Climate change and political stability
The most important headlines about climate change might not look like climate change headlines
The most commonly discussed effects of dangerous climate change relate to the physical systems of the earth: rising sea levels, changing precipitation patterns, warmer temperatures (especially at night, during winter and at high latitudes), melting glaciers and ice caps, acidifying oceans, intensifying extreme weather events and so on. All these can be measured and quantified by empirical observation. But for many people, the most important effects will not be sweating more, wearing fewer layers, buying a new umbrella, or cancelling their glacier climbing holiday.
For most of us, particularly the vast majority of the developed world who live in urban areas, the most important effects will arrive indirectly, through flow on effects in human society. For example, while farmers might directly struggle with changing patterns of precipitation, urbanites will feel this indirectly through higher prices or shortages of food types affected by drought, flood or heat wave. In a system as complex as human society, global warming will only ever be one factor in such a news story. There will be government regulations, transport strikes, supermarket profits and all kinds of other factors that are also affecting the price and availability of food, which may at times mask the effects of climate change. Indeed, it may be that the proximate cause of a particular news story apparently has nothing to do with climate change, but a less stable climate may be the background against which a particular issue is worse than it might otherwise be.
For instance, Australia has always had cycles of drought, and Australian agriculture has always heavily influenced by the natural and quasi-periodic ENSO climate pattern. Climate change may increase the length and severity of periods of drought, leaving crops and livestock stressed and more vulnerable to a variety of adverse events. Ecosystems are pushed closer to the edge; their ability to cope with new threats is reduced. So while a new outbreak of disease or infestation from an introduced species might grab the headline, it may have been climate change that lowered the defences.
Or, to pick another plausible scenario, international conflict could be sparker over stressed water resources (such as the Jordan river, which is dying). The proximate cause of such conflict might be inequitable access to a water source, incompatible policies and allocations between nations sharing a common water source, inappropriate industry or population centres sited on the water source, a new dam or a pollution event. But again in the background could well be changing precipitation patterns leading to less water being available.
The most important medium-term effects of a changing climate are likely to be greater political instability, at both intra and international levels. Although there has been much discussion of ecological refugees from rising sea levels, I suspect higher numbers of refugees will be fleeing conflict and violence in places where climate change is an ultimate (though not necessary proximate) cause.
Here are some quotes from retired high-ranking US military figures (source):
Lt. General John G. Castellaw (US Army, Retired): “This isn’t an environmental issue, this is a security issue. Our strategic interests, and therefore our national security and the safety of Americans, are threatened by climate change and our continuing dependence on oil. Military leaders know this isn’t about polar bears and ice caps, it’s about international stability and national security.”This is why responding to climate change is not simply about reducing our carbon footprint (as important as that may be). It is also crucial that we re-invest in the resilience of local and regional communities. Dangerous climate change is dangerous partially because it is likely to increase the frequency and severity of events that threaten the social fabric. And it will be tensions or breakdowns in the social fabric that bring climate change close to home for many people.
Major General Paul Monroe (US Army, Retired): “We make a profound strategic error if we underestimate the impact that climate has on regional and international stability. Some of our most worrisome trouble spots around the world are dangerous because of a combination of climate problems and social unrest – Somalia, Nigeria, and Yemen are strong examples.”
This too is another site at which the Christian message is good news. Christ summons us into experimental communities of peace and forgiveness, places where people look to the interests of others before their own, where joy and hope can be found amidst sorrow and grief, where failure is not final. Jesus is the pioneer of a living way that refuses to perpetuate cycles of recrimination, returns hatred with blessing and recognises that love is important that self-protection. We walk in his footsteps not in order to survive a world that may grow more violent, or because it is the church's task to achieve world peace. We follow Christ simply because it is he who has issued the summons.
Second image by Andrew Filmer.
Posts
17 comments:
US Senator John Kerry on the security implications of climate change.
A much longer post making a similar point with more detail by Joe Romm.
How water raises the political temperature between countries. And a case study on the Nile.
"Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for political instability around the world".
That last one is a very watchable video looking at the implications of climate change on national security from a US perspective.
"The strategic implications are difficult to assess. Climate change is a threat multiplier, but not necessarily more so than the other causes or contributors to instability. However Mazo is clear that it is a new variable which must be taken into account in strategic assessments. And it is a very significant variable – strongly directional, accelerating and irreversible on the time scales that current planning deals with."
From a review of Climate Wars.
Scientific American: Could Food Shortages Bring Down Civilisation?
• Food scarcity and the resulting higher food prices are pushing poor countries into chaos.
• Such “failed states” can export disease, terrorism, illicit drugs, weapons and refugees.
• Water shortages, soil losses and rising temperatures from global warming are placing severe limits on food production.
• Without massive and rapid intervention to address these three environmental factors, the author argues, a series of government collapses could threaten the world order.
Mass migration as a result of climate change:
"According to scientists, 50 million people worldwide will be displaced this year because of rising sea levels, desertification, dried up aquifers, weather-induced flooding, and other severe environmental changes.
"A joint study by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre shows that in 2008 climate-related natural disasters forced 20 million people out of their homes. Research conducted by the Red Cross shows that more people today migrate due to environmental disaster than because of violent conflict."
Are the Asian floods a sign of what is to come?
Climate wars - in three parts.
"[T]here are four things I learned that I think you ought to know.
"The first is that a lot of the scientists who study climate change are in a state of suppressed panic these days. Things seem to be moving much faster than their models predicted.
"The second thing is that the military strategists are right. Global warming is going to cause wars, because some countries will suffer a lot more than others. That will make dealing with the global problem of climate change a lot harder.
"The third is that we are probably not going to meet the deadlines. The world's countries will probably not cut their greenhouse gas emissions enough, in time, to keep the warming from going past 2 degrees celsius. That is very serious.
"And the fourth thing is that it may be possible to cheat on the deadlines. I think we will need a way to cheat, at least for a while, in order to avoid a global disaster."
Hot Topic: Peruvian glaciers and US security.
25 governments that may get crushed by food price increases.
HuffPo: Christiana Figueres Warns Of 'Climate Chaos,' Urges Militaries To Invest In Prevention:
"Other U.N. academics reported last year that in 2008 alone 20 million people were displaced by sudden climate disasters, at least temporarily, and gradual climate changes over the next 40 years could cause 200 million people – and perhaps up to 1 billion – to migrate."
And here is the full text of the speech (not very long).
Arab nations' shrinking water fuse.
The Cost of Energy: Climate change, death and taxes, which makes a similar point to this post. My response was as follows:
"One of the key questions in asserting that the rich will not die from climate change is “what kinds of deaths can be called climate change deaths?” For instance, if shifting hydrological cycles exacerbate tensions between India and Pakistan over water resources, and they go to war and it escalates to a local nuclear exchange, would the millions of deaths be climate change deaths? What if extreme weather events suppress global crop yields and rising prices trigger the poor and lower middle class of repressed nations into rising up against their leadership who are perceived to be failing them, and the said leadership brutally cracks down on the protest, killing hundreds (or leads into protracted civil war) – are they climate change deaths? What if mega-disasters hitting, say, the US lead to certain insurance companies going under financially, and the resulting chain of effects includes millions of citizens losing health cover or finding their premiums skyrocketing and so more try the tightrope without a safety net. Are the fatalities from untreated health problems climate change deaths?
"In each example (some are more far-fetched than others, and they can be multiplied ad infinitum), climate change exacerbated existing threats and lead to triggering events that might not have otherwise happened or made events that might have happened anyway worse in their final toll. The proximate cause of death in each case is something somewhat remote from climate change, but it still played a significant role in making things worse. Most people are not very good at thinking through mutli-causal situations and want a single thing (or better, single person) to blame. But one of the insidious things about climate change is that most of its worst effects will not be making headlines as “climate change”, but as far more familiar things: war, disease, famine, refugees, unrest, poverty, oppression and so on."
Guardian: Climate cycles linked to civil conflicts. During El Nino, the likelihood of conflict doubles in affected countries.
Post a Comment