Showing posts from category environmental security.
-
Climate Combat? Security Impacts of Climate Change Discussed in Copenhagen
›
Leaders from the African Union,the European Union, NATO, and the United Nations have agreed unanimously that climate change threatens international peace and security, and urged that the time for action is now.
In Copenhagen Tuesday, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the secretary-general of NATO; Jean Ping, the chairperson of the Commission of the African Union; and Helen Clark, the administrator of the UN Development Programme, were joined by Carl Bildt and Per Stig Møller, foreign ministers of Sweden and Denmark respectively, to take part in a remarkable public panel discussion organized by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The leaders agreed climate change could hold serious implications for international security, both as a “threat multiplier” of existing problems and as the cause of conflict, under certain conditions.
Møller suggested there is evidence that higher temperatures in Africa could be directly linked to increases in conflict. Ping emphasized that African emissions make up only 3.8 per cent of the climate problem, though Africa will likely suffer some of its most serious impacts. Fogh Rasmussen warned of the dangers of territorial disputes over the Arctic as the sea ice recedes. “We need to stop the worst from happening,” said Clark.
While there was broad agreement on the seriousness of the challenge, the participants differed on what should be done. Responding to a question from the audience, Bildt argued that Europe should not necessarily throw open its doors to climate migrants, but that the bloc needed to help countries deal with climate change so people can stay at home. Clark argued that enlightened migration policy could meet two sets of needs: reversing declining populations in the North while providing a destination for unemployed workers from the South.
Fogh Rasmussen said militaries can do much to reduce their use of fossil fuels. He noted that 170 casualties in Afghanistan in 2009 have been associated with the delivery of fuel. There is no contradiction, he argued, between military efficiency and energy efficiency.
However, the real significance of the climate-security event lay not in what these leaders said, but that they were there to say it at all. Not many issues can gather the heads of the AU, NATO, and the UNDP on the same platform, alongside the foreign ministers of Sweden and Denmark. This event proved that climate change has become a core concern of international policymakers.
The only way to tackle global problems, as Ping argued, is to find global solutions. And a clear understanding of the potentially devastating security implications of climate change might be one way to bring about those global solutions.
“We are all in the same ship, and if that ship sinks, we will all drown,” said Ping.
Oli Brown is senior researcher and program manager at the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). Read more of IISD’s postings on its blog.
Photo: Courtesy United Nations Photo. -
The Ambivalent Security Agenda in Copenhagen
›To communicate a sense of urgency, the security paradigm is being used to push for self-sufficiency in energy, and hence “national security,” at COP-15. Such a connection, if configured with carbon-free energy sources, could provide a win-win outcome for many.
This argument has been embraced both by the left and the right of the political spectrum in the United States. But compelling as it may be politically, there is a discomforting insularity and isolationism embedded in this approach, as emphasized by the delegations from some countries that export fuels (e.g., OPEC members, emergent oil and gas economies, and uranium exporters such as Namibia and Niger).
The Canadian delegation, which was targeted by activists with a “fossil of the day” award, used the security argument to show how it could send relatively “conflict-free” fuels to the United States by developing its oil, uranium, and bituminous tar sands.
Australia played a similar security card behind the scenes. The former Environment Minister Robert Hill also served as defense minister and is now head of Australia’s Carbon Trust–connections which he suggested were very valuable in an onsite interview with journalist Giles Parkinson.
Nuclear energy was prominently discussed as a solution by numerous delegations. At a side event organized by the Danish Federation of Industries, Energy Secretary and Nobel physicist Steven Chu indicated that his biggest concern about nuclear energy was not the waste problem but rather, the potential dangers to national security from the proliferation of radioactive materials.
The other security connection that environmentalists like to make–but is empirically more tenuous–concerns the increased pressures on existing strife in resource-scarce communities potentially inflicted by climate change. I attended a presentation by an OECD research team that empirically considered the impact of climate change on the security of the vulnerable states of the African Sahel. While generally rejecting the direct linkage between climate change and the threat of violent conflict, the OECD study, launched with UK Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti, identified three hotspots where existing resource scarcity and population pressure could be exacerbated by climate change, especially agropastoralist communities, who are highly sensitive to any climatic fluctuations.
So far, the rather meandering encounter with the security agenda I’ve witnessed here in Copenhagen could greatly benefit from further integrative work such as that offered by the Wilson Center.
Saleem H. Ali is associate professor of environmental planning at the University of Vermont and the author most recently of Treasures of the Earth: Need, Greed and a Sustainable Future. -
NATO Says Don’t Fight the Planet
›Climate and security are under discussion today in Copenhagen at the Danish government’s side event, which brings together heavyweights such as NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, African Union Chair Jean Ping, and Danish Foreign Minister Peter Stig Møller.
Fogh Rasmussen, the former prime minister of Denmark, delivered his remarks the new-fashioned way: today’s Huffington Post. He says NATO is ready to “do its part” by lowering its own carbon bootprint and responding to the increasing humanitarian challenges of a warmer world. He suggests the threat of climate change does not allow powerful institutions like NATO the luxury of sitting on the sidelines.
The post even includes this embedded “Climate Change and NATO” video with an unfortunate screen grab that reads “Fighting the Planet.” Not exactly a reassuring message for those who argue that framing climate change as a security issue will militarize the environment rather than green security (to paraphrase an excellent 1994 edited volume by Finn Jyrki Kakonen).
The video’s actual message is that some security threats can be fought and others shouldn’t be. Climate change will present a security threat, but “Fight the planet and we all lose,” says NATO. Even when the video makes all the right points, those pesky screen grabs can undermine your case! -
Climate and Security Hopes
›December 11, 2009 // By Geoffrey D. DabelkoThe Copenhagen climate negotiations have something for everyone. These mega-conferences attract all types, and the topical diversity of the side events is dizzying. We at the Wilson Center’s Environmental Change and Security Program are focused specifically on the climate and security discussions highlighted in an earlier New Security Beat post.
While I’m not able to join the 400+ participants expected at next week’s climate and security events, I do have some specific hopes for those discussions. And perhaps more importantly, I have hopes for steps after all the delegates go home. I try to capture my holiday wish list in this short video. -
Nobel Pursuits: Linking Climate Efforts With Development, Natural Resources, and Stability
›December 11, 2009 // By Geoffrey D. DabelkoThe only mention of climate change in President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech falls squarely in the climate and security context. He introduces the climate imperative by highlighting natural resources and development connections to stability and human well-being.
In these two paragraphs, the President identifies the key communities that must come together, first in dialogue and then in cooperation, but who so commonly don’t: development, natural resources, health, climate, peacebuilding, and security.It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine and shelter they need to survive. It does not exist where children can’t aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.
Photo: President Barack Obama looks at the Nobel Peace Prize medal at the Norwegian Nobel Institute in Oslo, Norway, Dec. 10, 2009 (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).
And that’s why helping farmers feed their own people — or nations educate their children and care for the sick — is not mere charity. It’s also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, more famine, more mass displacement — all of which will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and environmental activists who call for swift and forceful action — it’s military leaders in my own country and others who understand our common security hangs in the balance. -
Water Conflicts Enter the Fourth Dimension
›The Pacific Institute has just released an updated version of its renowned Water Conflict Chronology in a new interactive form. The online map depicts water conflicts from the Biblical flood to this year’s December 3 protest in Mumbai, pinpointing their location and chronological order. Pop-up text boxes provide the date, parties involved, basis for conflict, and hyperlinked references.
Since its founding in 1987, the project has continuously collected water conflict data “in an ongoing effort to understand the connections between water resources, water systems, and international security and conflict,” writes Pacific Institute President Peter Gleick in the San Francisco Chronicle.
But now, the data can also be visualized and manipulated in a table with citations, interactive timeline, or Google Earth map. Also of note is the project’s robust water and conflict bibliography search engine.
The Pacific Institute publishes The World’s Water, which offers a broad analysis of water resource trends, from conflict and scarcity, to implications for health and the impacts of climate change. At the Wilson Center launch of The World’s Water, Gleick talked to ECSP Director Geoff Dabelko about “peak water” (video). -
Climate and Security Comes to Copenhagen
›December 10, 2009 // By Geoffrey D. DabelkoThe Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs is bringing climate and security links to the Copenhagen confab in Week Two of COP15. The foreign and security policy implications of climate change are appealing both analytically and politically for many players, albeit from very different points of reference (think Tuvalu versus Bangladesh versus the United States, for example). Others, of course, think it is rubbish.
Danish Foreign Minister Peter Stig Møller laid out his thinking back in September at a one-day conference at the ministry. MFA’s December 15th side event will feature former Danish PM and current NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, African Union Commission Chair Jean Ping, and Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt. Some other big names are possible as well. You can RSVP for one of the 400 seats at MEK@UM.DK although registration may close today!
On December 17th, you can get another dose of climate and security talk at “Delivering Climate Security,” where the expert-level players will make their pitches. New Security Beat has video interviews with half of the panel’s speakers: Nick Mabey of E3G, Carol Dumaine of U.S. Department of Energy, and Cleo Paskal of Chatham House. Joining them will be Brigadier General Wendell Chris King (Ret.), dean of academics for the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College; Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti, the UK’s climate and energy security envoy, Major General Muniruzzaman (Ret.), who is president of the Bangladesh Institute for Peace and Security Studies.
So while the climate and security angle is not front-and-center in the negotiations on emissions targets or financing, it will have a hearing at this year’s ultimate climate forum. Let’s hope this attention extends beyond this month’s political crescendo, demonstrating an interest in the analytical links and their varied implications, rather than merely in the political expediency of climate security as slogan. -
UK Leads With a Military Voice on Climate Security
›December 1, 2009 // By Geoffrey D. DabelkoThe recent appointment of Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti as climate security envoy for the UK Foreign Commonwealth Office (FCO) and Ministry of Defence (MOD) represents a new level of seriousness for militaries considering climate change and security links. Morisetti made a number of appearances in
I particularly respect the broader approach the Rear Admiral’s appointment represents–a “joined-up government” framework for complex challenges like climate change that bridge traditional bureaucratic silos.
While there are plenty of examples where joined-up government efforts fall short, the MOD and FCO are finding a good balance in the climate-security case. In the United States, the CNA’s Military Advisory Board demonstrates that military leaders can serve as effective non-traditional spokespeople for climate mitigation and adaptation.
But this more political role for military leaders must spring from systematic assessments of the direct and knock-on effects of climate change on both broad human security and narrow traditional security concerns, as well as the institutions used to provide that security. A thorough and evidenced-based understanding of the direct effects of climate change on traditional security concerns is required to make an effective case and stay grounded in reality. Merely deploying military leaders as advocates because climate-security “polls well” with the American public would, in the long run, be damaging to supporters of both enhanced security and aggressive climate mitigation efforts.
The UK climate-security team is building that evidence base by funding practical analytical studies on the security impacts of climate change in key countries and regions (e.g., Colombia, China, Central America). Their use of Hadley Centre products ground the work in the latest scientific understanding, such as the new map of the world with 4C (7F) degrees of warming.
Back in the United States, the U.S. Defense Department’s Quadrennial Review (QDR) is due to Congress in February 2010. The report is required by law to include assessments of the impacts of climate change for U.S. security and of the military’s capacities to respond to those impacts. Work on that section of the report has been underway for months with in-depth consultations inside and outside government.
Here’s hoping the U.S. appoints its own flag officer to run point on the climate-security challenges outlined in the QDR.
