Link for UN's Webcast

The UN webcast of the assembly's consideration of the resolution regarding climate change's security implications can be found here. It started at 10:15 AM, eastern time.

The General Assembly's consideration of this resolution is important because it recognizes that

Because it was brought by the Pacific Small Islands Development States, specifically the island of Nauru, this debate will focus on questions of soveriegnty and refugees from states that could lose their territory to rising seas. The resolution that will be passed is a compromise that will request a report from the UN Secretary General, not request that the issue be reported to the UN Security Council.

UPDATE: The Representative of Nauru, in introducing the resolution said that her nation is "In danger of ceasing to be a state." Because of climate change, she said, "The survival of whole populations and their lands" is at risk. Although its not contained in the resolution, she said that the Security Council has the responsibility to consider the security effects of climate change.

UN General Assembly to Consider Resolution on Climate Change and Security

Tomorrow (June 3), the UN General Assembly will take up a resolution on the security implications of climate change, titled "Climate change and its possible security implications". This resolution notes the UN Security Council debate in 2007, led by Great Britain, about the security implications of a warming climate. It goes on to say that the Assembly is "deeply concerned" that climate change, particularly sea level rise, could have security implictions. The resolution -- as most things debated in the UN -- offers non-binding responses, but it does request a report from the Secretary-General about the security implications of climate change.

About the resolution, an article in last week's New York Times says:

The hard-fought resolution, brought by 12 Pacific island states, says that climate change warrants greater attention from the United Nations as a possible source of upheaval worldwide and calls for more intense efforts to combat it.

The resolution was originally brought by small island states, in order to ask the UN Security Council to address the issues of soveriegnty and migration if their land is lost to rising seas. The issue of bringing it to the Security Council was too controversial for some members, and drew opposition. Now that it only asks for a report, it is likely to be accepted by the full Assembly tomorrow.

Even though its a non-binding resolution, actions like this are extremely important in the debate about climate change. Sometimes, government leaders get stuck in thinking about cliamte change in purely cost-benefit terms. Instead, we should look at the potential long-term security effects of a warming climate, then determine the best course of action.

Report on Climate Change's 300,000 Death Toll is not Grounded in Scientific Analysis

Last Friday, the Global Humanitarian Forum, a think tank led by Kofi Annan, released a report alleging that climate change is responsible for 300,000 deaths and $125 billion in economic losses a year. This generated many headlines in major newspapers because someone had finally quantified the “precise” death toll resulting from climate change.

Political scientist Roger Pielke Jr was quoted in the New York Times as calling the report a “methodological embarrassment”. On his blog, Pielke details the many reasons why the “300,000” death toll figure is completely unscientific.

In reading the report, it clearly assumes that climate change is solely responsible for the increase in weather related natural disasters since 1980 and then concludes that the increase in death tolls due to weather related disasters since 1980 to the present must also be the sole result of climate change.

Aside from the New York Times’ DotEarth blog, other newspaper articles on this read like a press release. This is unfortunate, and another example of how the media does not yet have a strong understanding of the problems of climate change: too often they only report what is said, without determining if it is credible or not. They do this with both sides of the debate.

It is true that a changing climate will (and may already have) harmed the quality of life of millions of people in many developing nations – this presents an risk to international stability. However, the way to change public opinion is to make honest and sound arguments; not publishing hyperbolic and ungrounded claims. Reports like this only serve to help deniers of climate change, such as the Telegraph’s James Delingpole, who uses this report to undermine the scientific credibility of other science. He calls climate change a “good scare story”.

Credibility is important, especially when dealing with something as complex as climate change. Oversimplifying the truth just undermines it.