Atlantic Community:Global Must Read Article "Is a World Resource War in Our Future?"

Is a World Resource War in Our Future?

Alex Evans, Center on International Cooperation | October 2011

“If we look at the history of peacekeeping operations mandated by the Security Council, we find that 10 operations costing a total of US$35 billion dollars have been deployed to countries where natural resources have played a key role in the conflict.

This figure represents half of the total peacekeeping budget ever spent.”

- Achim Steiner, UN Environmental Programme Executive Director, July 20, 2011

The threats of wars over natural resources are real. With resource demand worldwide hitting dangerous levels due to increasing population and unequal resource distribution exacerbating the problem, the international community is focusing more and more on the potential problems of competition over food, water, and other natural resources. But just how dangerous is the current resource scarcity outlook around the world, and what role does climate change play in exasperating these threats? Alex Evans of the Center on International Cooperation at NYU investigated these questions in a study that formed a background paper for the World Bank’s 2011 World Development Report.

A summary of his key findings:

Resource scarcity is growing: Food productivity is decreasing as developed countries’ hit their peak food production capacity and populations soar. 1.2 billion people live without direct access to sustainable water supplies, this could rise to 1.8 billion by 2025. Worldwide oil production is rapidly reaching its peak, with some experts suggesting that it could crest by as early as 2020. This is all before taking into account climate change, which has the potential to reduce water and food supply even further through drought, and distribute them more unequally.

Despite this, there is little solid evidence directly linking resource scarcity to wars and violent conflict. The global economic downturn has the potential to leave more people unable to afford basic necessities than climate change deprives them of, and resource wars often take hold in particularly poor countries with weak political institutions, i.e. states that are the most vulnerable to violent conflict anyway.

Resource scarcity and climate change are better explained as “threat multipliers” which will not plunge nations into war on their own but could exacerbate an already deteriorating situation by undermining weak states, causing economic shocks in brittle economies, or inspiring mass migration from degrading environmental areas (and all the problems that come with it). These could still present major challenges even if they don’t force states into “resource war.”

In order to mitigate these threats, there are three key steps that can be taken:

Improve the scientific study of resources and climate change and our understanding of how these risks are interrelated so that problems can be detected sooner and anticipated

Help vulnerable areas and populations diversify their resources supplies so that they are less susceptible to devastating shocks

Improve international coordination so that countries are not separately instituting counterproductive or antagonistic resource policies

This summary was written by Jason Naselli, an editor at atlantic-community.org. Read the full study, “Resource Scarcity, Climate Change, and the Risk of Violent Conflict,” here.

I like this Article! What's this?

Comments

Fri, Oct 14th 2011, 10:02

Mustafa Y. CELIK, Retired, Silver Contributor (33)

I like this comment! What's this?

Only god knows and may Allah protect all mankind

Thu, Oct 20th 2011, 04:23

Erica Mukherjee, NYU, Silver Contributor (51)

I like this comment! What's this?

I find the premise of "Resource Scarcity, Climate Change, and the Risk of Violent Conflict" to be troubling. I won't dispute the methodology or the findings. I will dispute the focus. The report should read: "Resource Scarcity and Climate Change" or perhaps simply "Resource Scarcity." These two words, in and of themselves, should be enough to make the world community sit up and take notice. Violent conflict only clouds the issue.

To most of the world, resource scarcity doesn't mean higher prices at the pump or no papaya in January. It means no electricity, no running water, and no access to affordable food grains - essentially resource scarcity means life scarcity. But the aggregate suffering of Africa and Asia's proverbial teeming masses is difficult, if not impossible, to understand from the perspective of New York or Geneva. As a graduate student of global affairs at NYU I know all too well how easy it is to forget about the people when you're debating the policy of a report.

And yet here I am again, using electronic media to debate the policy focus of a report. Therefore I will be brief.

Think about the people behind the report. Think about what resource scarcity really means. The topic should be an end in itself. The problem should be addressed regardless of whether or not it is causing, exacerbating, or even alleviating physical violence. The considerable brainpower of the world's think tanks should be focused on mitigating resource scarcity because it is, by itself, a laudable goal.

Thu, Oct 20th 2011, 10:52

Jason Naselli, Atlantic Community, Editor

I like this comment! What's this?

Erica,

I don't think the report is arguing that resource scarcity and climate change on their own aren't important topics. It's asking whether we have to worry about an added dimension to these problems; namely, violence erupting when the "aggregate suffering" spills into very real wars over these necessary resources.

It has nothing to do with not understanding the perspective, but just imagine trying to solve a food and water crisis whilst simultaneously trying to dodge bullets. Unfortunately, this is often the case NOW, which is why it is important to understand the causality: is the lack of resources causing fights over them or is it wartime attrition that is bringing these problems into fruition?

Fri, Oct 21st 2011, 13:43

Joshua Clapp, Atlantic Community, Editor

I like this comment! What's this?

Jason,

Thanks for the nice summary of the report. And I believe your question is an extremely hard one to answer. Except in the most clear cut of cases, it appears to be a situation, in which causality is simply too difficult to determine, with a combination of the two being the most likely answer. For example, what was going on in the other countries with U.N. peacekeeping operations where natural resources did not play a key role in the conflict?

Nevertheless, violent conflict does add a whole new dimension to the problem of scarcity. It would appear to me that the most important recommendation would be improving international coordination and analyzing the international effects of national policies. As the report mentions, diverting U.S. crops to biofuels constituted one of the main drivers in rising food prices around the globe.

But I am pessimistic on any far-reaching solutions coming to the table any time soon. For example, even if the problem of climate change were addressed in a more systematic fashion at the international level, the problem of water scarcity could still lead to ‘water wars.’ Especially if climate change is addressed through technologies that consume large amounts of water, such as biofuels or clean coal.

Regards,

Joshua

Mon, Oct 24th 2011, 15:01

Member deleted

I like this comment! What's this?

Erica,

I agree that, as independent entities, resource scarcity and climate change are important issues that demand attention. However, as noted by Jason, the report isn't denying the importance of resource scarcity or climate change as singular issues. It is simply highlighting the interconnectedness between climate change, resource scarcity and the violent conflict that can arise due to competition over resources.

Often climate change is seen as a strictly environmental issue, therefore it is important to also consider the big picture and the broader implications that climate change will have on social, economic and political systems. Recognizing the relationship between the issues above, and the role that climate change may play in exacerbating them, is important for understanding why these issues are incredibly important and how they will affect humankind. Therefore I do not think this report, or the policy behind it, loses sight of the people. It is simply recognizing resource scarcity as the potential root cause for a series of negative outcomes for humanity.

I would also argue that using electronic media to discuss the policy of such a report shouldn’t be equated with losing sight of the person, or the people, behind the report. I believe that electronic media can be incredibly useful in furthering discussions between people (as seen here) or even unifying people (for example the role of Twitter and Facebook in the Arab Spring.) And thus fosters discussion between people, about people.

Regards,
Nicole

Mon, Oct 24th 2011, 17:46

Stefano Salustri, Humboldt University, Berlin, (2)

I like this comment! What's this?

I think the report shows a big limit: it talks about how climate change is particularly harmful to poor countries with weak governments, but it forgets that, paradoxically, the most destructive effects of the climatic change hit specific geographical areas which happen to also be some of the poorest in the world. Therefore, I think it is a “convenient” simplification to argue that poor countries’ climatic misfortunes and their ill-fated effects lie in the poor management skills of their governments. Rather, we should be more critical of the responsibilities that the western lifestyle and its excesses bear in the exacerbation of global warming and ask ourselves what we can do, as single individuals, to reduce the insensitive, shameless and criminal exploitation of our planet’s resources.

The measures mentioned by the author, such as intensifying scientific research, help poor countries diversify their resource supplies or improve international coordination can certainly help mitigate the ruinous consequences of global change, but if we keep on driving around on our fuel-guzzling SUVs or continue wasting hundreds of liters of water to just see our rubber duckies float around our nose in the bathtub, we will all cynically help the inexorable destruction of our planet and, thereby, of our race. By the same token, if we manage to cheaply produce organic fuels but then increase our consumption, we will still be grappling with scarcity. This might sound brutal or even far-fetched but it is unfortunately an “inconvenient truth”, as Al Gore put it.

Furthermore, the report might be right to assert that there is little “solid” evidence linking resource scarcity to wars or violent conflicts, but, as far as fossil fuels are concerned, it is evident that the 1990 Gulf war, the 2003 Iraqi War, the 2008 Russian-Georgian War and the most recent Lybian conflict, all seemed to have an undeniable energy dimension in addition to ideological or civilizational ends. As Micheal Klare pointed out in his 2008 book “Rising Power, Shrinking Planet”, there is an ominous trend that shows the onset of a competitive struggle among world powers to control the Caspian Sea Basin, the Persian Gulf and the East China Sea, a reality that, together with an ongoing rise of energy nationalism and quick depletion of global reserves, could lead to future armed conflicts.

To conclude, in my opinion there is a urgent need to make people aware of their huge potential to mitigate the disastrous effect of global warming and to tackle resource scarcity by simply using energy, water and even food more sparingly. This is not to say we have to let ourselves freeze in the cold or starve to death, it simply means that we should awaken to the fact that our resource profligacy means someone else’s deprivation. Lack of solidarity and disrespect for the environment and for our fellow creatures hurt our planet and ourselves more than resource scarcity does because, as Ghandi put it: “There is enough on earth for everybody’s need, but not for everyone’s greed”.

Regards

Stefano

Fri, Oct 28th 2011, 09:46

Jason Naselli, Atlantic Community, Editor

I like this comment! What's this?

You're right Stefano, there are effects working both ways here, which I why I think the study takes great pains to point out that these environmental factors are threat multipliers, which can be a cyclical effect.

You're right that more steps need to be taken to be smart about energy usage (especially in the US), but as far as the "oil wars" point I think you're trying to make, I really believe that's overblown. If anything, there was too LITTLE thought given to what to do with the oilfields in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, to the point that precarious and old technology was allowed to go to seed and tons of potential productivity and oil wealth (for a country that desperately needed it) were lost.

Mon, Jan 23rd 2012, 11:32

Talha Bin Tariq, Government College University, Lahore, Pakistan, Gold Contributor (101)

I like this comment! What's this?

We should just pray to GOD for the prosperity and betterment of human and mankind...Because mankind is not willing to protect themselves or seeking for the prosperity of their lives and future.

Regards,
Talha Bin Tariq

Tue, Feb 14th 2012, 06:13

Mustafa Y. CELIK, Retired, Silver Contributor (33)

I like this comment! What's this?

Well, it seems that such a possibility seems to exist as apparently agreed by some members but there must also be existent some methods of evading such a catastrophy or at least reducing the probability of its occurence.

One approach which may be worth considering is to make much greater use of "solar distilation" on sea shores for production of "potable water". Such processes are quite unlikely to demand great capital outlays because of their almost straightforward natures.

Moreover they let us have as a by product salty residues containing a variety of minerals which may be subjected successfully to chemical or electrochemical separation techniques supplementing some critical raw material resources as well.

I suppose there may be quite a few other processes awaiting to come to play in the industrial scene as they get to be feasible in time.

So I suppose that since it is impossible to forsee what future has in store in the way of scientific & technical breakthroughs, I do not feel pessimistic regarding the life standards the future generations may have.

We must admit to ourselves that the wars in the past took place not necessarily solely because of resource scarcity -contrary to the common claims- but also because of some disguised social or psychological reasons.

If interested in enjoying sustainable World Peace, we must attach greater importance to non-economic factors in this regard...

Kind regards,

Mustafa Çelik

RSS

Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

9 comments | Print | E-Mail Best Of Think Tanks

Is a World Resource War in Our Future?

Community

Jobs / Internships

Call for Papers

Atlantic Events

Partners

User of the day

Poll

Should NATO intervene in Syria?