A Little Humor

It always helps to be able to laugh about things like rising sea levels flooding New York:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Formidable Opponent - Global Warming With Al Gore
http://www.colbertnation.com/
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor U.S. Speedskating

When did Al Gore get funny?

NYT: Climate Change is a Threat to US Security

Saturday's front page NYT story on climate security marks the first time this issue has been linked in the media so prominently. Joe Romm from Climate Progress says,

"BUT as serious as this argument is, it’s equally important not to leave people with the impression that one is arguing global warming is mainly going to impact other countries, and not us. The United States will be directly devastated by climate change if we don’t rapidly reverse emissions trends"

Matt Yglesias from the Center for American Progress misses the point when he argues that "I don’t think it makes a ton of sense to look at every possible instance of drought, famine, mass migration, civil conflict, and human tragedy abroad as a “threat” to the United States per se."

The reason why military planners in many countries look at climate change as a security measure is because the international security environment is interconnected. US efforts to fight terrorism in Pakistan and Afghanistan involve economic development rather than just predator drone attacks. Ensuring security from climate change underscores the need to cut emissions and the need for greater adaptation funding. As countries move closer to Copenhagen this December, adaptation financing will be pivotal to ensure nations do not face existential threats to their stability. As evidenced by the NYT, climate change must be looked at not just environmentally but from a security standpoint.

Institutional Adaptation

Adaptation measures for climate change should focus not only on infrastructure and renewable energy but also on developing institutions capable of dealing with climate induced stresses such as mass migration. Pacific island nations are among the most vulnerable to rising sea levels and some nations have considered relocating. Oxfam Australia's new report on climate induced migration in the Pacific predicts:

By the year 2050, about 75 million people could be forced to leave their homes in the Asia-Pacific region due to climate change. Pacific island governments are already tackling climate change-related relocation and resettlement. Given the significant implications of these population movements for our region, it is vital that Australia and New Zealand governments hold discussions with Pacific island governments about this issue now. Planning for climate displacement will require looking at the most effective ways to support Pacific islanders who are forced to move from their homes, including through appropriate immigration policies.

In the event of sudden climate change, such as floods and storms, a mass influx of refugees could destabilize neighboring countries. Conflict over climate stresses can occur if neighboring communities don't understand the causes of migration and if existing institutions aren't prepared for climate induced migration. Oxfam's report has good recommendations for policy makers to begin laying the groundwork for dramatic changes in future migrations due to climate change.

Governments must also work with local community leaders to educate citizens about climate refugees in areas where mass migrations are likely to occur. Conflict may not originate from states in these situations but from native citizens responding to an influx of migrants especially if neighboring states are already divided by ethnic or religious divides. International human rights law, while insufficient by itself to prevent conflict, must begin to recognize climate induced migrants as a separate category of people where their claims to migrate can be judged by international law. Otherwise, without any sort of legal recognition, people fleeing from environmental catastrophe have very limited legal claims under international law.

Russia's Adaptation to Climate Change

Russia's adapting to climate change by taking advantage of the warming of the Arctic. In the past few months, a few reports came out discussing a possible cold war over resources in the arctic which this blog discussed. One of the key factors is the relationship of the Arctic to Russia's national identity. The Times back in March quoted the Russian Envoy to NATO when referring to Russia's presence in the Arctic said,

“This topic will not be included in the agenda of co-operation between Russia and Nato ... there is nothing for them to do there," (hyperlink mine).

So Russia views its Arctic claims as non-NATO related even though it's trying to claim vast amounts of territory that Norway contests. The article then quotes Artur Chilingarov, the Russian government's representative to the Arctic who stated,

"Look at the map. Who is there near by? All our northern regions are in or come out into the Arctic. All that is in our northern, Arctic regions. It is our Russia."

'It's our Russia.' Chilingarov's claim is not based on economic considerations but on a perception of Russian identity. An excellent report released this month from The Arctic Climate Change and Security Policy Conference last December indicates:

Russia’s activities could be disruptive to the region if its recent focus on politics and territorial claims retains priority over increased attention to science and international cooperation. The driving factors may be Russian prestige, identity, and image, which converge on borders and territorial claims. For Russia, sovereignty in the Arctic is a “hard” security issue. Russian military interests center on the Kola Peninsula, home to the Russian nuclear submarine fleet, and on rebuilding the Northern fleet." (italics mine)

A melting arctic would allow easier access to resources but it would also provide an opportunity for Russia to regain its status as a great power. To that end, Russia's already manipulated its control over Europe's energy supplies and seeks to do so for the future.

Ironically, Russia's way of adapting to climate change is not to modernize its economy toward renewables and efficiency but to increase its dominance in fossil fuel exports by expanding its supplies in the Arctic. This 'adaptation' explains Russia's reluctance to seriously cut emissions and explains why it benefiting from climate change could come at a cost to the international community. The World Wildlife Fund's report on the climate change policies of the G8 countries has this to say about Russia:

No comprehensive national plan; ratified Kyoto Protocol very late and only under pressure; not very active in the preparatory negotiations, and often an obstacle at the last minute

On the other hand, rising temperatures would wreck much of Russia's infrastructure built on melting permafrost. Securing the Arctic won't adapt to that consequence.

Gordon Brown's Adaptation Fund Proposal

Last week, Gordon Brown, in a speech, said that the UK, and other developed countries should contribute to a 60 billion pounds annually to help poor nations mitigate and adapt to climate change. Key highlights:

"Today there can be no support for agriculture or water management in developing countries, for example, which is not also adaptation expenditure. Giving the rural poor access to renewable energy is both climate mitigation and poverty reduction...

So all official development assistance will now have to be climate-proofed to ensure that it properly takes into account the impacts of climate change...

So today I propose we take a working figure for this purpose of around $100 billion per annum by 2020."

Brown framed this fund as part of global efforts to combat poverty and reach millennium development goals. Not surprisingly, Rwanda, a nation with a history of ethnic conflict, quickly endorsed the speech.

While mitigating carbon emissions is critical, making sure vulnerable and developing countries - often the same - can adapt to the climate scenarios that will already happen and could get worse is just as important. Brown's speech represents a major proposal by a developed nation towards adaptation measures in the developing world, that will pre-empt climate change's destabilizing effects. The draft proposal by the Major Economies Forum suggested an initial $400 million fast start towards an adaptation fund.

Words vs. Deeds on Climate and Security

This is just a brief update on the Australian fires (see below).

In the The Canberra Times, Nicholas Stuart writes that "Words give false comfort" on climate change. Just over a year ago, Kevin Rudd was elected as Prime Minister, with a strong platform and mandate to deal with climate change. He quickly signed the Kyoto Protocol in Bali, but then has done little more than photo-ops and commissions regarding climate change since, according to Mr. Stuart.

While this is probably true, the larger lesson is that politicians can no longer say "Climate Change is a security threat" but then only focus on international negotiations. There are very few elections that have ever been decided based on what goes on at a UN forum, no matter how important it is. Instead, politicians are going to have to start to address climate change at the local level. This doesn't mean turning off your tv or turning down your music, like the EU thinks. Instead, it means acting to deal with, and adapt to the effects, whether its fires in Australia, storms on the US Gulf Coast, or changing food production patterns. Politicans and governments will be challenged based on how they predict -- and react -- to climate events.