Rifkind addressed a full house at the Frontline Club on Monday 21st Novemeber at a discussion about the future of conflict. Rifkind was joined by fellow panellists Paul Rogers, a professor in the department of Peace Studies at Bradford University, Julia Ebner, a Policy Analyist at Quilliam, and Julian E. Barnes from the Wall Street Journal, chaired by Jenny Kleeman, a British film-maker and journalist.

Paul Rogers identified a key issue in current conflict: ‘we’ve entered into an era of a revolution of frustrated expectations globally’, where people’s living standards are not rising with their expectations.

Julia Ebner believes a ‘global jihadist insurgency’ and a ‘far-right renaissance in Western countries’ are provoking a ‘phenomenon of reciprocal radicalisation’, where each party’s actions (such as anti-Muslim hate crimes and fundamentalist terror attacks) feed into the other’s grievances. For Ebner the solution lies in tackling those grievances and in tackling the ‘black-and-white narratives that are propagated from both sides’ which result in a worldview of the West and Islam being at war with each other.

Ebner was particularly concerned by the impact of fake news sites, as well as the echo chambers that are all too prevalent on the social media landscape in what she termed our ‘post-factual society’. Rifkind expressed similar concerns about social media, saying it ‘stimulates extremism, people… wind each other up and they get amplified… it’s hugely problematic in terms of stimulating extreme identities’. Barnes pointed to the ‘explosion of encryption technology and the ability very easily for groups or individuals to get very high-powered encryption that’s very difficult for intelligence services in the UK or the US to break.’

Although all of the panellists agreed that the so-called ‘war on terror’ has failed, Barnes said we should expect to see more of a focus on this under Trump, with Russia as a potential ally. Continuing the war on terror may be playing into the hands of Islamic terrorists who want war: Rogers argued that ‘if they present themselves as the true guardians of Islam under attack by crusader Zionist forces, then essentially it helps to be attacked’.

The panellists emphasised the importance of preventative work against conflict; but how do we get politicians to realise earlier that conflict is not the answer and to act early when politicians’ interests naturally lie in short-term success? Rifkind pointed out that ‘foreign policy is often about crisis management, it’s often about reacting rather than anticipating’, citing the Gaza conflict as a key example of this. Ebner, meanwhile, argued that the solution does not lie in politics at all, but within civil society, where we should ‘tell better stories than extremists are telling’.

IS is funded partly by Western Gulf states, and Barnes wonders if we might expect Trump to cut business from such countries ‘we very much could see more pressure [on allies which are known to fund terrorist groups] on this transactional approach’. However, IS campaigns are relatively cheap to run, and is able to maintain taxation within the territory, so a decline is as likely to come from a lack of appeal. None of this solves the underlying problems of the Arab world that made it so popular (the ‘revolution of frustrated expectations, as Rogers put it), such as unemployment. The underlying problem of marginalisation is here to stay, according to Rogers, who also named climate change as a major cause of future conflict and migration. Ebner added that uniting against climate change ‘could be part of the solution – it could also provide civil society with a common cause, an abstract enemy…rather than human beings fighting against human beings’.

Will World War III be mankind versus climate change? One can only hope.

As part of an ongoing collaboration between the Frontline Club and The Scientific Exploration Society, on Tuesday 9 June BBC Science editor and author David Shukman chaired a discussion examining the past, present and future of the Arctic. Joining Shukman was a panel of experts and an engaged audience of Arctic explorers and enthusiasts.

Andrew Mitchell, chairman of The Scientific Exploration Society, introduced the event. “The idea we had was: why don’t we bring together explorers and journalists who work at the frontline and debate important issues of the day.”

The role of research in the Arctic was discussed in depth, as panelists commented on the colossal volume of knowledge still left to uncover.

Co-director of the Grantham Institute, winner of the Martha T. Muse Prize for Excellence in Arctic Science and Policy, and fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Professor Martin Siegert commented, “as a glaciologist, we are concerned that with global warming and ice sheet melting there is a serious problem ahead for global sea level change, sea level rise.”

He continued: “We still really don’t know an awful lot about the topography beneath the large ice masses on the planet. So our models of projections are fundamentally weakened by that lack of knowledge. It’s a very fortunate position to be in as a scientist. It probably won’t be like this in 20 years… because scientific discovery can only be done once.”

L-R: Frank Hewetson, Charles Emmerson, David Shukman, Martin Siegert, Pen Hadow

The discussion covered the developments over time of the safety of explorers who travel to the region. Despite numerous technological advances, the Arctic climate and consequent harsh conditions remain severely dangerous for human visitors.

Pen Hadow – Arctic Ocean explorer and advocate; the sole person to have reached the North Geographic Pole solo; and founder of the Caitlin Arctic Survey – told audience members that “the six things that are likely to kill you are going to kill you in minutes. It’s immaterial whether you have a phone or a plane on standby.”

He added: “the effect of cold on brain function… it is just like being drunk. The more hypothermic you are, the less able you are to be creative, to think clearly, to anticipate the problems.”

Frank Heweston, who has worked on the Arctic campaign with Greenpeace for over five years, commented: “things go wrong quite quickly… anything at sea, especially the Arctic, has to be taken extremely seriously.”

#WorldOceansDay @frontlineclub @SES_explore @davidshukmanbbc @PenHadow wrapping up gr8 #exploration of #Arctic event! pic.twitter.com/VdnBpspf0O

— Peter Kohler (@P_Kohler) June 9, 2015

The increase in tourism was a source of concern for the panel, who offered differing perspectives on the potential results.

Shukman commented that he was “struck by this increase in tourism… The sheer ease with which people can now visit the Arctic with preconceived notions.”

Author of The Future History of the Arctic and associate fellow at Chatham House, Charles Emmerson, said “there are clearly risks to travel in the Arctic, but generally I think it’s a very good thing for more people to see the Arctic… I think it informs people. It gives them the encouragement, the idea that it’s something worth protecting and thinking about.”

Hadow added: “We have to get over this idea that the Arctic is beautiful… We’ve got to de-romanticise it… The Arctic Ocean is an asset ultimately, it’s providing a critical ecosystem service to the North Hemisphere.”

“It could be this year that the North Pole is a puddle… Apparently it’s one of the worst years so far for melting sea ice. Maybe the tourist element will go. There’s no point in visiting open ocean, you can do that anywhere,” added Siegert.

The panel then looked ahead to the future of the Arctic in 30 years time.

Heweston offered a grim prediction. “The militarisation of the Arctic will have happened by then. The drive for further fossil fuel exploration will probably not be stopped… I cannot see that there won’t be some type of military conflict.”

Siegert added: “We will see continued ice sheet retreats and glacier melting… Sea levels go up and the rate of change will be increasing as well.”

The discussion drew to a close with a final audience question, on the subject of what can be done to help on a micro level. The panelists agreed that it was necessary for everyone to take an individual role in monitoring and reducing their own carbon footprint in order to collectively contribute to the safeguarding of the Arctic.