How to solve global warming conflict

The only word that can be applied to a recently-revealed military report is “depressing”: Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

How depressing? The article opens with: “Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters.” Here are the reasons why:

1) “European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020.”

2) “As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.”

3) “The planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 ‘catastrophic’ shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.”

Strangely, the same thing came out last year about this time:  Military: Global Warming may Cause War

From the article:

The military report’s co-author, former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan, also pointed to sea-level rise floods as potentially destabilizing South Asia countries of Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Vietnam.

Lack of water and food in places already the most volatile will make those regions even more unstable with global warming and “foster the conditions for internal conflicts, extremism and movement toward increased authoritarianism and radical ideologies,” states the 63-page military report, issued by the CNA Corp., an Alexandria, Va.-based national security think tank.

Wouldn’t it be nice if, when faced with a crisis, people instinctively worked together to solve the problem rather than blowing each other up? How could we get to that point? It might seem strange when you look at the title, but this article may hold some of the answers:  Why We Banned Legos 

The situation described in the article is a little like a modern day “Lord of the Flies.” The article looks at the behavior of people around a scarce resource - in this case Legos. From the article:

Occasionally, Legotown leaders explicitly rebuffed children, telling them that they couldn’t play. Typically the exclusion was more subtle, growing from a climate in which Legotown was seen as the turf of particular kids. The other children didn’t complain much about this; when asked about Legos, they’d often comment vaguely that they just weren’t interested in playing with Legos anymore. As they closed doors to other children, the Legotown builders turned their attention to complex negotiations among themselves about what sorts of structures to build, whether these ought to be primarily privately owned or collectively used, and how “cool pieces” would be distributed and protected. These negotiations gave rise to heated conflict and to insightful conversation. Into their coffee shops and houses, the children were building their assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys…

Whether you agree with the point of the article or not, it offers an interesting window into the world of human behavior - something that starts with the thinking of little kids. Perhaps by understanding the behavior, we can change the outcome predicted in the military report.