Climate Change: A Cause of Conflict?

By Kate Johnston

 

The environmental consequences of climate change are now firmly on the political and public agenda. The security consequences are not. Little attention has been given to the possibility of increased conflict due to resources scarcity and migration. Is conflict the real threat from climate change?

---

            In April 2007, 55 delegations to the UN met at the Security Council to discuss the security implications of climate change. Led by the then UK Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, states shared their concerns about the security implications of climate change. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon talked of scarce resources, fragile ecosystems and severe strains placed on the coping mechanisms of groups and individuals, potentially leading to “a breakdown of established codes of conduct, and even outright conflict”. [1]

A decline in water supplies for drinking and irrigation, a decline in agricultural productivity as a result of changes in rainfall, temperature and pest patterns, and large economic and human losses attributable to extreme weather events will all take their toll on the global system as a whole.

Some western governments are concerned that these conditions will create an unstable world and may lead to a subsequent rise in terrorist activity. What is more likely, I argue, is a potential rise in conflict in the most environmentally and politically vulnerable states. International Alert, a peace-building organisation, has identified 61 countries they perceive as being at risk from the ‘double-headed’ risk of climate change and conflict. [2]

            This article will specifically examine the potential rise in three types of conflict as a result of climate change:          

·   Political violence

·   Inter-communal violence

·   Interstate warfare

            This article does not argue that climate change will directly cause conflict in the future. It argues that the environment (as a result of climate change) will become a more prominent factor in the outbreak of conflict.

Changes in the environment alone will not result in conflict. They need to be combined with existing divisions within society, be they ethnic, nationalist or religious. As Idean Salehyan [3] argues, there is much more to armed conflict than resource scarcity and natural disasters. However, that doesn’t mean that resources and changes in the environment should be excluded as potential factors in the outbreak of conflict.

 

1) Political Violence

An April 2007 report by the Military Advisory Board of the CNA Corporation, a US-based think tank, seeks to make explicit the link between climate change and terrorism. In the report, retired Admiral T. Joseph Lopez states that “climate change will provide the conditions that will extend the war on terror”. [4] This statement is based on the premise that greater poverty, increased forced migration and higher unemployment will create conditions ripe for extremists and terrorists. [5] Although there is a well-established link between economic disadvantage and civil unrest, this does not necessarily manifest itself through terrorism.

Some Climate Research Not So Hot

by Howard Fienberg

Source: Technopolitics. Apr. 27, 2001.

 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently reported that a rising “risk of infectious disease epidemics” is “likely” to result from global warming. As the U.S. takes heat for rejecting the Kyoto Protocols, global warming has become more than an abstract specter; it is considered a tangible threat to public health through a coming plague of infectious diseases like malaria and West Nile virus. However, a new report from the National Research Council (NRC) found little evidence to justify such fears.

Questioning the validity of most climate models, the NRC recommended further research. In effect, the NRC report demonstrates that infectious diseases spread for many reasons. Global climate change is not obviously one of them.

Changes in the weather can have dramatic impacts on diseases and the pests that spread them. However, the NRC report, “Under the Weather,” points out that the relationship traditionally drawn between climate and disease can be very misleading. Other influences, such as ecological, biological and societal changes, can have an even greater impact. For example, malaria and dengue outbreaks can be caused by anything from deforestation to population increases. Thanks to increased globalization, diseases can be transported worldwide in a matter of hours.

This does not mean that the climate has no impact. The life cycles of many disease pathogens and vectors are directly or indirectly influenced by changes in temperature, precipitation and humidity, affecting “the timing and intensity” of outbreaks. Trouble is that most of the links made between climate and disease result from imperfect computer models. Modern supercomputers can do amazing things, but effectively including all relevant factors in a climate model can prove a daunting task. Just as firing off a toy rocket in your back yard gives only an inkling of what the launching of the real space shuttle is like, so too do computer climate models only capture part of the story of infectious diseases. The NRC cautions that such models are good for some kinds of analyses, but “are not necessarily intended to serve as predictive tools,” since they cannot “fully account for the complex web of causation that underlies disease dynamics.”

The NRC report stresses that there are many more influences than climate, including “sanitation and public health services, population density and demographics, land use changes, and travel patterns.” At essence, it concludes that, even assuming the prevention of global warming were a reachable goal, fighting global warming is an ineffective method of tackling infectious disease. Strong public health measures “such as vector control efforts, water treatment systems, and vaccination programs” are still the most effective tools.

So why do so many people still insist that climate change is the over-riding threat to public health? Many may simply fear admitting otherwise. Donald Burke, chair of the NRC panel which released the report, told National Public Radio that he felt “awkward” that the report was “not a strong endorsement that global climate change will lead to an inevitable holocaust of infectious diseases.”

Last September, the magazine New Scientist interviewed Paul Reiter, chief entomologist at the U.S. dengue research lab in Puerto Rico. Interviewer Ehsan Masood, after noting that “even the slightest contrarian messages can be used by the oil and auto lobby to obstruct efforts to address global warming,” asked, “what¹s wrong with emphasizing the risks of global warming if it¹ll lead to greater public awareness and investment in things like climate change research?” Reiter replied that the ends do not justify the means; the funding and commitment of honest science is required to handle infectious diseases. He concluded that it was “the advancement brought about by our modern economies that put these diseases at bay” in the developed world. By denying others the opportunity for that advancement “on the mere basis of emotive arguments founded on uncertain climate science… we will be committing a serious mistake.”

Many believe that global warming is a looming global catastrophe. They may be right. But does this belief justify targeting global warming as the bogey for every scientific problem we face? Infectious diseases are a public health issue, first and foremost. Derailing public health solutions may suit the broader cause of environmental alarm, but it does not help victims of these diseases, either here or in the developing world.

 

HOWARD FIENBERG is research analyst with the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS), a nonprofit nonpartisan organization researching science and public policy.

Conversation With Mikhail Gorbachev: Pre-empt Global Warming

In New Perspective Quarterly, Vol 21 No 1, Winter 2004

 

NPQ | In his speech to the opening session of the United Nations General Assembly, United States President George Bush called for a renewed emphasis on stopping nuclear proliferation — especially in North Korea and Iran — to ensure the bomb doesn’t fall into the hands of terrorists.

Yet, the US is planning a new generation of small, “more usable” nuclear weapons. And in its agreement with Russia to reduce warhead stockpiles, it has agreed only to “decommission” its weapons, not “demilitarize” them — in other words, store them, not destroy them.

Doesn’t this US posture undermine the credibility of the non-proliferation agenda?

Mikhail GORBACHEV | Much progress has been made between the US and Russia in reducing our nuclear arsenals. But, yes, this US posture is troubling. Since the US has refused to ratify the treaty to prohibit nuclear testing, it is clear it intends to go on perfecting its nuclear weapons. It is clear it is not thinking of abolishing nuclear weapons over the longer term. On the contrary, there is a new concept of American doctrine, as you mention, that foresees the “battlefield use” of nuclear weapons. This does away with the idea that the only purpose of nuclear weapons is as a deterrent.

It prompts other nations to ask, “Why must we abide by the non-proliferation treaty when the No. 1 member of the nuclear club continues to perfect and develop its own weapons?” That is a double standard.

If the US only thinks about its interests instead of the global good, other nations are asking why they, too, shouldn’t be putting their own interests first as well?

These questions cannot be wished away. And they are not just being asked by authoritarian or terrorist states. Challenging this double standard is precisely what democratic India had in mind with its nuclear tests.

For now, the US doctrine has sown mistrust and suspicion among the world community.

 

NPQ | In the absence of a superpower competitor, what can be the aim of America trying to perfect a new generation of nuclear weapons?

GORBACHEV | That is a question, it seems to me, that the American democracy with its open debate about everything else ought to be discussing. It is, after all, a far more significant issue than Monica Lewinsky. Democracy doesn’t seem to be working on this particular issue.

It is very important for America to understand how the only remaining superpower can act responsibly in the world. Why isn’t it taking the lead, for example, on ratifying the Kyoto Protocol instead of withdrawing from it and trying to kill it?

Where Justice and Realism Meet: a Climate Change Solution?

Caspar Henderson

Benito Müller

 

What should be done, and what can be done, about global warming? The key to a sustainable future for the planet may lie in tying together these two questions, says the Swiss-born philosopher and mathematician Benito Müller. In an interview with Caspar Henderson, the Globalisation editor of openDemocracy, he proposes that the application of ‘distributive justice’ may just help to change life on Earth for the better.

 

Rich North, Poor South, And Causing The Problem: The ‘Distributive Justice’ Aspect Of Climate Change

 

openDemocracy – The question of climate change is often discussed in terms of its more visible impacts and appearances. But you seem to approach the issue more from a philosophical and moral point of view, in terms of ‘distributive justice’ on a global level. Can you explain this latter idea?

Benito Müller – I’m worried about global inequalities in general; that they will bring social instability to the world on an unprecedented scale. Even without man-made climate change, the wealth gap between rich and poor is widening. Climate change will exacerbate this in a way that makes it difficult to contain the effects.

Let me give an example. If you have increasingly frequent major floods in a poor country, and the floods create large numbers of permanently displaced people, this can lead to political instability. In many poor countries the infrastructure is often not very good to start with, and political stability is already a problem. Large numbers of additional displaced people are particularly hard to cope with, and political and economic uncertainty is likely to intensify.

What does this mean for a poor country in concrete terms? Well, for one, forget foreign direct investment. Any expectation that economic growth could be driven by foreign direct investment will prove completely wrong. It’s not a matter of economic growth being reduced from, say, 6% to 4%; the likelihood is of collapse.

The idea of distributive justice bears directly on this type of predictable outcome. Why should a poor country face these catastrophic social effects when the core responsibility for them lies elsewhere? My central point here is to argue that, in relation to climate change, countries must bear a burden in proportion to their responsibility. There is a basic principle, almost universally accepted, known as ‘the polluter pays’. This means that you have to clear up the mess and repair the damage in accordance with your responsibility for having caused it.