Australia's Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs is Visiting New York to take part in a climate change debate hosted by the United Nations.
Many Pacific Islands nations are busy with mitigation and sustainability programs to help alleviate the effects of climate change.
Richard Marles agrees that Pacific Island nations face a real and urgent threat from climate change.
Speaker: Richard Marles, Australia's Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs
MARLES: The debate is taking place tomorrow New York time at the Security Council of the UN and what's significant about this debate is that it really is one of the first debates that will be occurring within that forum, which raises the whole issue of the security implications around climate change and the potential security implications for the globe. And I think one of the points that we want to make is that in our part of the world, in the Pacific, where you've got low lying countries, like Kiribati or Tuvalu or the Marshall Islands, climate change represents a genuine existential threat. A rise of sea levels there, where there is no height whatsoever for the land mass really does involve the countries going underwater and the very future of those nations is therefore under threat. And for those reasons this is very much an issue of security, it's, of course, a bigger issue than simply security, but it is an issue of security and as a result, it needs to be thought about and acted upon by the Security Council itself and I think that's the significance of the debate tomorrow.
COUTTS: Can you just elaborate on what you mean by security issues?
MARLES: Well, if you're talking about an issue which has the potential impact of seeing a country's landmass go underwater, of making a country uninhabitable, that represents an existential threat to that country. That's as big a security issue as you can get and so from that point of view it is something which absolutely needs to be apprehended by the UN Security Council. Now in a sense, I give it context, but in other contexts, we're going to see that in the future that changes to climate may well have an impact on such things as water supplies, which will see the potential for people to look elsewhere for those resources, which in turn give rise to potential security implications. So amongst the many ways in which we need to be addressing this debate, one way we need to be addressing this debate is to be looking at the security implications of it and to see it through that means and it's why this debate being conducted by the Security Council itself is so significant.
COUTTS: Well, what will be the format for the debate, will there be for and against?
MARLES: Well, they'll be a range of countries presenting, of course we're not a member of the Security Council, but we, along with Nauru have been given an opportunity to participate in the debate tomorrow and so I will presenting a statement from Australia and the president of Nauru is also in New York to present the statement from Nauru. We expect to hear other contributions from the current members of the Security Council. I think what's important at the moment in terms of the debate is that it really means for, not exactly the first time but one of the first times, the Security Council will actually be seized of this issue and that's really what I think is sort to be achieved here, certainly from our point of view and certainly from the point of view of the Pacific Island countries who we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with on making this issue at this level.
COUTTS: Well as we just heard, Lord Christopher Monckton is in Australia and he's probably renowned for his stand as a sceptic on climate change. Are you expecting those points of view to be raised during the debate?
MARLES: Oh, I think that there is an acceptance around the world now about the significance of the science and the fact that we are facing a change in our climate and the kind of views that are represented by Lord Monckton really represent a very kind extreme edge of the debate. I would think that in a sensible, intelligent forum, we would be seeing a complete acceptance of the science and that the debate now moves to the next level of what we actually need to do about it and how the globe needs to address this issue and every aspect of this issue and in this case, having a particular emphasis on the security implication of the issue. I think the kind of challenging of the science that we see by Lord Monckton really is, to be honest, yesterday's news. This is a person who spruiks these views to get a quick headline, but I think the world is quickly moving on from his kind of Vaudeville act to actually addressing what is one of the most serious issues of our time and addressing all the implications of that.
Source:
No comments:
Post a Comment