Showing posts from category climate change.
-
Warming Up to Migration: Labor Mobility and Climate Change
›August 1, 2007 // By Karima TawfikTraveling across national borders to find work should be treated as a legitimate response to climate change, says the International Institute for Sustainable Development’s Oli Brown in a new policy paper on climate change and labor mobility.
Both Brown and ECSP Director Geoff Dabelko, who recently weighed in on climate change and migration on The New Security Beat, believe that climate change is an increasingly important driver of migration. However, it is difficult to isolate a causal relationship between climate change and migration because other factors—such as population growth, economics, and politics—are inextricably intertwined with climate’s impact on migration patterns. Brown and Dabelko both stress that the difficulties of measuring climate change’s effect on migration should not prevent policymakers from addressing the relationship between the two, however.Brown explains that labor migration has become an important coping strategy in drought-stricken Africa. During dry periods, young adults leave their rural homes and head for the cities, hoping to earn money for their families. Brown recommends increasing the flexibility of international migration laws to make it easier for people to travel across national borders to earn a living, but he also urges developing nations to curb the “brain drain” phenomenon by adopting incentives for workers to remain in their home countries. Moreover, he argues that wealthy developed countries, which tend to see migration as a failure of adaptation and often oppose relaxing immigration or refugee policies, should accept environmental stress as a legitimate reason for migration.
-
NPR, National Geographic Explore Links Between People and Climate
›July 25, 2007 // By Rachel WeisshaarNational Public Radio (NPR) and National Geographic have teamed up to produce “Climate Connections,” a year-long series that explores, in its own words, “How we are shaping climate” and “How climate is shaping us.” This fascinating, first-rate series should appeal to non-experts as well as those more familiar with these issues.
NPR and National Geographic produce stories for the series independently, but link extensively to one another’s contributions. Both organizations’ websites offer a wealth of compelling—and sometimes sobering—stories on the connections between people and climate. For instance, NPR’s most recent “Climate Connections” story examines how the gas flares that are produced in the Niger Delta when oil companies burn off surplus natural gas are releasing vast amounts of carbon dioxide into the air and likely sickening nearby residents.
Both websites are filled with interactive features: National Geographic has a “Grade Your Climate IQ” quiz and an animated climate change simulation, while NPR’s website allows viewers to find past “Climate Connections” stories by navigating around a map of the world. I encourage you to listen in or log on to this excellent, cross-cutting series. -
A Word of Caution on Climate Change and “Refugees”
›July 18, 2007 // By Geoffrey D. DabelkoScholars, policy analysts, and even military officers are breaking down climate change’s impacts into what they hope are more manageable topics for examination. The migration that climate change could cause is one such topic. For instance, the Center for American Progress recently posted a piece entitled “Climate Refugees: Global Warming will Spur Migration.” The International Peace Academy analyzed “Climate Change and Conflict: The Migration Link” in a May 2007 Coping With Crisis working paper. Climate change-induced migration also figured prominently in the security perspective offered by the CNA Corporation’s Military Advisory Board in its “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change.”
-
Environment and Security News Roundup
›July 17, 2007 // By Alex FischerInward Searching at the Security Council
After it recently spent a day discussing how trade in natural resources can fuel conflict, the UN Security Council issued a statement detailing ways for the UN to do more to end illegal natural resources trade in conflict zones. The statement contained no specific directives, however, reflecting the continuing split within the council over the extent of its authority to regulate natural resources. The Chinese delegation warned that sanctions, one tool the UN could use to combat illicit exploitation of natural resources, often harm countries that are already highly vulnerable. Along with other countries, China argued that coordinating and strengthening existing UN agencies, rather than creating new initiatives, would be the best way to prevent natural resources from contributing to violent conflict.
AFRICOM Encounters Challenges to Implementation
The U.S. military’s plan to establish AFRICOM, a new military command in Africa, has been stalled as potential host nations voice their concerns. African countries including Algeria, Morocco, Libya, Egypt, and Djibouti have declined U.S. officials’ proposals to set up the new base in their respective nations. They are reluctant to collaborate publicly with the U.S. military and are concerned about the increased risk of terrorist attacks against new American facilities and the possibility of future American intervention in Africa. The U.S. has stated that the command center will focus on development, peace, security, education, democracy, and economic growth.
Military Should Prepare for Climate Change Impacts, Says British Official
British Chief of Defense Staff Jock Stirrup said the potential impact of climate change on weak and vulnerable states would be “rather like pouring petrol onto a burning fire.” The military must incorporate climate change impacts into its security calculations, warned Stirrup. New challenges for the security establishment could include increasingly frequent natural disasters, shifting poverty stresses, and social unrest. “Now add in the effects of climate change. Poverty and despair multiply, resentment surges and people look for someone to blame,” he said. -
UN Highlights Climate Change-Security Link in Sudan
›June 26, 2007 // By Rachel WeisshaarUN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon recently named climate change as one of the primary causes of the current humanitarian crisis in Sudan. Although most commentators focus on the political and ethnic dimensions of the conflict, Ban reminds us that herders (primarily Arabs) and farmers (primarily black Africans) coexisted peacefully until the mid-1980s, when drought struck the region.
Ban believes that peacekeeping is an important first step in alleviating the crisis, and he expressed hope that Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir will stand by his recent agreement to allow a joint United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force into Darfur. However, Ban maintains that a more permanent solution to this conflict must address its underlying environmental factors. As he starkly stated, any lasting solution will have to tackle “the fact that there’s no longer enough good land to go around.” Ban’s piece draws on an Atlantic Monthly article (available to subscribers only) by Stephen Faris. In March, The New Security Beat’s Karin Bencala weighed in on Faris’ article.
Also, a new report by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) states that environmental degradation—particularly desertification, deforestation, and overgrazing—has helped contribute to decades of conflict in Sudan. The report predicts that environmental stresses will precipitate future conflicts—particularly in Africa’s Sahel region and in east Asia, as UNEP executive director Achim Steiner said in an interview. The report also echoes Ban’s long-term environmental perspective on restoring peace to Sudan. “Investment in environmental management, financed by the international community and from the country’s emerging boom in oil and gas exports, will be a vital part of the peace building effort,” says UNEP’s press release.
Economic development is a necessary part of any solution in Darfur, but in order to achieve stability, this development must preserve, not deplete, Sudan’s already-overtaxed natural resources. Sudan cannot solve its environmental and resource problems without the help of those countries that likely helped cause them: unless countries with the highest levels of carbon dioxide emissions—the United States and China, among others—do not reduce their carbon footprint, even the most far-sighted Sudanese development strategy will be hard-pressed to succeed. -
Consequences of Climate Change: Imagining a World Without Tequila and Lattes
›June 25, 2007 // By Alex FischerOver the past months, climate change has been the darling of the news media. Now, reporters are starting to identify ways that climate change may threaten the American way of life. For example, what if the change in weather patterns affected the world’s coffee production? According to the UNEP Global Outlook Report this may not be an abstraction: “Coffee is the first, second, or third largest export crop for 26 mostly poor countries in Africa and Central America. Yet coffee is sensitive to changes in average temperatures.” The average U.S. coffee drinker consumes 3.1 cups of coffee a day. Can we imagine reducing that to one cup? Or paying double or triple for a single shot of espresso?
We are also seeing more stories about the consequences of hasty efforts to limit carbon emissions. Increasing demand for low-emission fuel is already causing shortage of blue agave, the source of tequila. The Christian Science Monitor’s Sara Miller reports on the dramatic shift from the growth of the spiky-blue native Mexican plant to tall corn stalks; and writes that agave is the latest casualty of the corn-based ethanol craze.
The quest for climate-friendly fuel could also have unintended security consequences. Another recent article quotes Andrew Pendleton of Christian Aid: “You could have blood biofuels in the same way as you have blood diamonds.” What if biofuels are the next hub of conflict resources, akin to diamonds in Sierra Leone, timber in Cambodia, or minerals in the Congo?
The news media should be mindful of speculative reporting. Of course, terms like “blood biofuels” are eye-catching, but by using them, news outlets run the risk of overselling potential threats. ECSP’s Geoff Dabelko recently spoke about this phenomena at an event on environment, conflict and cooperation, noting the fallout from Robert Kaplan’s 1994 article “The Coming Anarchy,” which launched a strand of environmental fatalism whose gloom-and-doom predictions never came to pass.
This reminds me of the warnings I was told as a child, related through the classic fable of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.” Critics of climate change are ready in waiting for the Al Gore’s of the world to be revealed as metaphorical “boys.” It is imperative, then, that concrete evidence and studies are conducted to support the claims connecting climate change and security. And for their part, the news media should be cautious in their coverage of climate change, but also be commended for hitting on a question about the developed world’s priorities: Could the threat of losing luxury items produce more action than predictions of increasing natural disasters and coastal flooding? Is the thought of losing that morning cup of coffee enough to shift public opinion and behavior? And will these global shifts have a greater impact on the already fragile security of poor and post-conflict countries? -
Climate and Security Meets YouTube
›June 20, 2007 // By Geoffrey D. DabelkoYou can now watch commentary from some of the 11 retired U.S. generals and admirals who contributed to National Security and the Threat of Climate Change, a report that is one of the more recent voices on the links between climate and security. A seven-minute video on YouTube features interview clips, press conference footage, and narrated background on the CNA Corp’s Military Advisory Board. If you would like longer versions, you can watch Generals Sullivan and Ward and Admiral Truly testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; or watch Generals Wald, Kern, and Farrell present the report for the Environmental Change and Security Program (ECSP) at the Woodrow Wilson Center.
One of the recommendations of these 11 retired flag officers is for the National Intelligence Council to produce a government-wide National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) to assess climate’s threats from a U.S. national security perspective. Legislation calling for a NIE has been contentious on the Hill, with some Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee claiming precious time could not be wasted on such investigations in the midst of the war on terror.
Representative Edward J. Markey (D.-Mass.), who is chair of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, has a different view. In this video from the House floor he favorably cites the CNA report and defends the allocation of intelligence community resources to climate assessments.
And a final climate and security video recommendation, again from an ECSP meeting. Although the NSF-funded research is still in progress, initial results from Marc Levy (CIESIN), Charles Vörösmarty (University of New Hampshire), and Nils Petter Gleditsch (PRIO) on drought’s connections to violent conflict in sub-Saharan Africa indicate a statistically significant relationship. A substantive meeting summary gives you more details on their use of geo-referenced rainfall data and newly coded conflict data to provide the largely elusive quantitative evidence for these linkages. -
Climate and Security Reaches a Crescendo
›April 20, 2007 // By Geoffrey D. DabelkoThe week of April 16th will go down as climate and security week. Monday found us in a fancy hotel ballroom within the shadow of Capitol Hill where eight former three-and four-star U.S. generals and admirals made a plea for more aggressive U.S. action on climate change. It was not a bunch of granola chomping, tree-huggers arrayed across the stage. Instead it was in front of 20 American flags that General Gordon Sullivan USA (Ret.) said in introducing the report National Security and the Threat of Climate Change: “We are not your traditional environmentalists.” Gordon, former Chief of Staff of the Army and chair of the CNA Corp’s Military Advisory Board, ran quickly through the group’s findings and recommendations before each of the seven other senior officers drew on their particular backgrounds and tailored how they viewed climate change as a security threat.
Former Admiral Frank “Skip” Bowman USN (Ret.), the submariner, said not planning for climate change made about as much sense as not planning for a hostile underwater environment.
General Charles Wald (USAF) Ret., who worked extensively in Africa from his deputy commander post in European Command, spoke of the resource pressures and instability he witnessed in West and East Africa – factors likely to become more challenging security threats with sea level rise and prolonged droughts.
Admiral Joseph Prueher USN (Ret.), former Commander of Pacific Command and U.S. Ambassador to China highlighted sea level rise implications for population and business centers like Shanghai and Navy bases like San Diego and Norfolk. He went on to say the U.S. can’t tackle the climate change problem alone, necessitating deeper engagement with key players like China and India.
Many of the officers emphasized that the panel “wanted to move beyond the debate over cause and effect” in climate change. As military men, they stressed they were accustomed to making important decisions with incomplete or uncertain information. They called on policymakers to do the same in the climate realm.
Three other senior officers on the Military Advisory Group weren’t in Washington that day. One of the missing members, General Tony Zinni USMC (Ret.) gave a very dynamic NPR interview that was also generating a buzz among those who follow these issues. Zinni has been making the case for linking environment and security for at least eight years. It was as Commander of Central Command (CENTCOM) in 1999 that Zinni said at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington that he wasn’t doing his job as head of CENTCOM if he was not following environmental and demographic issues as both threats and opportunities in his theaters of operation (North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia).
One day later the spotlight shown on the shore of the East River at the United Nations. The United Kingdom, chair of the Security Council in April, sent Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett to oversee the Council’s first consideration of climate change as a security threat. The session was not without its disagreements.
Beckett emphasized that climate change posed threats beyond the “narrow” sense of security to threaten “collective” security of the international community and human well-being. The UK, France, Italy, the Secretary-General, and some developing countries such as Ghana, Panama, and Peru, highlighted the extra stress placed on already vulnerable populations in developing countries where pastorlists and agriculturalists already compete for scarce land and water. They suggested more of these conflicts would likely become (more) violent. Papau New Guinea representative, speaking on behalf of the Pacific Islands Forum, stressed that climate change posed a fundamental security threat – to their sovereign territory and their people.
Lining up against the Security Council considering climate change as a security issue were China, Indonesia, South Africa, and Pakistan speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China. The countries acknowledged the tremendous challenges posed by climate change but situated them as sustainable development, not security issues. They argued the more representative UN General Assembly and UN Economic and Social Council, the Commission on Sustainable Development, and multilateral treaties in general were the more appropriate forums for debate. China emphasized the “common, but differentiated responsibilities” language found in the Framework Convention on Climate Change – a reminder that the developing world expects the developed countries who have contributed most to the greenhouse gas emissions to go first and move aggressively on mitigation.
The United States seemed unable to make up its mind and fell back on its familiar script of “it is all about goverance and state capacity” that it uses in just about every occasion on environment and development issues. Singapore’s representative shared the G77 and China reservation on the Security Council playing a key role on climate change, but suggested it still should have “some sort of a role, because it seems obvious to all but the wilfully blind that climate change must, if not now, then eventually have some impact on international peace and security.”
On Wednesday April 18 it was back to Washington where General Gordon Sullivan testified before the Select Committee On Energy Independence And Global Warming of the U.S. House Of Representatives. Sullivan laid out concisely the Military Advisory Board’s four findings and five recommendations:
Findings:- First, projected climate change poses a serious threat to America’s national security;
- Second, climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world;
- Third, projected climate change will add to tensions even in stable regions of the world; and
- Fourth, climate change, national security, and energy dependence are a related set of global challenges.
Recommendations- First, the national security consequences of climate change should be fully integrated into national security and national defense strategies;
- Second, the U.S. should commit to a stronger national and international role to help stabilize climate changes at levels that will avoid significant disruption to global security and stability;
- Third, the U.S. should commit to global partnerships that help less developed nations build the capacity and resiliency to better manage climate impacts;
- Fourth, the Department of Defense should enhance its operational capability by accelerating the adoption of improved business processes and innovative technologies that result in improved U.S. combat power through energy efficiency; and
- Fifth, DoD should conduct an assessment of the impact on U.S. military installations worldwide of rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and other possible climate change impacts over the next 30 to 40 years.
What it will add up to is unclear. What is clear is that political space has been created for discussing climate and security’s links as part of the larger momentum for debate on climate change opened up by a tangled mix of factors: the new IPCC report and other scientific findings, An Inconvenient Truth, state action in the US, EU renewable energy targets, Hurricane Katrina, European heat waves and floods, high gas prices, faith-based efforts (What would Jesus drive? He wouldn’t, he’d walk.) Climate and security is now on the agenda – the challenge is now to find practical steps for a variety of actors to take to help break the negative links and grasp opportunities presented. - First, projected climate change poses a serious threat to America’s national security;
