Climate Change and Global Security - Research Paper Example

Climate Change and Global Security Introduction Climate change is one of the most significant global issues we are currently encountering. It is a problem which is considered to be a culmination of years of environmental degradation and destruction. This problem is also impacting significantly on other aspects of our society, including our economic and political stability. This paper shall discuss the current climate change issue and its relationship to global security. This discussion shall consider the impact of the issues on global warming and decreased natural resources on the economic and political stability of nations. This paper is being carried out in the hope of establishing a clear and comprehensive understanding of the issue and its related points of discussion. Body The relationship between climate change and food security has mostly been discussed in relation to the effect of crop productivity and food production. Gregory, et.al. (1999) discussed that lower crop production and lower yield of wheat has been caused by global warming; and reduced harvests of rice have also been caused by increase of temperatures of about 5% degrees Celsius above 32 degrees (Gregory, et.al., 2005). The impact of temperature increase was considered negative as they significantly diminished any increase in the amount of harvests, particularly due to higher carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. A review by Fuhrer (2003) have revealed that evaluations of consequences of climate change on the growth of crops have established that the anticipated benefits of these crops were reduced due to climate change. With the lower food sources, the probability of conflict among the people seems to have become more apparent. Much research has now been carried out and these studies have exhibited that climate change has a dramatic effect on the ecology and on the social processes (IPCC, 2001). The risks have been recognized by the United Nations, and its Framework Convention on Climate Change has been established in order to avoid dangers on the climate system; moreover, these dangers have been defined as threats to global security (Barnett, 2003). Much speculation has also been seen how climate change may impact on the risk for violence (Brauch, 2002). First, conflicts may be seen with the changes in the political economy of energy resources due to “mitigative action to reduce emissions from fossil fuels” (Barnett and Adger, 2007, p. 640). Secondly, conflicts may also arise due to changes in the social processes driven by perceived impact of climate change. Global warming and human security Most individuals and interest groups agree that the changes in the climate have no basis or precedent in the history of humankind (IPCC, 2007). Various environmental changes including the erosion of coasts, the decrease in precipitation and soil moisture, as well as the increase in storm intensities all pose a risk to human security. All over the world, the effect of global warming on the social and ecologic systems are being experienced, and they are felt as changes in temperature, sea-level, and precipitation. Increased frequency in floods, droughts, storms, cyclones, fires, heat waves, and epidemics are also manifesting with increasing frequency (Deudney, 1999). Other unquantifiable changes have also been occurring, mostly with the melting of the ice glaciers and permafrost. Such changes are in turn set to increase the sea levels, and cause significant regional climate changes, shifts in Asian monsoon and the El Nino Southern Oscillation Phenomenon (Oppenheimer and Alley, 2004). There is a significant reason to be concerned about the effect of these changes on our systems because the rate of change has been very significant, and that climate changes seen in the past have already caused social disruptions. The paper of Davis (2001) documents the strong link between the El Nino phenomenon in the 19th century and the famines which killed thousands of people in the tropical region. This famine was said to be caused by a drought, but it was an issue also exacerbated by the way political and economic authorities denied the people of their access to natural resources (Davis, 2001). The assessment of famines now consider poverty and market failures, as well as policy failures to be the actual causes of what were then considered as natural disasters (Sen, 1981). In a study by Diamond (2005), the arguments of Davis on the link between climate change and socio-ecologic systems have been confirmed. Diamond (2005) evaluated the different incidents of disastrous social changes and points out that these incidents have a common element in terms of environmental impact. The risk placed on people in terms of the impact of climate change is based on the effect to which people have grown to be dependent on natural resources and the ecological systems, as well as the extent to which the natural resources have become more sensitive to climate change (Barnett and Adger, 2007). The people’s ability to adapt to these changes also determines their survival during these disasters. In effect, as people are more dependent on climate-sensitive natural resources, the more that they are vulnerable to the impact of climate change (Collins, 2007). In addition to climate change, other social factors also serve to undermine human security. These social factors include poverty, support which the people receive from the government, access to economic opportunities, efficacy of decision-making opportunities, and the degree of social consistency within vulnerable groups (Barnett and Adger, 2007). These elements help decide the entitlements of communities to the social capital which impact on their ability to adjust to climate change. The impact of climate change is different in various parts of the world because the allocations of resources and services may also vary based on region, and the social elements which impact on capacity to adapt are also different across these regions (Deudney, 1999). For instance, the agricultural industry for industrialized countries only account for about 12% of their workforce; but in many Asian nations, majority of their population depend on the agricultural sector for their work and income (UNDP, 2002). No definite state-guided income support is provided for these people, although in some church groups, there may be some processes which ensure the sharing of labour and food. A limited public school system is in place, and a modest health system caters to the needs of a large population. As a result, some Asian populations, especially those in the rural areas have limited alternatives in terms of food. Maize is their most crucial food source, however, it is not an irrigated crop, and during times of low rainfall, their production is usually reduced up to a third of the usual yield (Barnett, Dessai, and Jones, 2007). These conditions often lead to hunger and malnutrition especially among the children. In most instances where a risk for drought and famine exists, climate is often the environmental cause; and the social issues which already exist are the deeper triggers. In effect, the dangers which climate change brings to the different social systems revolve around the qualities of these systems and the shifts in ecological balance (Barnett, et.al., 2007). The main consideration of human security is the individual, including the systems which support or reduce his security and the outside system where he resides (Collins, 2007). In relation to ecological change, including the distant atmospheric polluters, mining companies, regional-scale climatic processes, and various groups with significant scale processes, they all impact on the security of individuals and their prerogatives to natural resources (Barnett and Adger, 2007). In considering the social determinants which make societies vulnerable, warfare, corruption, and trade dependence all impact on the social and economic systems – systems which are needed to decrease the susceptibility of people to climate and other environmental issues. The factors impacting on human security are very complex and wars and conflicts often impact on the current insecurities, while climate changes and the liberalization of trade elements often impact on future issues. The large-scale enterprises which impact on individual’s access to natural and economic resources are also susceptible to the dangers of environmental change. The production segments are often at risk, with the suppliers of inputs, those in transport, and those which process goods also vulnerable to the impact of climate change (Barnett and Adger, 2007). The impact on these segments may also overflow to other sectors and impact on their processes as well. The effects may involve rural to urban migration, causing increased demands on the urban and political resources of the state. The degree to which extensive impacts occur will be established partly by the extent of dependence of the national economy on climate-sensitive resources; it will also depend on the ability of social institutions to manage change (Barnett, 2003). These indirect impacts which are often blended with territorial losses caused by increase of sea levels may be considered an issue of national security. As a result, the danger to national security may be both the cause and the effect of human insecurity (Barnett and Adger, 2007). Human security is the culmination of various processes working across space and at multiple levels. Research on the relationship of human security and climate change have been concentrated on the overall dynamics which control the individual’s access to environmental and social resources (Adger, 1999). In terms of environmental security, various case studies have been carried out in Northern Pakistan, South Asia, and the Pacific Islands, as well as Ethiopia. These studies indicate that the people who are often overlooked or marginalized are defenceless against the impact of climate change. This helps support the argument that climate change poses a danger on human security which can later cause conflicts. This is an important consideration because violent conflicts, on their own already make people vulnerable to human insecurity (Barnett, 2006). Violent conflicts caused by human insecurity A common element in various domestic wars is that armed forces are often made up of young and idealistic men whose desire for an improved life has not come into full fruition (Ohlsson, 2000). As such, joining armed factions seems to be a more rational option or plan for them, a means to achieve an improved status in their community, especially as political leaders usually attribute their poverty to the activities of other groups and other reasons (Goodhand, 2003). Analysts associate the issue of declining sources of work with a more stable political scenario, arguing that these young men do not usually seek instantaneous rewards in illegal activities, as long as the community they belong to can actually provide them with lucrative livelihoods and favourable social statuses. As such, these young men usually have a higher probability of engaging in violent activities because the cost for joining these groups is relatively low (Goodhand, 2003). For women, the cost is higher because their domestic duties usually weigh heavily on their lives. As such, women are usually the first to feel the difficulties of wars and armed conflicts. But this scenario actually makes them the better choices in peace-building activities (Mochizuki, 2004). Various analysts point out that the problem is not wholly about chronic poverty, but, it is more about the risk of sudden poverty which drives people to joining armed groups. Uncertainty about the future drives people to conflict. In effect, providing aid and the certainty of aid can somehow decrease the people’s need, and reduce their propensity for using violence as tools for securing their needs (Gough, 2002). In most developed nations, the state-supported welfare systems secure the people’s needs. This makes them less vulnerable to armed conflicts as compared to their counterparts in developing states. In developing nations, issues on livelihood are mostly due to reduced access to natural resources caused by deforestation and natural disasters like droughts and floods. Reduced access to lands are the key elements which cause the livelihood of people to contract and which then leads to an increased risk for people joining armed groups (de Soysa, Gleditsch, and Sollemberg, 1999). Other non-environmental elements include the decrease in state services and reduced terms of trade, and all these elements impact on people’s access to natural resources. In an analysis by Bobrow-Strain (2001), land invasions in a region of Chiapas manifested a reduction in agricultural yield caused by economic and political elements. Population explosion may also be a factor in reduced sources of income; however it is not the most significant factor. But wars cause significant contractions in livelihoods, and violence often increases in intensity due to the grievance of the people regarding their poverty and depressing conditions (Bax, 2002). These elements are not considered separately from each other. There are definite groups to indicate that climate changes will cause the contraction of livelihoods for a good number of people. Loss of land and reduced return of lands would also likely cause the contraction of livelihoods. There is no compromise on whether differences in income lead to internal armed conflicts. But other analysts argue that there is no link between income disparities and wars (Collier, 2000). However, other analysts are quick to point out that there is class-based and age-based disparities are possible issues or sources of grievance which can lead to conflicts and a show of arms among the vulnerable poor population (Archibald and Richards, 2002). It is relative poverty which therefore impacts on the manifestation of armed conflicts. Since contractions in sources of income of some members of society often indicate increased inequality, then this can also lead to conditions which are more favourable to the outbreak of armed conflicts. Moreover, the lack of opportunities for individuals to improve their lives can sometimes lead to armed conflicts. The focus of the government must therefore be on providing these people such opportunities. The lack of access to education is one of the opportunities which seem to be crucial in empowering the people and increasing their qualifications for employment and social mobility. In many developing nations, there are limited educational opportunities due to limited government resources. As a result, poverty levels in these countries have served to dominate the direction of these people’s lives, sending them to militias and street gangs (Maclure and Sotelo, 2004). Based on these considerations, wars can be viewed as products of logical decisions which cause the violent upheavals of economic and political processes as well as social systems. There are also limits in perceiving individuals to be logical economic players (Cramer, 2002). The more dominant perception among the impoverished would be to join gangs to fulfil their psychological and social needs; these gangs also serve to give them status and power (Goodhand, 2003). In some regards, it can give them excitement and a sense of belonging (Hage, 2003). For some individuals, they see armed conflicts as a means of expressing their grievance and their frustrations, as well as their goals of revenge (Weinstein, 2004). Once membership in armed and violent groups is established, the violent activities may soon become part of the need to comply with the orders of their leaders (Milgram, 2004). In some instances, the conflicts may not even be triggered by the need to air grievances, but it may be triggered by the members’ need to be included in the group; moreover, many of these members are often trained and taught to wield guns and to seek violent options in all their activities. The impact of violence is also important, including the perceived danger and threat (Goodhand, 2003). Individuals may perceive that other countries are threatening their way of life, and therefore they need to arm themselves against these countries. As such, a cycle of violence is seen in this scenario. Based on the points discussed above, human insecurity seems to increase the risk for violent and conflict. There is no single reason which would sufficiently explain why individuals who are economically vulnerable would join armed groups and participate in armed conflicts (Barnett and Adger, 2007). This is not actually particularly astounding because violence is usually caused by a variety of elements and factors. However, as the link between human insecurity and armed conflicts is significantly strong, there is a greater believability in tracing the roots of these conflicts within the quarters of the environment. Moreover, the above data indicates that based on credible circumstances, climate change may increase the risk of violent conflicts. The security of the people in terms of their income is a crucial factor in preventing violence and in preventing rebels from launching armed attacks (Gough, 2002). The main issue always within the perimeter of this climate change-global security issue is the fact that it is caused by an economic conflict between the rich and the poor, particularly, the rich and the poor countries (Gleick, 1991). It is also important to note that there is a significant difference in the consumption of resources between these two groups of countries; and yet it is sad to note that the industrial rise and progress has been richly felt by the developed countries, but the ecological impact of such industrialization activities have mostly been felt by the developing and poorer nations (Gleick, 1991). These developing nations are also more vulnerable to the environmental impact of ecological issues; and their susceptibility is exacerbated by the fact that they do not have the economic resources to adapt to the economic implications of these environmental issues (Gleick, 1991). The use of energy showcases the disparity between the rich and poor nations. Industrialized countries use energy rates at about ten times more than the developing nations. Moreover, their significant use of fossil fuels is mostly responsible for the current global climate issues, mostly because of the greenhouse effect (Gleick, 1991). With an increased use of energy in the same degree to which industrialized nations use it, the impact would be environmentally disastrous. Such devastation would also likely lead to despair, frustrations and misery for millions of people; and these are fertile grounds for political unrest (Clark, 2007). Resources like power plants and other energy facilities have usually been considered viable targets for armed attacks because their potential for causing the most significant amount of unrest in the population. These nuclear plants have a significant potential for causing the most damage when attacked as they are linked to nuclear weapons and can lead to nuclear leaks. These links can cause terror and devastation to the people – a situation which can give armed groups the best leverage for a redress of their grievances. The Israelis bombed the Osirak nuclear plant in Baghdad in order to sanction Iraq and its nuclear arms proliferation activities (Gleick, 1991). Israel also attacked Syria’s oil depots and power stations during the Six Day War in 1967. The US has also considered attacks on oil production and energy facilities in the Middle East and in the Soviet Union as a means of gaining power over these countries. Other tools have also been used in order to gain military objectives; and these tools have included trade embargoes and trade blocs. In some cases, deliberate manipulation of resources and the environment have been carried out by armed groups and hostile combatants. The deliberate oil spill in the Gulf area has been considered as a method of warfare (Gleick, 1991). Water resources have also been manipulated as a tool of warfare. Water sources are usually renewable; however they are usually vulnerable to national or regional control mechanisms. It is a much more basic resource which can cause groups and countries to actually go into armed conflict. Ethiopia’s plans to build dams in the Blue Nile have caused the President of Egypt to express thoughts of war against Ethiopia if the latter’s plans were ever to push through. Egypt has even acknowledged the fact that a war in their territory would likely be caused by conflicts over the waters of the Nile (Gleick, 1991). Turkey’s control of the Euphrates has also been used as a political tool against the Kurd rebels in eastern Turkey, pressuring Syria against extending any support to the rebels. The benefits of clean air and water are also tools which have been used by political systems as a means of causing disruptions in human security. Most of these disruptions would not affect international peace, however, these alterations in ecological elements would likely cause economic conflict and decline of affected parties and elements. The fact that some countries would overexploit resources and may cause deforestation of forests also contributes to the risk of human armed conflicts (Moran, 2011). Most people would not likely allow their resources to be compromised by other people, both in the international and the local scenes. As such, they would likely launch armed attacks on the individuals they believe to be responsible for their limitations in resources. Moreover, these affected individuals would likely not allow their resources to be depleted by opportunistic elements and states (Giddens, 2009). Conflicts caused by climate change, as exemplified above are offshoots of limitations in resources. With limited resources, conflicts would likely increase in incidence, and most of these conflicts would likely be territorial in nature. These territories would mostly be water or oil-rich territories and portions above water will be significantly contested. Some of these conflicts may come in the form of full military conflicts (Ullman, 1983). These would also include armed conflicts between neighbouring territories like Chile and Argentina, Iraq and Iran, Greece and Turkey, Morocco and Algeria, China and Vietnam, and other territories. Most of these conflicts would be in the developing countries. These conflicts may not involve the US or the UK and other developed countries; however, the overall economic and political impact of these conflicts would be felt in these areas. Moreover, these conflicts would also cause political turmoil in these regions, further driving up their economic and political issues. More economic and political issues would further exacerbate the occurrence of armed conflict, thereby creating a cycle of violence and environmental issues. Conclusion It is of no particular surprise that many armed conflicts are seen in developing nations, not so much developed regions. The position in which developed nations are in exemplify comfortable positions relatively unaffected by limited resources; however developing countries are in the very midst of such limited resources. The most common reprieve for their sufferings which they immediately see is on taking up arms against responsible authorities. There is also a cycle which would likely be seen with the manifestation of climate change. The more climate change is experienced and the more it manifests negative impacts on the overall resources, the more conflicts for limited resources would be seen. These conflicts would also be felt most in the areas which rely on natural resources as sources of income, food, and livelihood. Droughts, floods, and strong storms which devastate crops and agricultural produce would impact negatively on the ability of these people to support their families. As a means to seek redress for their grievances, many of them would likely take on arms against the government or against authorities which they believe to be the culprit for their sufferings. These measures are often drastic, but for a people who have no other recourse, armed conflicts are perceived as their means of fighting back and of empowering their impoverished and deprived lives. Works Cited Adger,W. N., & Kelly, M. 1999, Social vulnerability to climate change and the architecture of entitlements, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, vol. 4, pp. 253-266. Archibald, S., & Richards, P. 2002, Converts to human rights? Popular debate about war and justice in rural Sierra Leone, Africa, vol. 72: pp. 339-367. Barnett, J. 2003, Security and climate change, Global Environmental Change, vol. 13: pp. 7-17. Barnett, J. 2006, Climate change, insecurity and justice, In W. N. Adger, J. Paavola, M. J. Mace, & S. Huq (Eds.), Fairness in adaptation to climate change, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Barnett, J., & Adger, W. N. 2003, Climate dangers and atoll countries, Climatic Change, vol. 61, pp. 321-337. Barnett, J. & Adger, N. 2007, Climate change, human security and violent conflict, Political Geography, vol. 26: pp. 639-655. Barnett, J., Dessai, S., & Jones, R. 2007, Vulnerability to climate variability and change in East Timor, Ambio, vol. 36, no. 5: pp. 372-8. Bax, M. 2002, Violence formations and ‘ethnic cleansing’ at a Bosnian pilgrimage site. In D. Kooiman, A. Koster, P. Smets, & B. Venema (Eds.), Conflict in a globalising world. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum. Clark, A. 2007, Climate change threatens security, UK tells UN, The Guardian, viewed 20 November 2011 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/apr/18/greenpolitics.climatechange/print Collins, D (ed) 2007, Contemporary Security Studies, Oxford, Oxford University Press Ullman, R., 1983, Redefining Security, International Security, vol. 8, no. 1: pp. 129-153 Cramer, C. 2002, Homo Economicus goes to war: methodological individualism, rational choice and the political economy of war, World Development, vol. 30: pp. 1845-1864. Davis, M. 2001, Late Victorian holocausts: El Nino, famines, and the making of the third world, New York: Verso. Deudney, D. 1991, Environment and Security: muddled thinking, The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, pp. 22-28 Diamond, J. 2005, Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed, New York: Viking. Giddens, A. 2009, The politics of Climate Change, Cambridge, Polity Gleick, P. 1991, Environment and Security: The clear connections, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, pp. 18-21 Goodhand, J. 2003, Enduring disorder and persistent poverty: a review of linkages between war and chronic poverty, World Development, vol. 31: pp. 629-646. Gough, M. 2002, Human security: the individual in the security question e the case of Bosnia, Contemporary Security Policy, vol. 23, 145-191 Gregory, P. 1999, Managed production systems, in The terrestrial biosphere and global change: implications for natural and managed systems Walker B, Steffen W, Canadell J, Ingram J.S.I 1999, pp. 229–270. Eds. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Gregory, P. 2005, Climate change and food security, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, vol. 360, no. 1463: pp. 2139-2148 Hage, G. 2003, “Comes a time we are all enthusiasm”: understanding Palestinian suicide bombers in times of exighophobia, Public Culture, vol. 15: pp. 65-89. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2001, Climate Change 2001: Synthesis report, A Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maclure, R., & Sotelo, M. 2004, Youth gangs in Nicaragua: gang membership as structured individualization, Journal of Youth Studies, vol. 7: pp. 417-432. Mochizuki, K. 2004, Conflict and people’s insecurity: an insight from the experiences of Nigeria, in H. Shinoda, & H. Jeong (Eds.), Conflict and human security: A search for new approaches of peace-building (pp. 207-228), Hiroshima: Institute for Peace Science: Hiroshima University. Milgram, S. 2004, Behavioral study of obedience, n N. Scheper-Hughes, & P. Bourgois (Eds.), Violence in war and peace: An anthology (pp. 145-150), Oxford: Blackwell. Moran, D. (ed) 2011, Climate change and National Security: A country-level analysis. Washington DC, Georgetown University press Ohlsson, L. 2000, Livelihood conflicts: Linking poverty and environment as causes of conflict, Stockholm: Environmental Policy Unit, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency. Oppenheimer, M., & Alley, R. 2004, The West Antarctic ice sheet and long term climate policy, Climatic Change, vol. 64: pp. 1-10. Sen, A. 1981, Poverty and famines: An essay on entitlement and deprivation, Oxford: Clarendon Press. de Soysa, I., Gleditsch, N., Gibson, M., & Sollenberg, M. 1999, To cultivate peace: agriculture in a world of conflict, Environmental Change and Security Project Report, vol. 5, pp. 15-25. UNDP (United Nations Development Program) 2002, Ukun rasik a’an: East Timor human development report 2002, Dili: UNDP. Weinstein, J. 2004, Resources and the information problem in rebel recruitment, Paper presented at the conference on Curbing human rights violations by non-state armed groups, Centre of International Relations, Liu Institute for Global Issues, University of British Columbia Read More