• woodrow wilson center
  • ecsp

New Security Beat

Subscribe:
  • mail-to
  • Who We Are
  • Topics
    • Population
    • Environment
    • Security
    • Health
    • Development
  • Columns
    • China Environment Forum
    • Choke Point
    • Dot-Mom
    • Navigating the Poles
    • New Security Broadcast
    • Reading Radar
  • Multimedia
    • Water Stories (Podcast Series)
    • Backdraft (Podcast Series)
    • Tracking the Energy Titans (Interactive)
  • Films
    • Water, Conflict, and Peacebuilding (Animated Short)
    • Paving the Way (Ethiopia)
    • Broken Landscape (India)
    • Scaling the Mountain (Nepal)
    • Healthy People, Healthy Environment (Tanzania)
  • Publications
  • Events
  • Contact Us

NewSecurityBeat

The blog of the Wilson Center's Environmental Change and Security Program
  • From the Wilson Center

    Backdraft: Minimizing Conflict in Climate Change Responses

    August 5, 2011 By Jason Steimel

    “What are the conflicts or risks associated with response to climate change?” asked ECSP Director Geoff Dabelko at the Wilson Center on July 18. “How we respond to climate change may or may not contribute to conflict,” he said, but “at the end of the day, we need to do no harm.”

    Dabelko was joined by Christian Webersik, associate professor at the University of Agder, Norway, and Dennis Taenzler, senior project manager at adelphi, to discuss how responses to climate change may lead to new conflict. As we think about adopting biofuels, solar and nuclear energy options, and geoengineering, “we have to do it with our eyes open,” Dabelko said.

    The Ripple Effects of Climate Change

    We are “both the victims and agents” of climate change, Webersik said. We are affected by it, but we are also responding to it, through adaptation and mitigation efforts, geoengineering proposals, and emissions avoidance. “These strategies themselves have ripple-on effects,” he said. For example, the fuel-food crisis in 2008, in which higher demand for biofuels led to more competition over arable land and increases in food prices, contributed to riots and political instability in some places.

    Webersik also touched on both the opportunities and risks of carbon capture and storage technology. Forty-five percent of carbon emissions in the United States come from coal, he said. Capturing CO2 from those plants could reduce emissions; however, “carbon capture needs to be close,” he said, which introduces the risk of these high-pressure facilities accidentally erupting (as happens naturally – and dangerously – in places like Lake Nyos, Cameroon). This underdeveloped and expensive technology has yet to be widely deployed.

    Another climate mitigation strategy, nuclear energy expansion, poses not only accident risks but also conflict risks via the proliferation of nuclear information and fuel, said Webersik.

    Forests as Cause for Conflict and Cooperation

    Taenzler presented two divergent views on our world’s forests. On one hand, these remote and often disputed lands have been home to many clashes over resources, which are sometimes further fueled by timber revenues. On the other hand, forests also present “sustainable opportunities,” he said. “One-point-two billion people depend on forests for income and livelihood.”

    Managing these complex socioeconomic systems the right way is an important avenue for ensuring environmental sustainability. Taenzler stressed this facet of forest management, pointing to a World Bank figure that 20 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions come from deforestation and forest degradation.

    REDD – Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation – has been implemented by several institutions to stimulate action on forest management and provide payment for ecoservices. Since the 2007 UNFCCC meeting in Bali, REDD programs have been adopted by the World Bank, the UN, and Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative to help manage forest resources and prevent emissions. Specifically, the program develops assessment tools to measure carbon emissions and supports the indigenous people whose lives depend on the forest. Taenzler highlighted the many benefits of adopting a REDD strategy as the pathway for managing global forests, including “generating new opportunities for incomes, creating forest monitoring structures, building government institutions, and fostering cooperation as opposed to large-scale logging, mining, and exploitation.”

    But Taenzler also addressed the potential negative effects of the program: “Further marginalization of forest-dwelling communities, increased corruption leading to unequal benefit sharing, and legal clashes stemming from unclear carbon ownership” are all possible risks from adopting REDD on a greater scale.

    Managing and Mitigating

    To minimize the conflict from climate change responses in the energy sector, Webersik called for a focus “away from corn and sugarcane” and on to second generation biofuels, such as algae grown in salt water and residue from the logging industry. He also stressed the need to experiment with carbon capture and storage and new energy efficiency techniques. “Climate change is a reality. Let’s get our focus back on adaptation and reducing the vulnerabilities in countries and increasing their resilience. This is also an opportunity to bring together the disaster community.”

    Similarly, “there is a need for a conflict-sensitive approach when implementing REDD,” said Taenzler. “We need to focus on clarifying ownership and legal issues, installing transparent forms of benefit sharing, and ensuring international support for capacity building and REDD-readiness.”

    “We need much greater fluency and cooperation across communities and disciplines, much greater flexibility in program design and communication across offices,” said Dabelko. “Back up at the 30,000 foot view, [we need to] avoid the hyperbole in either direction that either the sky is falling or that there is no problem at all, which can set back the policy discussion.”

    Sources: The New York Times, World Bank.

    Photo Credit: “Indonesia Pristine Forests,” courtesy of flickr user Greenpeace Southeast Asia | Philippines.

    Topics: agriculture, backdraft, biofuels, climate change, climate engineering, energy, environment, environmental security, forests, From the Wilson Center, natural resources, security
    • Mark Dube

      As a current student and person interested and fascinated by the topic of climate change, I really enjoyed this article and think it provides some great insight into the implications of responding to such a global issue. In many of classes I have taken that involve climate change, rarely are the impacts of some of the responses discussed. The focus is usually on general ways to slow or stop emissions that speed up climate change. The statistic on how much deforestation and forest degradation actually contributes to the climate change issue is much higher than I expected, but seems like it could be an area where the world can look to start to actively lessen the emissions that contribute to climate change.

    • Mike Y

      I understand there are many issues associated with climate change, but to me it seems like people are looking at the situation as “the glass is half empty” as opposed to “the glass is half full”. Yes the sea levels will rise, and yes the ice caps will melt, we all understand those are negative effects of the situation, but what about the benefits? The biggest benefit I see is that there will be more farming land where there wasn’t before. As the permafrost melts, many regions which were not able to be farmed will now become farmable. Regions which were previously under ice or snow will now become use able land… isn’t anyone thinking about this benefit? It is constantly brought up that soon there will no longer be enough food to support the world’s population so isn’t this a way to fix the problem? Also with a receding of the frost line wouldn’t there be access to resources that were otherwise unattainable? I understand that this will strike a nerve with many climate change people, but the temperature of earth has never been constant, rather it has constantly been fluctuating. Aside from the historical data and facts that humans do better in warmer temperatures, shouldn’t we see how we adapt and start looking at the benefits that could come from climate change rather than saying it is purely evil?

    • http://twitter.com/geoffdabelko Geoff Dabelko

      Mike,  I am in no way expert to be definitive on your question, but my understanding of the literature suggests the changes in arable land availability you mention may move the location of arable land but not in sum total increase the amounts as the loss of land or productivity of land due to climate-related changes in other parts of the world take formerly arable land off-line or make it less productive (changing precipitation).  The places where land may become arable that were formally permafrost also tend to be still marginal/remote areas, sparsely populated, with poor transport infrastructure, and great distances to markets. So the marginal food security benefits are marginal and hard to capture. And of course one step above the arable land question, the melting of the permafrost is releasing lots of methane which is a greenhouse gas that will further accelerate the effect…

Join the Conversation

  • RSS
  • subscribe
  • facebook
  • G+
  • twitter
  • iTunes
  • podomatic
  • youtube
Tweets by NewSecurityBeat

Trending Stories

  • unfccclogo1
  • Pop at COP: Population and Family Planning at the UN Climate Negotiations

Featured Media

Backdraft Podcast

play Backdraft
Podcasts

More »

What You're Saying

  • Rainforest destruction. Gold mining place in Guyana China’s Growing Environmental Footprint in the Caribbean
    ZingaZingaZingazoomzoom: US cleans up. China runs wild on free rein- A lack of international compliance mechanisms to hold...
  • shutterstock_1858965709 Break the Bias: Breaking Barriers to Women’s Global Health Leadership
    Sarah Ngela Ngasi: Nous souhaitons que le partenaire nous apporte son soutien technique et financier.
  • shutterstock_1858965709 Break the Bias: Breaking Barriers to Women’s Global Health Leadership
    Sarah Ngela Ngasi: Nous sommes une organisation féminine dénommée: Actions Communautaires pour le Développement de...

Related Stories

No related stories.

  • woodrow
  • ecsp
  • RSS Feed
  • YouTube
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Who We Are
  • Publications
  • Events
  • Wilson Center
  • Contact Us
  • Print Friendly Page

© Copyright 2007-2023. Environmental Change and Security Program.

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. All rights reserved.

Developed by Vico Rock Media

Environmental Change and Security Program

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center

  • One Woodrow Wilson Plaza
  • 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
  • Washington, DC 20004-3027

T 202-691-4000