09 – Green Military New Deal
09 – Green Military New Deal
The deployment of a green army by an international coalition to carry out ecological-military action on a planetary scale poses a challenge to democracy, security and sovereignty (territorial and ecological). The ninth CCPF hosted a series of experts in climate change, terraforming and the military to assess the Green Military New Deal in the midst of the ecological crisis we are living through.
Below we present some of the issues that came up during the secret meeting:
Should we think of new forms of governance on a planetary scale? Is there a power vacuum at the global ecological level? Is the Westphalian order of nation states out-dated? Is climate change and the loss of biodiversity related somehow to other planetary-scale phenomena, such as pandemics, migration, geopolitical instability or wars? Must national ecological sovereignty be temporarily suspended until the biosphere’s metabolism can be redirected? Would a dual governance structure be viable to align national interests and ecosystems? Do we need new multilateral bodies to arbitrate environmental problems? Should we operate on a planetary scale in the name of the common good, even without a consensus? Who should tweak the planet’s climate? Is the military the best-prepared force with the greatest infrastructural and logistical capacity to readjust the planet’s metabolic imbalances, and to implement long-term action programs that are not subordinated to the short-term strategies of democratic mandates? Why did the Green New Deals mention the military? Why are the military often excluded from ecological debates? Will the GMND raise public fears even if it is only for ecological purposes? Should the “green army” be allowed to undertake ecological actions without informing the citizenry? How do we implement democratic forms of control over the GMND or other frameworks of civil-military action? Is the army a kind of “distributed country,” with its own protection and governance systems and budgets? Does “military humanism” make sense? Can we imagine a post-military force composed of an “army” of climatologists, geologists, economists, etc., all focused on ecosystem management? If an armed conflict leaves a large ecological footprint, wouldn’t the deployment of such a “green force” increase the ecological damage to the Earth? Is climate change a technological problem? Are we pitted against a different “enemy” than the one in modern wars? Is this a war against the Western welfare state, which has proved to be unsustainable? Are we pitted against “ourselves”? Does climate change affect all earthlings equally? What are the social repercussions of the urgent decarbonisation of the planet? What are the asymmetries of power that affect and are affected by decisions that have ecological consequences on a global scale? Are the countries with the least responsibility for climate change the ones that are most affected? Is the idea of “a good world in common violent? Are we humans the first agent of terraforming aware of our own ability to transform the environment? Does being aware of the power of destruction imply being able to stop destructive processes? Should we assume that climate change is unsolvable? Is the timeframe of human life compatible with that of the planetary metabolism? Are we humans responsible for taking care of the planet? Is humanism still a suitable paradigm to face the Anthropocene? Was humanism dehumanizing? Is the Anthropocene a kind of geological materialization of humanism? Is it legitimate to carry out experiments of inter-species co-habitation? How to understand governance from an ecosystemic perspective, where the governance of (only) people is no longer what counts as political fodder? Is the human/non-human dichotomy still valid? How do we move from politics to cosmopolitics? Can we continue to talk about “the social” and “the natural” as independent spheres? How do we integrate different forms of knowledge? How do we acknowledge local perspectives inside a global framework? Can it be taken for granted that life on the planet will continue? Are we facing a fight for survival? Are we in time for an ecological transition? Are we willing to sacrifice ourselves for future generations? How should we relate to naysayers? Is the modern social contract being renegotiated? Do we have a duty to imagine other possible worlds in a “shared future”? Do we need a Ministry of the Future? Do small-scale spaces constitute micro-fronts of ecological warfare? Are homes actually small, distributed, ecosystemic barracks or battlefields? Are they the laboratories of caring? Have we participated politically and ecologically in an ecological mission from our homes during confinement? Can climate change be fought from home? Was confinement a large-scale ecological experiment to test the planet’s resilience? Would it be possible to scale up formats of sociocracy to try out less pyramidal power structures? What can we learn from young people mobilized by the climate? And from other forms of distributed power, such as that of mothers? Was “sustainable development” a pipe dream? What role does capitalism play in climate change? Would other economic systems such as socialism have brought us this same situation? Is there any alternative to an economic system based on logics of development and boundless growth? Can there be a just model of ecological transition? How does climate change affect democracy? Were we already at war “against the planet” or “the earthlings”, before the “green army” was deployed? On which side of this “silent war” are we? Is it possible to achieve some kind of cosmopolitical peace? Can we think about environmental problems without the vocabulary and logic of war (such as “ecological war” or “combating” climate change), from the logic of care? What if instead of formulating it in the negative (“combating climate change”), we do it in the positive (“caring for the planet”)? Do we lack the vocabulary for this problem? Does the prospect of the end of the world force us into a logic of urgency and solution? Has the question of the end of the world always accompanied humanity? What if we don’t look for solutions? What if we “bear with the problem”? Can we be active by being passive, or passive while being active? Would a coalition of passive agents make sense? What if we become extinct?