Concept: A Giant and Powerful but Pro-Green Militia

According to Kelly-Kate S. Pease and our class discussion, the main principles of realism can be distilled to the following: 

1) The state is the primary actor in world affairs. Although non-governmental organizations or NGOs can influence international relations, if they have no military power, their real influence in the long run is quite small. 

2) There may be internal conflict and differences, but in the end they don’t really matter since the person(s) in power in the government will make unified decisions in international affairs based on the interest of the state. 

3) The international realm is ruled by anarchy which results in a perpetual state of conflict. This causes, as we talked about in class, the self-help situation between countries as each country races to keep a balance of power. 

4) States are only concerned for security and power. This is achieved through mainly military means although economics can play a role.  

http://internationalrelations.org/realism_in_international_relations/ 

I believe realism can be applied to support both a pessimistic or optimistic outlook on the recent climate change marches and rallies. 

From the pessimistic point of view, I am sorry Greta, the marches don’t matter. You many now watch political efficacy around the world plummet. On the surface, taking on climate change issues is not beneficial from an immediate economic standpoint or in aiding the power struggle for security. In fact, advocating for the environment may cause economic issues, and it may actually hurt countries position of power. For example, in the case of oil, maintaining oil as the main source of energy gives certain countries bargaining power, and the loss of revenue from the oil industry can be detrimental to the nation’s economy and thus their military and security. The climate change protests also do not employ militias and therefore do not pose a significant enough threat to force governments into caring about climate change.  

From an optimistic perspective, I do think it is possible to apply the theories of realism to benefit people hoping to fight against climate change. For one, if climate change protesters can succeed in getting people who deeply care about the environment into political power, the fight can turn in Greta and all her follower’s favors. In realist theory, as previous stated, it is believed that internal conflict does not matter on the international scale since the head of state will always follow the majority in doing what is best for the nation’s interests and security. Therefore, if the heads of state, the majority of members of a country’s parliament/congress, and the population are thinking in a ‘green’ mindset, the climate change doubters and the few concerned about possible economic back-lash will become that minority who are creating the internal conflict that doesn’t matter in the larger scale.  Furthermore, if enough environmentally friendly and forward-thinking politicians are put in power, they might begin to realize that putting in environmentally friendly policies and initiatives actually do aid a country in gaining power and security. The climate isn’t only a humanitarian issue which can be ignored, but a power and economic one as well. To revisit the oil scenario, if a country can develop a reliable green energy sources, they will no longer have to fear ‘oil coercion’ (Kelanic) which means they get out from under the thumb of countries controlling oil production along with the various networks which arise from the fear of oil coercion. From a military standpoint, going green may boost a country’s military prowess. Take nuclear submarines as an example which, for one, can go twenty-five years without needing refueling. If countries start making these green changes which help increase a country’s power and security, it could cause a snowball affect similar to an arms race. In order to maintain the power balance, the other countries would be incentivized to make similar green changes.  

Peaceful climate change protesters could also just create a large and strong military to start attacking countries or people hurting the environment if they do not follow through with requests. Or, maybe, they could convince an existing military power to do the same. (disclaimer: I do not condone, but it is a realist option)  

In the end, realist theories can be molded to fit either side of the climate change debate, you choose.