Christine Milne made the claim that ; "Climate Change is the greatest threat to global security facing us all." I suspect this is political trolling .

It worked, the ABC was trolled , and I am sure some of the RWDB will froth at the mouth, ranting and raving against "THE LEFT" on that particular line.

However, Milne does not back up that troll with anything of substance relating to why it is a global security threat, and why it is the most important security threat facing the planet.

From her speech, immediately after the global security line;

The world's climate is already changing with permafrost melting, wild storms and hurricanes ravaging our coasts, sea levels rising, droughts and fires intensifying, the ice caps retreating and people having to leave their homes as environmental refugees.

Our children and grandchildren can expect to grow up in a world without polar bears, or pygmy possums unless drastic action is taken now.

We have started to see the first of the environmental refugees , I have to assume that Milne means the refugee issue will become so big, and over-riding that it will become a global security issue? I still don't see how this can be a global security issue, it could be destabilising if on a large enough scale? Maybe she means terrorists will come in with the refugees? Maybe she means the competition for resources will lead to war.

I think she is just trolling. I suspect, like the ABC, IHBT.

One of the criticisms of signing the Kyoto Treaty is the loss of national sovereignty it entails. This argument has little weight as modern nation-states are a labrynth of treaties that are legally binding domestically. As an example Australia has 1852 treaties currently in force. They are a common component of international law and co-operation.

As to climate change I am not sure that Kyoto is the answer. Humankind has always had an affect on the environment, remaking the landscape to his own benefit. The issue we have today is that the ecosystem which may result from our use of fossil fuels may send the planetary ecosystem out of control into one that does not support humankind. See Lovelock's daisyworld as an example.

I don't know if we are at that point but I am cautious enough, and there are enough unknowns, that I think we should tread carefully. Climate change is an issue that is too big for the nation-state so some international consensus is necessary, but Kyoto has all sorts of exclusions.

I think it will be a disruptive technology that weans us off fossil fuels. Scarcity of existing oil supplies will hasten the appearance of that technology in my opinion. I do not think governments bartering on the international stage will achieve it.

Peter Martin has an excerpt from the Garnuat Report on Climate Change. One of the problems with climate change is that it is a global, or planetary issue. Our major form of political organization currently is nationalism which is too small to establish a global response as the tragedy of the commons is almost ensured to occur short of some massive leap in human morality.

The alternative is to establish a global government. This is repugnant to nationalism but also the principle of limited government. Most of the modern democratic structures come out of the English fear of executive tyranny. A planetary government which could coerce climate change policies on the planet will not happen, and rightfully so.

Nationalism is a military form of political organization that came out of the 18th century European wars. The European states of the time were constantly warring in an environment that demanded increasing levels of capitalistic investment. The British established a political, social and economic form of organization that could sustain a dominating Navy. The French and Prussians took different organizational structures to establish powerful continental armies. In the case of the French their political and economic organization was sufficient to challenge, though never topple, the British Navy.

Even today the political legitimacy for a nation-state to establish a military is taken for granted. We also consider warfare between nation-states legitimate, if unacceptable and repugnant. Nationalism has arisen out of the European militaristic order.

One advantage to nationalism is that the capital intensive demands of a competitive military have meant that political, economic and social organization have achieved economies of scale. One of the American dares to the Soviet Union was an acceleration of military spending. While both were very large nations and powerful political units, the American ability to scale helped convince the Soviets that their system was inefficient and unsustainable.

It is possible that a nation-state response to climate change will achieve some positive outcomes. The Garnaut report argues for a market based approach which minimises the state involvement in the process and seeks to remove the "links between economic activity and greenhouse gas emissions" through a sustainable process. I suspect there will be first-adopter benefits as well that will mean Australian science, engineering and organisational technologies will become very exportable and in demand.