live in a bubble of ignorance that is detrimental not only to the United States, but the world as a whole. Climate change is not a national dilemma, it is a global one. With that comes a necessity for cooperation, understanding, and knowledge.”

But what can we do? Is there hope? Benjamin Makishima pointed out that the U.S. military is just one source of hope because as “climate change is stimulating conflict on a greater and greater scale, the military has started to concern itself with the effects of global warming.” Kyle Schultz called for “a massive culture shift within the developed world. Something that struck me in the video is that ‘we’re very vulnerable to confusing lifestyle with life itself.’ Our lifestyles in the US especially are not sustainable over a long period of time, and I believe we need to start valuing things like family, education, and experience over material goods. We need to remember to be grateful for the items we have, and not take our immense access to resources for granted. Perhaps then we would not only live more sustainable lives, but happier ones as well.” Catherine Wood also picked up on the need to address “lifestyle” and pointed to Professor Crawford’s claim that we need to “’think globally, act locally.’ It’s hard to convince other people to live a certain way, so we should start with ourselves and (in the least patronizing way possible) lead by example. Even the smallest changes, such as using glass for leftovers instead of plastic tupperware, aluminum foil instead of plastic wrap, taking shorter showers, and trying not to forget our reusable grocery bags can have an impact. The film discussed that in a nonlinear model, small events can lead to big changes. This is true in a negative way for climate change, but maybe it could be true in the actions we take to fight climate change as well.”

I appreciated Catherine’s hopefulness, but also sympathized with students who voiced dissatisfaction with the film’s solutions and lack thereof. I will quote Liam Burke at length: “I was very disappointed by the film’s treatment of the road ahead. The contributors seemed to unanimously support investment in ‘green energy’ technology development and implementation as the major way forward in the United States. The reason that renewable energy sources provide only 8% of our current energy production is because the cost of the energy it generates is almost double the market price not to mention the serious issues with intermittency and scaling to the national power grid. Even if the US were to reduce its emissions to zero, it is likely that emissions would increase elsewhere in the world as industries move oversees to countries with even dirtier industrial practices — like India and China. This, in addition to the fact that the US is responsible for only 14.4% of Global carbon emissions, means that US action alone will not be nearly enough to address the magnitude of the problem. The collective nature of this problem requires a collective solution similar in nature to the recent Paris Climate Agreement. The most effective method for dealing with carbon emissions would be to implement a global cap and trade program or global carbon tax. Each of these measures has proven successful at smaller scales (EU carbon trading program and British Colombia carbon tax respectively) and would be the least expensive method for reducing emissions. Least-cost behavior is vital to ensure cooperation from developing nations. Without collective action, our efforts will fail to address the magnitude of the problem.”

Jasper Primack was also critical of the film’s suggestions for battling climate change: “The film discusses the possibility of pairing economic growth with lower greenhouse gas emissions – for instance, through the development of alternative energy sources. This seems like a good idea, but suffers from one potential shortfall. If the American government is hostile to the idea of anthropogenic climate change, then subsidies which make nascent green energy competitive can disappear very quickly, only leaving behind those which are actually competitive against the oil and gas market. Realistically, embracing more conventional paths to clean energy like nuclear power is the sustainable alternative.”

Liam and Jasper offer powerful critiques from the film that also suggest alternative paths forward. And in the end, I found hope within the event itself, as did Masha Vernik: “The question is not what to do, but how to get people to do it… We must get people engaged in and aware of processes they are already a part of, like commodity chains and elections, and enable them to voice their desire for specific policies. The film itself is a mechanism to activate a population, as are other art forms and media that communicate the dire consequences of climate change.” I agree. The film, the event, and your responses all give me hope that we can still mitigate the impact of climate change, to the great benefit of global security and the quality of human life, and that your generation will be the one to lead the way.