Climate Threat Inflation

As the legitimacy and urgency of climate change have sunk in, the scope of considered impacts has broadened. One area drawing increasing attention is national security - issues that affect the integrity of nation-states. What does it mean to take a "national security" approach to climate change?

In June 2007, the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon wrote an op-ed piece in the Washington Post in which he connected political instability in the Darfur region of Sudan with drought exacerbated by climate change. For at least the last five years, nations with Arctic borders have been contemplating a new tangle of claims over previously inaccessible domains. Dramatic decreases in sea ice over the Arctic are opening up vast areas of ocean bordered by Canada, Russia, the US and Nordic countries - all of whom see in this change a variety of opportunities (like new shipping lanes) and strategic conundrums (like who owns what). More recently, Senator Kerry has made the national security implications of climate change a central issue, and it seems the Pentagon has been listening.

Of course, Pentagon concerns draw their own concerns. Climate change skeptics, like James Carafano of the conservative Heritage Foundation, are clearly wary of lending climate change any more credibility with the imprimatur of military concern, while more liberal-minded scholars are worried about the inverse, justifying military investment with the imprimatur of climate change. Regardless of the political motivations, the Pentagon has in fact begun to explore national security implications of potential climate change impacts: flood, drought, environmental refugees and mass migration, and wars over natural resources. Potential conflict, of course, draws the most attention.

Interestingly, there is actually a large body of empirical evidence showing that nations are more likely to find peaceful solutions than go to war when faced with competition over scarce natural resources - like water. Aaron Wolf, a professor of Geography at Oregon State University and director of the Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database, has compiled an enormous database on this exact issue. In a recent report for the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, he and his colleagues pointed out:

• No nation has gone to war specifically over water for thousands of years.
• Between1945 and 1999, instances of cooperation between river-sharing nations outnumbered conflicts by more than two to one.
• In the last 50 years, only 37 disputes involved violence, and 30 of those occurred between Israel and one of its neighbors.
  
• Outside of the Middle East, researchers found only 5 violent events while 157 treaties were negotiated and signed.

Violent conflicts do occur, of course, but they mostly occur within nations, rather than between nations. Think on that. The authors conclude that water is actually a "pathway to peace" rather than conflict between nations.

Surely climatic instability has the dire potential to create social instability. How can people get along if they are worried about survival? But threats carry the potential for unity as well - especially common threats. According to an old Asian proverb, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The trick is to define the threat/enemy clearly and in a way that highlights our common interests in defeating this threat together. It has been done before and it can be done again.