Showing posts from category climate change.
-
World Bank President: Climate Policy Is Not “One-Size-Fits All”
›
Speaking at the Woodrow Wilson Center yesterday, World Bank President Robert Zoellick said the financial crisis indicated that developed countries should listen to developing countries, but not out of “charity or solidarity: It is self-interest.”
His prepared remarks, “The End of the Third World? Modernizing Multilateralism for a Multipolar World,” notably included a section on climate change:Take climate change: The danger is that we take a rule book from developed countries to impose a one-size-fits-all model on developing countries. And they will say no.
Climate change policy can be linked to development and win support from developing countries for low carbon growth but not if it is imposed as a straitjacket.
This is not about lack of commitment to a greener future. People in developing countries want a clean environment, too.
Developing countries need support and finance to invest in cleaner growth paths. 1.6 billion people lack access to electricity. The challenge is to support transitions to cleaner energy without sacrificing access, productivity, and growth that can pull hundreds of millions out of poverty.
Avoiding geo-politics as usual means looking at issues differently. We need to move away from the binary choice of either power or environment. We need to pursue policies that reflect the price of carbon, increase energy efficiency, develop clean energy technologies with applications in poorer countries, promote off-grid solar, innovate with geothermal, and secure win-win benefits from forest and land use policies. In the process, we can create jobs and strengthen energy security.
The developed world has prospered through hydro electricity from dams. Some do not think the developing world should have the same access to the power sources used by developed economies. For them, thinking this is as easy as flicking a switch and letting the lights burn in an empty room.
While we must take care of the environment, we cannot consign African children to homework by candlelight or deny African workers manufacturing jobs. The old developed country prism is the surest way to lose developing country support for global environment goals. -
Book Review: ‘Global Warring: How Environmental, Economic, and Political Crises Will Redraw the World Map’ by Cleo Paskal
›April 9, 2010 // By Rachel Posner
As record-breaking snowstorms blanketed Washington, D.C. this winter, I took advantage of the citywide freeze to read Cleo Paskal’s new book, Global Warring: How Environmental, Economic, and Political Crises Will Redraw the World Map. In it, Paskal makes a compelling case for why the West should care about the geopolitical shifts—already underway—that will be exacerbated by climate change.
Paskal eloquently explains the science behind climate change in layman’s terms, breaking down incredibly complex issues and drawing connections across seemingly disparate challenges, such as rising food prices, degrading energy infrastructure, and growing water scarcity. She is a skilled storyteller, using memorable vignettes (and at times even humor) to effectively illustrate these climate-related complexities.
But what truly sets Paskal’s book apart from a number of recent works on this topic is her ability to elucidate the major power shifts that are directly related to today’s climate and resource stresses. “Environmental change is the wild card in the current high-stakes game of geopolitics,” she writes (p. 249). Such natural resource stresses will only become more pronounced in the future.
Global Warring highlights a number of key challenges and opportunities that could take the United States and other Western nations by surprise if they don’t change policies now to secure their positions as major global powers.
Impacts of Environmental Change: Like the developing world, the United States and other Western nations will suffer from extreme weather events and the broader effects of environmental change. However, the United States has “institutional, regulatory, political, and social” weaknesses that affect its “ability to absorb the stress of repeated, costly, and traumatic crises,” including its expensive, aging infrastructure, writes Paskal (p. 40). For example, while the country will face more Hurricane Katrinas, the U.S. military is still not adequately prepared to address such domestic environmental disasters.
Transportation Routes and Trade: The Northwest Passage—the sea route that connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans through North American waterways—is a highly coveted trade route that will become all the more valuable as Arctic ice continues to melt in the years ahead. Already the United States, Canada, Russia, China, and even the European Union are engaged in a geopolitical chess game for control of the Arctic. Each is staking a claim to the natural resources below the surface, new shipping routes, and strategic chokepoints. According to Paskal, if the West wants to remain “a major force in the twenty-first century,” the United States and the EU should help Canada secure its claim to the Northwest Passage. This way, Canada could protect its borders and “talk to other countries, including Russia, on a more equal basis about creating and jointly using facilities like search, rescue, and toll stations, and on methods of speeding legitimate, safe shipping and exploration in the northern waters,” she writes (p. 125).
New Power Dynamics and Partnerships for China, India, and the West: China and India are two of the world’s fastest growing economies and each are taking on new roles in Asia and beyond. But could climate change and environmental challenges stem their growth, or will these “powerhouse” countries prove resilient? As the global power balance begins to shift toward Asia, Paskal sees India as the “swing vote” that might shape the future of geopolitics for the next long while” by aligning itself with Russia and China and potentially marginalizing the West (p. 185). Alternatively, the West could finally acknowledge India as an equal partner—for example, by strengthening civilian nuclear cooperation—and thus help foster stability over the long term. Stresses on natural resources, now and in the future, will only increase the importance of strong alliances and geopolitical partnerships.
Rising Sea Levels in the Pacific Ocean: Most Americans and other Westerners are not terribly concerned about the welfare of the small-island nations in the Pacific whose entire existence is threatened by sea-level rise. Paskal rightfully draws our attention to the ambiguous state of the international law of the sea, which leaves much of this region up for grabs when sea levels rise and coastlines change. “At stake is access to fisheries, sea-lanes in relatively calm waters, control over regional security, unknown underwater resources, geostrategic advantage, and geopolitical political leverage,” she writes (p. 214). China has already gone to great lengths to secure its control over the Pacific, and if it continues to be successful, the United States will risk losing influence in the region.
Throughout all of these cases, Paskal weaves in a discussion of the growing and strategically significant practice of “nationalistic capitalism.” For example, she describes how China’s state-owned companies work with their government to “advance national strategic interests,” often signing bilateral deals that “cut out the open market and overtly link much-needed resources to wide-ranging agreements on other goods and services, including military equipment” (p. 94-5). As China and other nationalistic capitalist countries expand their reach into the resource-rich regions of Africa and Latin America, fewer resources (like food and fuel) will be available in the open market. For the United States and other “free market” nations, this practice could lead to higher prices and increased competition for business and political alliances.
Overall, Global Warring is an excellent read that I would recommend to friends and colleagues, especially those tracking long-range global trends and promoting farsighted policies. I appreciated Paskal’s recurring call for abandoning short-term expediency in U.S. decision-making in favor of a longer-term approach. Paskal shows how over time the United States’ short-term interests are creating major vulnerabilities that will be worsened by environmental stresses in the future.
The book’s only notable shortcoming is its skewed geographic scope. Paskal focuses heavily on North America and Asia, particularly China and India, and only briefly mentions Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and Australia. Obviously, a book about the shift of major world powers would concentrate on the most influential players, but these other regions are worthy of greater consideration given their critical natural resources, demographic trends, and ongoing climate adaptation efforts.
Regardless of how the climate changes, the environmental trends described in Global Warring are already manifesting as geopolitical realities that will dramatically affect the United States. As Paskal says, “Countries that want internal stability, influence over allies, control over sea-lanes, and access to critically important resources better start planning now (p. 235).
Rachel Posner is a fellow in the Energy and National Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Previously, she has served as the assistant director of the CSIS Global Water Futures Project; research associate with the CSIS Global Strategy Institute; and Brent Scowcroft Award Fellow with the Aspen Strategy Group. -
VIDEO – Joshua Busby on Climate Change and African Political Stability
›April 6, 2010 // By Sean Peoples“It is not enough to say that Ethiopia is vulnerable,” says Joshua Busby, an assistant professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. Also necessary is “which parts of Ethiopia are vulnerable and why.” Busby is part of the Department of Defense-funded Climate Change and African Political Stability (CCAPS) project. Part of the Minerva Research Initiative, CCAPS is a multi-year, multi-institution effort to diagnose and assess the causal connections between climate change and security consequences.
In order to diagnose these relationships, CCAPS will use “geographic information systems to map sub-national vulnerability to climate change,” Busby says. Maps will not only include physical exposure to climate change, but also detailed social, household, and community level indicators and broader factors of politics, governance, and demography.
Although only in the first year of the project, Busby describes the initial achievements CCAPS has made in mapping specific vulnerability areas throughout western Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Nigeria. In the next few years, the CCAPS project will continue to map region-specific areas of vulnerability on the African continent and will provide policymakers with the tools to improve foreign assistance flows in areas of high vulnerability. -
Is the Melting Arctic a Security Challenge or Crisis? The View From Russia and Washington
›March 24, 2010 // By Geoffrey D. DabelkoIn his opening remarks at the Security Council of the Russian Federation’s meeting on climate change last week, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev framed climate change as a force for increased competition and “disputes between countries.” Unsurprisingly, he focused on the Arctic region and what he called the “inadmissible” and “unfair” threats to Russia’s access to the region’s resources:
We must not forget either that climate change can give rise not only to physical change, change in the nature around us, but can also see the emergence of disputes between countries over energy exploration and extraction, the use of marine transport routes, bioresources, and shortages of water and food resources. The countries bordering the Arctic region are already actively engaged in expanding their research, economic, and even military presence in the Arctic. Unfortunately, in this situation, we are seeing attempts to limit Russia’s access to exploring and developing Arctic energy deposits, which is inadmissible from a legal point of view and unfair in terms of our country’s geographical location and very history.
His reference to “shortages of water and food resources” fits squarely within the increasingly common view of climate change’s potential as a “conflict accelerant” (see, e.g., the U.S. Department of Defense’s 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review) or “threat multiplier” (as in CNA’s National Security and the Threat of Climate Change and statements from representatives of the UK and EU foreign offices).
But his Arctic comments sounded different than what I’ve been hearing in Washington. The Arctic rightfully gets a lot of attention for alarming rates of physical change, newly accessible resources, and potential new shipping routes. Yet remarks at a recent spate of Arctic climate and security discussions suggest officials in Washington view the geopolitical and trade issues more as “challenges” than “crises.”
For example, last month at the Stimson Center, and just yesterday at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab, the U.S. Navy’s director of Task Force Climate Change and oceanographer, Rear Admiral David Titley, used “challenge” rather than “crisis” to depict the security situation in the far North. At numerous panels, officials and experts expressed confidence that the Arctic Council and related institutions are forums robust enough to manage current and future disputes.
Ironically, one of those key institutions is UNCLOS, the Law of the Sea treaty, which has been ratified by 157 countries, but not the United States. U.S. military and civilian officials alike see ratification as a key step for the United States to represent its interests in these critical multilateral settings. Nevertheless, we can anticipate some knee-jerk demagoguery about the treaty ceding U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations, so the Senate is unlikely to take up the issue until after the fall 2010 elections.
I want to thank friend and colleague Alexander Carius, co-director of Adelphi Research, for calling President Medvedev’s speech to my attention.
Photo: Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, courtesy Flick user World Economic Forum -
Climate Change: A Threat to Global Security
›Having recently returned from Washington, where I shared a platform at the Woodrow Wilson Center with Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Amanda Dory, I am struck by how similar UK and U.S. thinking is on the national security implications of climate change. Our defense departments agree that the impact of climate change is likely to be most severe in areas where it coincides with other stresses, such as poverty, demographic growth, and resource shortages: areas through which much of the world’s trade already passes. We are also in agreement that climate change will accelerate global instability and that it is likely to shape our future missions and tasks. In particular we can expect to receive more frequent requests for assistance after extreme weather events.
So if we recognize the threats, what can we do about them? In the United Kingdom we believe that the approach is two-fold. First, we need to address the problem that we have already caused, the damage that we have done to the climate out to about 2030, through adaptation and planning for potential scenarios. But to limit the threat to our security, we must also address the underlying causes.
Key to achieving this is limiting temperature rises to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, when compared with pre-industrial times, since beyond that, the risks will increase greatly. This will be no easy task and will require us to start cutting our emissions now, taking action by being more efficient and investing in low-carbon technology. The United Kingdom has the world’s first legally binding emissions reduction targets, and is investing in a variety of technologies, including wind, nuclear, and carbon capture and storage. These measures will not only contribute to our long-term security by reducing damaging carbon emissions, but they will also insulate us against fossil fuel price fluctuations and thereby increase our energy security.
It is the job of any responsible military to plan not just for the national security challenges that face us currently, but for those that might appear on our horizon in the future. Sometimes new challenges appear from newly destabilized areas of the world. Sometimes they arise from new methods of warfare, or new trends in science and technology. Often, they stem from changes in the conditions under which our militaries operate. Just as we are alive to geopolitical trends in every continent, and technical advances made by both our allies and those who seek to harm our interests, our militaries must proactively anticipate the environmental changes that will impact our national security in the coming years. Current military operations will, rightly, always be our highest priority, but we must also find time to address future threats, including climate change.
Indeed, in some countries climate change is already impacting on the work of the military. When I talk to colleagues from Africa and Southeast Asia it is apparent that they are already taking into account the consequences of climate change when determining their priorities.
The United States and United Kingdom can work together to establish a greater understanding of the security implications of climate change and how they will affect our missions and tasks. We cannot afford to be caught unprepared when climate-related conflicts challenge our ability to deliver our core mission of providing national security – a risk that we must avoid.
Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti is an active duty officer in the British Royal Navy and is the United Kingdom’s Climate Security Envoy -
A Forecast of Push and Pull: Climate Change and Global Migration
›March 10, 2010 // By Julien Katchinoff“As we …talk about the interconnections between climate change and migration we need to look at the interconnections in a way that understands what’s positive about the processes of migration and what’s problematic,” said Susan Martin, Herzberg Professor of International Migration at Georgetown University, during a recent event on climate and migration at the Center for American Progress.
Susan Martin joined Cynthia Brady, senior conflict advisor for the Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation at USAID and David Waskow, director of the Climate Change Program at Oxfam America, to identify the catalysts for future population flows, offer pragmatic policy solutions, and discuss work to be done on the ground.
While reminding the audience that climate-induced migration will tend to follow already existing patterns, Susan Martin broadly outlined four major intersections between migration and climate change impacts:
“Slow” Migration Pressures:- Drought or desertification resulting in a loss or depreciation of livelihoods.
Result: Push working family members to migrate to domestic or international urban centers. - Rising sea levels damaging fishing and agriculture opportunities.
Result: Migration to inland regions to reduce future risk.
“Rapid” Migration Pressures:- Intensification of natural disasters and damage to infrastructure.
Result: The coping costs increase to the point where they push large numbers of people to leave their homes. Most individuals migrate internally. Of the four intersections, this is currently the most common. - Threats to the availability of food, water, and other natural resources.
Result: Low or high intensity conflict, leading to migrations. The short timeframes and potentially large numbers of migrants involved make this driver the most problematic. Differing degrees of internal political stability are factors that can interfere for better or worse.
Yet these relationships are not without controversy. “Environmentalists have tended to see the issue of migration as a way of getting attention to mitigation and have often talked about migration in very alarmist terms,” Martin said. “Migration experts, on the other hand, have been very skeptical about the interconnection.” Instead, they have argued that other push and pull factors outside of climate are much more significant to the migration calculation.
Operating from the perspective that migration itself is an adaptation failure, David Waskow outlined several strategies that Oxfam deploys to help communities copewith uncertain futures:
- Building climate resilience and developing adaptation strategies: Proactive approaches are essential, as agencies and communities can address future threats with disaster planning and creating early-warning systems.
- Managing risk: The establishment of micro-insurance projects can cushion vulnerable populations against unexpected economic shocks.
- Resettling communities: The movement of rural populations to urban areas could result in tensions over land use and strains on urban governance and carrying capacities. As a result, this approach is left as a last recourse.
Brady, though in agreement with Waskow concerning climate change’s threat to livelihoods and its role as a catalyst for conflict, suggested that there may be positive opportunities for managing climate risks. “The environment can and does provide an essential and effective platform for dialogue, communication, and confidence-building around shared interests,” Brady said. “It may be that certain conflicts actually lend themselves to the use of climate-related collaboration as a mechanism to resolve conflict or reduce tension between parties,” she said.
Climate-related projects at the community-level, from adaptive early-warning systems to mitigating carbon storage schemes, hold the possibility to bring groups together in cooperative projects, build confidence, and defuse existing tensions. Transparent and participatory management of new investments may also increase trust in local and national governments with whom trust was previously lacking. While forestalling crises in the future, adaptation projects also hold the potential to unlock opportunities for peacebuilding and conflict resolution today.
Photo Credits: Photo 1 courtesy Oxfam America. Photo 2 courtesy Center for American Progress. - Drought or desertification resulting in a loss or depreciation of livelihoods.
-
Visualizing Natural Resources, Population, and Conflict
›Environmental problems that amplify regional security issues are often multifaceted, especially across national boundaries. Obtaining a comprehensive understanding of the natural resource, energy, and security issues facing a region is not fast or easy.
Fortunately, the Environment and Security Initiative (ENVSEC) has created highly informative, easy-to-understand maps depicting environmental, health, population, and security issues in critical regions.
Published with assistance from the United Nations GRID-Arendal, these maps offer policymakers and the public a snapshot of the complex topography of environmental security hotspots in Central Asia, Eastern Europe, Southeastern Europe, and the Southern Caucasus.
Some that caught our eye:• Environmental Issues in the Northern Caspian Sea: Overlaying environmental areas and energy production zones, this map finds hydrocarbon pollution in sturgeon spawning grounds, seal habitats in oil and gas fields, and energy production centers and waste disposal sites in flood zones.• Water Withdrawal and Availability in the Aral Sea Basin: Simple and direct, this combination map and graph contrasts water usage with availability in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan—which stand in stark comparison to the excess water resources of Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan.• Environment and Security Issues in Belarus: In addition to noting the parts of the country with poor water quality and potassium mining, the map also delineates wildfires that occurred in areas contaminated by the Chernobyl explosion, thus threatening downwind populations.
Maps: Illustrations courtesy of the Environment & Security Initiative. -
The Diane Rehm Show Tackles Water Challenges With ECSP Director Geoff Dabelko
›March 3, 2010 // By Michelle NeukirchenHow is water shaping geopolitics in the 21st century? Is it an underlying factor for state failure and social conflict, or can it drive peace and cooperation? How will climate change reshape global water resources?Recently, on WAMU’s “The Diane Rehm Show,” ECSP Director Geoff Dabelko, author Steven Solomon, and the World Bank’s Julia Bucknall came together to discuss the history, politics, economics, and future of water.
“Climate change exacerbates the water crisis in very severe ways because it manifests itself through water —through floods, droughts, and melting glaciers,” said Solomon.
The World Bank’s Julia Bucknell highlighted climate change projections that indicate average precipitation increases are likely, mostly in the global North. “It is the poorer countries that show up red on the maps with a reduction in precipitation,” she said.
By compounding failing states’ limited capacity to secure existing water supplies for agriculture, sanitation, and human consumption, decreasing precipitation will result in further intensification of global public health and food security crises.
“We need to improve the existing productivity of the water we’ve got,” said Solomon. “We need to use it more efficiently and fairly in a way that protects the ecosystems.”
Countries such as Australia, Israel, and China are leading the way: even under arid conditions, they use innovative methods to remain productive. In Australia, a new regime allows water rights to be traded, even over cellphones, while China established a credit-based system for individual farmers by using remote sensing technology based on NASA data.
Governments are under pressure to address climate change directly, while managing vexing local and regional challenges. “Our political institutions and our political leaders must not deal with the short term and pretend things will go back to a state of normalcy, but [should] progressively and proactively shape and reshape the institutions,” said Dabelko.Countries with traditionally contentious relationships have cooperated to solve common water problems. The Financial Times recently reported on an agreement between China and India to jointly assess trends in Himalayan glacier and snow melt.
“There are prospects for tensions,” said Dabelko of the Himalayas, “but quite frankly, water is difficult to [obtain] through war. It’s hard to pick it up and take it home.”
To listen to the full audio recording, click here.
Photo: Just Add Water, Courtesy of Flickr Member MΛЯK
Photo: Melting Glacier at Jokuldalur, Iceland 2, Courtesy of Flickr Member, ChrisGoldNY
Countries with traditionally contentious relationships have 
