We've heard the warnings over and over. Global warming means the world
is facing "a true planetary emergency" (ex-U.S. Vice-President Al
Gore); in coming decades, environmental changes caused by global
warming "are likely to become a major driver of war and conflict" (U.N.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon); if greenhouse gas emissions go
unchecked, "the effects will be catastrophic - on the level of nuclear
war" (the International Institute for Strategic Studies).
When the U.N. Security Council debated climate change for the
first time back in April, then British Foreign Secretary Margaret
Beckett made a firm link with what she called "our collective security
in a fragile and increasingly interdependent world".
In practice, this is open to interpretation. Military planners
may be concerned with the implications for national security; aid
agencies might prefer to look at how local communities could end up
fighting over scarce water or land. Either way, there's a growing
recognition that global warming and its consequences could fuel
conflict. In the face of dire predictions about climate Armageddon,
switching to energy-saving light bulbs seems like a rather paltry
weapon. It's tempting to simply shrug our shoulders and hope the worst
of it doesn't happen in our lifetime.
Last year, researchers who wrote a report for Britain's Institute for Public Policy Research on communication about climate change dubbed the most sensationalist, terrifying descriptions of future scenarios "climate porn".
They argued that the common approach of advocating small-scale
actions in the face of impending doom - "20 things you can do to save
the planet from destruction" - just doesn't work because there's too
wide a mismatch between "problem" and "solution".
So maybe it's time to change the way we think - and talk - about tackling this monstrous challenge that renders us powerless.
PEACE NOT WAR
When the Nobel Peace Prize is announced on Friday, it could go to a climate-change campaigner for the first time (although the 2004 award did go to an environmentalist, the Green Belt Movement-founder Wangari Maathai). According to bookmaker Paddy Power, Al Gore - who made the Oscar-winning film about climate change, "An Inconvenient Truth" - is the frontrunner.
Boerge Brende, a former Norwegian environment minister, and
another Norwegian parliamentarian nominated Gore along with Canadian
Inuit activist Sheila Watt-Cloutier, who has highlighted the impact of
a quickening Arctic thaw on indigenous cultures. In September, Brende
told Reuters,
"There are reasonably good chances that the peace prize will be awarded
to someone working to stop the dramatic climate problems the world is
facing."
Should the award go to Gore and/or another climate campaigner,
my hope is it will spark a much-needed discussion - not so much about
climate change and war - but about the potential links between climate
change and peace. But for this to happen, there needs to be a
recognition that climate change and its associated effects won't
inevitably lead to conflict.
Some experts who've spent time studying the causes and drivers
of wars argue that climate change is just another factor that can
create tensions with the potential to spill over into violence - albeit
one that's growing in importance as the world drags its feet on action
to curb global warming. "The links from climate change to violent conflict go in
various ways, and we shouldn't think of climate change as the likely
sole cause of a conflict," argued Dan Smith, the secretary-general of
International Alert, at a recent conference organised by Scientists for
Global Responsibility in London. "Climate change will interact with
other factors like poverty, bad governance, a history of
ethno-nationalist politics, and a history of relatively recent
warfare."
Earlier this year, International Alert came up with a list of 61 countries
where existing pressures could be exacerbated by the social and
political knock-on effects of climate change, making violent conflict
more likely. In turn, the peacebuilding organisation argues, these
states will find it even harder to adapt to climate change.
It's not surprising that the list features many impoverished, war-torn states in Africa - which the United Nations says is one of the world's most vulnerable regions when it comes to climate change.
But pointing out that a group of countries, a continent, or even
the world faces the threat of climate-related war isn't the same as
saying it's going to happen.
OPPORTUNITY TO UNITE?
Smith illustrates this with a scenario already being played out in parts of east and west Africa.
For decades, a group of nomadic cattle herders and a group of
settled farmers live peacefully side by side. But then the rains fail,
the growing season gets shorter, soils deteriorate and it's harder to
produce enough food and find decent grazing land.
The relationship between the two groups turns increasingly
hostile and tensions rise. They start to define themselves more
distinctly, focusing on their differences.
What happens at this point is crucial. Ideally, a mediator -
probably some form of local government - would step in to cool the
situation down. Potential ways to adapt to the climate-related problems
might include planting a different type of crop, introducing a new
breed of animal, changing the way land is used...
But where there's no institution strong enough to broker a
resolution, or where powerful people try to exploit the situation for
their own ends, a peaceful outcome becomes unlikely. Those affected
face the stark choice of fighting, running away, or both.
One of the most commonly cited real-life examples of such a
situation is Darfur. Many - including the U.N. secretary general - have
made the link between environmental deterioration and conflict in
Sudan's western region. Andrew Morton, Sudan coordinator in the post-conflict unit of
the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP), has said it's not appropriate to
call Darfur "the first climate change war", as some media have labelled
it. That's because the conflict has other underlying causes and
aggravating factors - not least strong political grievances on the part
of the rebels.
But neither is sustainable peace likely unless climatic and environmental stresses are addressed. As UNEP stated in a June assessment for Sudan:
"Because environmental degradation and resource scarcity are among the
root causes of the current conflict in Darfur, practical measures to
alleviate such problems should be considered vital tools for conflict
prevention and peacebuilding." International Alert's Smith agrees that, if there's a focus on
concrete actions communities can take to resolve problems, climate
change could turn out be a threat against which divided social groups
actually unite.
"We can use the process of adaptation to build a more peaceful
world, but that depends on the decisions taken in the next five to 10
years," he says.
None of this is to suggest that we should deny the risks
climate change poses to peace and security. They, of course, need to be
recognised and understood. It's more that we need to make sure we also
acknowledge the opportunities. If the Nobel prize does go to a climate campaigner this year,
it'll be a timely reminder that we - individuals, communities and
governments - do still have the power to turn climate change into a
positive force for justice, cooperation and peace, both in the world
and in our own neighbourhoods.
Powered by ScribeFire.
