L'exercice d’alerte "Noble Jump" en Pologne a mis en lumière les défauts de la Force de réaction rapide de l’OTAN (NATO NRF) face à la Russie. La capacité de déploiement de la nouvelle force de réaction rapide de l'Otan, testée du 9 au 19 juin sur le camp d'entraînement de Zagan (ouest de la Pologne), est insuffisante face à la réactivité militaire russe, car les forces de l'Alliance ont besoin d'un mois au moins afin de déployer 30.000 militaires en Europe de l'Est. De son côté, la Russie a réussi en 24 heures à déplacer jusqu'à 100.000 soldats avec des équipements au cours de manœuvres militaires réalisées fin mai dans le District militaire central.
Les manœuvres en Pologne occidentale impliquent plus de 2.000 soldats provenant de neuf pays de l'OTAN. Les troupes aéroportées tchèques et néerlandaises, l'infanterie mécanisée allemande et norvégienne, les forces spéciales lituaniennes et polonaises, l'artillerie belge, des hélicoptères américains et une unité hongroise de coopération civilo-militaire y prennent part. L'exercice Noble Jump a été conçu pour tester les troupes de préparation élevée de l'OTAN dans les conditions du champ de bataille et veiller à ce que les concepts et les procédures soient prêts en cas de véritable crise. Le Pentagone a également révélé son intention de déployer en Europe de l'Est des chars, des véhicules blindés et des stocks d'armes lourdes, nécessaires afin d'équiper 5.000 soldats. En plus, il est prévu de créer un groupe "très mobile" fort de 30.000 soldats capables d'être rapidement déployés dans les pays Baltes, en Pologne, en Roumanie ou en Bulgarie en cas d'éventuelle "agression russe".
La formation qui se déroule en Pologne fait partie d'une série plus vaste d'activités de formation prévue en juin et appelée Allied Shield. La série comprend, outre Noble Jump :
- Baltops 2015, un exercice naval allié majeure en Pologne;
- Sabre Strike, un exercice de terrain dans les pays Baltes;
- et Trident Joust, un exercice de commandement et contrôle en Roumanie.
Au total, environ 15.000 soldats de 19 pays, dont le Canada, et trois pays partenaires participeront à cette série d'événements de formation qui se déroulent au sein de l'Alliance en 2015.
Sur fond de crise ukrainienne, l'OTAN a multiplié les manœuvres militaires conjointes dans les pays baltes ainsi qu'en Pologne. Moscou a exprimé ses préoccupations face au renforcement de la présence militaire de l'Alliance à proximité de ses frontières.
Source :
http://fr.sputniknews.com/international/20150615/1016545578.html
Today, we, countries in the eurozone have mandated the ESM to make up to the maximum of €86 billion available to finance Greece. Of course this programme for the coming three years goes with strict conditions, aiming at:
I am glad to say that the Greek government has already taken some credible first steps. A lot of work will still have to be done to stabilize the economy in Greece for the return of confidence both in Greece and in within the eurozone.
We have a lot of work to do in the coming years but I think that the decisions taken in the last couple of weeks and especially today are a big step in that direction.
A popular saying goes that ‘all politics is local’. While public debate on climate change often focuses on international summits and the political drama of negotiations, the real steps to address climate change will be have to be implemented at a much more local scale. Ultimately, the way we lead our lives – how we use energy, design our communities, how and how far we travel, to name but a few examples – drives our personal climate impact and that of our communities. But although scientific insights indicate that climate change impacts are much closer than one may think, many of us still envision it as a far-away problem that will affect other parts of the world in the future. [1] Unfortunately, we don’t care much about problems that will happen later and mainly to others. But we need to care. Scientists, journalists and communicators have thus turned to highlighting the local consequences of climate change – such as extreme weather events, sea level rise and the like – with the assumption that doing so will persuade people, and their policy-makers, to act. For example, in 2003, Rajendra Pachauri—then the Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—stressed that “I am aware that there is an opportunity for much political debate when you start to predict the impact of climate change on specific regions. But if you want action you must provide this information”.[2] In a recent study, we tested this assumption about the effect of local climate information empirically. Our research[3] suggests that simply highlighting local climate impacts may not be enough stimulate action and could in some cases even backfire.
In an experiment, we asked people, who live in the U.S. state of Vermont, to what extent they care about other communities/people (self-transcendent values), or their own status and power (self-enhancing values). Prior research suggests that people with self-transcendent values tend to be more concerned about environmental issues and act on them compared with their self-enhancing peers. After assessing value orientations, our study participants received information about climate change. One group[4] received information on local climate impacts (in the Vermont region), while another group received information on global climate impacts (focusing on other regions in the world – i.e., not in Vermont). A control group received no climate information. Following this stage, we asked participants how important they thought climate change was, the extent to which they were willing to make changes in their lives to reduce their personal contribution to climate change (e.g., driving less), and their support for climate policy measures. As we expected, regardless of the kind of information (global or local), participants who held a strong, versus weak, self-transcendent values were more concerned about climate change, more willing to engage in pro-environmental behaviour (such as switching to public transportation), and more supportive of climate policy. However, the focus of the climate information – local or global – greatly mattered for individuals with strong self-enhancing values. For these individuals, hearing about likely local impacts of climate change was demotivating. Instead of spurring action, hearing the local projections about increased flooding and other likely local outcomes made self-enhancing people care less than their similar self-transcendent value oriented peers who read about global outcomes.
We had expected that giving self-enhancing people information about local climate impacts that could affect their personal status (e.g., through reduced incomes in the Vermont skiing industry) would highlight the importance of climate change and thus lead to increased action. But perhaps those high in a need for status, enhancement, and power, feel particularly threatened by reading about the local impacts of climate change. This is a reminder that any connections among caring, values, and proximity are complicated and that there is not one message that will work for everyone. However, recent research hints at approaches that could prevent this backlash. Researchers from Columbia University’s Center for Research on Environmental Decisions found that simply asking people to consider their legacy can increase environmental concern[5]. Perhaps if we had simultaneously grounded our self-enhancing individuals in local outcomes while asking them to consider their personal legacy, our findings would have been different. Future research should further explore the effects we identified, particularly in other regions of the world. But until we have better knowledge, we would caution against simply assuming that local information frames will increase concern and action, because doing so may prove ineffective or even counter-productive with some people.
Please note: this article has also been published on Talking Climate and the Tyndall Centre‘s website.
[1] E.g., Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Smith, N. (2011). Global warming’s six Americas. Yale University and George Mason University.
[2] Schiermeier, Q. (2003). Climate panel to seize political hot potatoes. Nature, 421(6926), 879-879.
[3] Schoenefeld, J. J., & McCauley, M. R. (2015). Local is not always better: the impact of climate information on values, behavior and policy support. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 1-9.
[4] Group assignment was random.
[5] Zaval, L., Markowitz, E.M., & Weber, E. U. (2015). How will I be remembered? Conserving the environment for the sake of one’s legacy. Psychological Science, 26, 231-236.
The post Does Local Climate Information Stimulate Action? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.