I get the point Idean Salehyan is trying to make in "The New Myth About Climate Change," but -- the headline should tip you off -- the whole piece has been unnecessarily tarted up to generate controversy. It administers a stern beating to a series of strawmen.
The "myth" in question is that global warming increases the probability of conflict, or as Salehyan puts it, "international and civil wars, a rise in the number of failed states, terrorism, crime, and a stampede of migration toward developed countries." What the piece demonstrates, however, is that the claim is a myth only to the extent you grievously misunderstand it in the first place.
Salehyan has three objections:
1. First, "there is little systematic empirical evidence that resource scarcity and changing environmental conditions lead to conflict." The global number of armed conflicts is falling (a number have recently ended), and anyway, there are plenty of places with with resource problems that don't descend into conflict.
This isn't my area of expertise (then, what is?), so I'll leave the empirical connection between resources and conflict to the authorities. Perhaps Geoff Dabelko will drop by and shed some light. My understanding is that the connection is fairly well established, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.
Just three things to note on this point:
- It's possible that there are other, countervailing trends that work to reduce conflict worldwide. That's perfectly compatible with the "myth" that global warming increases the chances of conflict. If global warming increases the chances by 5%, and Trend X reduces the chances by 10%, well then you've got a net 5% reduction, but that doesn't mean global warming's not a problem.
- The primary claim about global warming and conflict, as I understand it, is that climate change will have its most deleterious effects in the future -- 30, 50 years out. Its effect at present may well be rendered moot by other, more salient factors. But again, this is perfectly compatible with the alleged "myth."
- No one's claiming that resource stresses are sufficient to lead to conflict. Of course there will be places with resource problems where there's no fighting. Again, this is perfectly compatible with the "myth."
2. "Second, arguing that climate change is a root cause of conflict lets tyrannical governments off the hook."
That's just absurd, and frankly, it echoes the most reactionary right-wing claims about domestic policy. If I say poverty will increase the crime rate, that does not let poor criminals off the hook. If I say a lack of social services makes spousal and child abuse more likely, that does not let abusers off the hook. Reasons are not excuses. The general public has trouble understanding this -- witness the prevalence of right-wing demagogues in debates over criminal justice -- but surely a scholar like Salehyan does.
3. "Third, dire predictions about the coming environmental wars imply that climate change requires military solutions ..."
Um ... WTF? Who on earth would see this implication, as opposed to, say, the reverse? The entire field of study devoted to the link between resources and conflict is devoted to the reduction of military conflict. Scholars at, e.g., the Environmental Change and Security Program spend their time looking for ways that working together to resolve resource problems can serve as a peacemaking bridge between hostile powers.
Seems to me that dire predictions about climate change imply that we need to look for ways to a) reduce climate change and b) adapt to the coming changes in ways designed to reduce possible conflict.
If Salehyan's point is merely that we shouldn't let talk about climate change distract us from the more proximate causes of conflict, then fine. We need to find a way of discussing background variables like global warming -- paying them some heed, doing something about them -- while still keeping a focus on foreground issues over which we have more direct control.
But dismissing background variables as "myths," while it might increase web traffic, doesn't shed much light.
Seven reasons for optimism about the Senate climate bill
Carbon poker
Boxer-Kerry climate bill: what to watch for
Comments
View as Threaded
cfigallo Posted 7:28 am
14 Aug 2007
Cliff Figallo
Climate Frog
climatefrog.blogspot.com
Permalink
Mark Leon Goldberg Posted 7:36 am
14 Aug 2007
Simply stating that climate change is a contributory factor in conflicts like Darfur is not making an excuse for the people and governments that exploit a competition for resources to their ruthless ends.
The author clarly tries to hard to be what I like to call, counter-counter intuitive.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 7:56 am
14 Aug 2007
There are plenty of examples of conflict over resources - especially oil. I don't think the effects of global warming are as apparent yet, but if the record of oil is any indication, we have many unpleasant surprises in store for us. This is why some military thinkers are speaking out about global warming, identifying it as a threat to national security.
The prime example of resource wars is oil and World War II. Japan's entry into the war was precipitated by the U.S. cutting off its supply of oil. Much of Germany's strategy was designed to gain control of oil fields in the Soviet Union.
Nowadays, we have: Iraq war. Possible attack on Iran.
US bases throughout the Mid-east and Central Asia. Some in the military and intelligence communities are not at all happy over the prospect of ongoing wars for oil.
US-Venezuela tension.
Tension between Russia and Europe over energy supplies.
Water rights seems to be an issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Civil wars and strife in countries with energy resources but weak governments (e.g. Nigeria and other African countries).
Long history of intervention by industrialized countries into the affairs of countries with resources (e.g. US-UK toppling of Iranian government in the 1950s).
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
CrosbyMacDonald Posted 8:13 am
14 Aug 2007
At the least, depletion of fresh water supplies in particular and degradation of forests and other natural resources will force people to adapt and cope with less. Thomas Homer-Dixon has written extensively on this and puts forth some pretty interesting analysis to show a strong link between environment and conflict.
The most solid point in the article comes at the end, and lends some credibility to earlier assertions: "How governments respond to the challenge is at least as important as climate change itself, if not more so." Jared Diamond's Collapse supports this assertion generally. It IS important what we do, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the climate factor and try to mitigate it.
Still, you're right to point out that linking climate change to increasing conflicts lets corrupt regimes "off the hook" is a bit ridiculous - no one pushing the climate-conflict link is saying that. Citing a decrease in number of conflicts along with warming is also fairly misleading; we haven't seen very many severe warming impacts yet, and a multitude of other forces are also at work, as was noted above.
Whether or not drought was a root cause of Darfur's conflict, no doubt it has exacerbated the situation by making agriculture inviable.
Climate change will only worsen what is already a trend - ongoing depletion of natural resources by humanity. Dealing with this challenge in general will be the defining struggle of this century, I believe, and climate change will make it more difficult.
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 8:51 am
14 Aug 2007
Even if one accepts that there are a multiplicity of causes, it doesn't seem a stretch to concede that environmental shifts create population pressures, and even if these are localized, that will impact politics.
And if nothing else, it's just an interesting book.
Permalink
sort of like an AUK Posted 2:56 am
15 Aug 2007
Permalink
sindark Posted 4:14 am
15 Aug 2007
He concludes by saying:
"Environmental degradation is not a threat to national security. Rather, environmentalism is a threat to the conceptual hegemony of state-centred national security discourses and institutions. For environmentalists to dress their programs in the blood-soaked garments of the war system betrays their core values and creates confusion about the real tasks at hand."
Permalink