Our Future Environment

Last Autumn I was wondering how or if my interest in anti-war protesting is related to my interest in why environmental activists become, well, active. Somewhere along this trail of inquiry I ran into the theory of Peace Parks.

Wikipedia states that peace parks create friendly borders between countries and encourage natural animal migration patterns, tourism, and economic development. However, my reading of peace parks, particularly of Ali Saleem, argues that a peace park can be used to decrease conflict between countries because of the sustainable, clean air and water it provides. Countries who are competing for resources or arguing over social-religious-political differences can benefit from peace parks when both sides begin to understand their equal need for quality natural resources like clean air and water. The argument for peace parks is that this understanding of shared need can be extended in the minds of opposing leaders and citizens to an understanding of a shared struggle to survive as a species.

Although peace parks sound like a noble idea, and one I wanted to investigate more, I was skeptical about the possibility of its success. But, two recent events have curved my skepticism.

First, at the 2008 Association of American Geographers conference I attended a paper session from a West Point professor titled “Climate Change and Potential Effects on Future U.S. Military Operations”. The WP professor, Eugene Palka, states “Although its primary mission is to fight and win the nation’s wars, the U.S. Military also must be postured to deploy anywhere in the world (to include regions where climate change contributes to deteriorating environmental conditions and escalating violence or threatens national interests) to undertake operations as directed by our government.” During his session I was surprised that this West Point professor, along with his colleagues in the panel, had many progressive and honest ideas about the future role of our government in natural environment resource conflicts. I was reminded then about peace parks and the possible role they could play.

The second event that allowed me to see the possibility of integrating peace parks into a plausible plan is an article I read today titled ” Global Warming could increase Terrorism“. This past Wednesday the chairman of the National Intelligence Council told Congress that global warming could destabilize “struggling and poor” countries around the world, prompting mass migrations and creating breeding grounds for terrorists. Another committee chairman, Ed Markey, argues

“Human beings all over the planet face death or damage or injury if we do not act”.

So it seems that peace park proponents, military analysts, and congressional chairmen are all on the same page but not likely to come up with a solid or possible plan. This would make for an interesting city planning project or research initiative but I’m not sure what the next step would be. A good first step for me, in order to further this argument, is to read more about what peace parks exist and get my hands on that classified congressional report.

If you have an ideas and opinions please share in the comments.

photo credit: guillaumepaumier

Filed under: parks, eco-tourism, social justice, environmental planning on June 29th, 2008