Just read "Climate Conflict" by Jeffrey Mazo

The book Climate conflict - How global warming threatens security and what to do about it by Jeffrey Mazo of The International Institute For Strategic Studies is a concise discussion of historical, current and future geopolitics as influenced by climate change. It is kind of an academic version of the more popularizing Climate Wars by Gwynne Dyer (reviewed here at Ecowar December 2010). And highly recommended to anyone interested in geopolitics, security issues or climate change.


The bad part is it has an introductory chapter on climate change and one about Darfur - both topics that I for one is getting tired of paying for. The good par is that even these chapters are really good. Short, to the point and comprehensive enough to contain details I hadn't heard of before.


In Mazo's own words, the book is "intended to illustrate the social and security consequences of climate change that will manifest over the next two to three decades regardless of the policies adopted in the next few years to mitigate more severe impacts over the long term. [...] it assumes a best-case scenario in terms of international policy responses to climate change [...]". Assuming a best-case scenario for politics? Did you ever read anything that naive? But as he says: It doesn't matter for the near future anyway.

The historical chapter is almost like a summary of Jared Diamond's Collapse. The final two chapters are a bit unclear in disposition but solid in content. The short-short-short version of the conclusion is:

"It is clear that unmitigated climate change will be nothing less than disastrous for the global community."

But scholarly as it is it qualifies its findings:

"Just as no specific weather event can be definitively attributed to climate change because of normal variation within a complex system, specific social or political developments cannot be definitively attributed to climate or other environmental factors."

It doesn't really deal a lot with bad policy scenarios, local conflicts, resource conflicts related to energy choices and many other issues. But the core issues it sets out to explore it dutifully maps with a bullshit factor of zero. Buy it and read it.

John Kerry: Climate change to cause conflict; how come deniers can stay in politics?

In a late evening soon to end brief spell of energetic RSS-feed checking ending a day of trying to sleep away a flu attack I find We Can't Ignore the Security Threat from Climate Change by John Kerry, US Senator, is a kind of follow-up and sum-up to the articles I posted Sunday, August 02, 2009: US Senators, military join chorus: Climate change is a security threat that leaves little to be misunderstood.

Make no mistake: catastrophic climate change represents a threat to human security, global stability, and -- yes -- even to American national security.

Climate change injects a major new source of chaos, tension, and human insecurity into an already volatile world. It threatens to bring more famine and drought, worse pandemics, more natural disasters, more resource scarcity, and human displacement on a staggering scale. We risk fanning the flames of failed-statism, and offering glaring opportunities to the worst actors in our international system. In an interconnected world, that endangers all of us.

[...]

We don't know with certainty whether climate change pushed Darfur over the edge, but we do know that it will cause more tension just like we've seen in Darfur.

Once you accept the science, it's clear that such massive environmental change will create dislocation, destruction, chaos, and conflict.

[...]

Nowhere is the connection between climate and security more direct than in South Asia -- home to al Qaeda. Scientists now warn that the Himalayan glaciers which supply fresh water to a billion people in the region could disappear completely by 2035. Think about what this means: Water from the Himalayans flows through India and Pakistan. India's rivers are not only vital to its agriculture but are also critical to its religious practice. Pakistan, for its part, is heavily dependent on irrigated farming to avoid famine.

At a moment when the U.S. government is scrambling to ratchet down tensions and preparing to invest billions of dollars to strengthen Pakistan's capacity to deliver for its people -- climate change could work so powerfully in the opposite direction.

Notice that I am adding the bold formatting to selected text. I chose what to quote here. This is not because I think those issues are the most important and pressing issues in the world. But they certainly are important and not least extremely underexposed by media. Plus it's simply the topic of this particular blog to highlight conflict-nature links. But I don't wish to put any judgement on what is more catastrophic: never ending civil war, mass extinctions, cataclysmic floodings or what ever else we'll see. Anyway, here's Kerrys best or most unique observation:

Unfortunately, not everyone in Washington appreciates the stakes. It's tragic that we live at a time when if one were to dismiss the threat of terrorism, you'd be sent home in the next election. But there are no similar political consequences if you dismiss the science or the threat of climate change.

Indeed, Kerry. We seem to have a major political dichotomy at our hands here.

Do yourself a favour and read the whole thing at Huffington Post.

Another Darfur Casualty: Trees

On top of the human toll, the conflict in Darfur is afflicting the environment [...] on Mount Marra, the highest peak in the area, there were about 100 trees for each acre of land in the 1990s, on average; by 2001 that was down to 50, and it is now about 20.

Desertification helped spark the war in Darfur in the first place. To boil it down in its simplest terms, the mostly nomadic Arab tribes began clashing with the settled African clans over shrinking grazing lands and scarce water in Darfur

Expert: Climate Change causes wars

Jürgen Scheffran, a research scientist in the Program in Arms Control, Disarmament and International Security and the Center for Advanced BioEnergy Research at Illinois, is among those raising concerns that climate-change-related damage to global ecosystems and the resulting competition for natural resources may increasingly serve as triggers for wars and other conflicts in the future.

Jürgen Scheffran identifies four climate change trends that will destabilize countries:

• degradation of freshwater resources,


• food insecurity,


• natural disasters and


• environmental migration.

Darfur is mentioned as an example this is already happening.

"Large areas of Africa are suffering from scarcity of food and fresh water resources, making them more vulnerable to conflict."

Far from the stereotypical doom-sayer as often described by right wingers and science deniers this expert is more of an optimist:

"Although climate change bears a significant conflict potential, it can also transform the international system toward more cooperation if it is seen as a common threat that requires joint action. [...] the seeming conflict between environment and the economy will be best overcome with the recognition that protecting the climate in the best interest of the economy."

Many modern conflicts are food wars

Holistic approach built on food security can stabilize postwar societies

Source: ReliefWeb Press Releases: Many modern conflicts are food wars, say experts

Darfur: Drought or Islamism?

It's not that I want to write up an excuse for religious extremism. It's not even that I claim expertise in the whole Darfur situation in particular. It's just that for quite some time I have noticed the natural resources vs. civil war link that should get this blog noticed. Yet I also noticed some political writers drumming to the 'Muslim Terrorist' beat at the mention of Darfur. For examples see The Darfur Genocide and Global Warming by Fred Thompson and Ban Ki Moon: Super Genius by Mac Johnson. What beautiful little civil war in far off Africa - perfect for both Islamophobic fearmongering and neo-conservative UN-subversion. A brief quote from the latter rant:

In Darfur, radical Muslim militias have taken to slaughtering Christian and Pagan farmers for fun and profit. Since radical Muslims elsewhere in the world are generally a peaceful lot, Ban Ki Moon has wisely seen that it must be the weather setting them off.

Then yesterday the news break that an underground water source has been found in Sudan: AP / Scientists Find Lake Remnants in Sudan. I cannot help but quote:

"Much of the unrest in Darfur and the misery is due to water shortages," said geologist Farouk El-Baz, director of the Boston University Center for Remote Sensing, [...] "There have been two long episodes of drought during the past 20 years, each lasting for about seven years," the scientist said, adding that the drought aggravated tensions between Darfur's ethnic African tribesmen and nomadic Arabs.

This month the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) released a report on the issue: 'Sudan Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment' (full report in PDF | website | summary at PeopleAndPlanet / 'Environmental decay a root cause of Sudan strife'). Also, AP recently delivered an article on the war-resource link (Experts: Darfur Faces Environment Crisis) in which it is concisely explained how droughts triggered the war and how the war worsened the environmental crisis in return.

To date, I haven't noticed any right wing nutcase blogger crack jokes at the actual problems at play, let alone any actual right wing politician addressing them. What they haven't figured out is how to profit, I suspect. But perhaps now water has been found and the experts have been so outspoken on the loose-loose situation there, the neocons will have to find other issues to spin for the next "anti-terror law" or whatever.

PS: Sorry for being a bit more cynical and political than I originally intended to be at this blog. Couldn't help it in this case. Guess that Mac Johnson guy got to me.