In April 2007, the United Nations Security Council—led by the UK government—held its first ever debate on the potential impact of climate change on peace and security. It was but one of several efforts this year that illustrate that the world is finally looking at climate change as a security concern. But how can we convert this new-found interest into action? If little has been done to restrain greenhouse gas emissions, even less has been done to minimize the security consequences of climate change. That must change.
The Nature of the Threat
In rich countries, some effects of climate change could swiftly kill or endanger large numbers of people. Just as Hurricane Katrina did in 2005, the extreme weather events associated with climate change could cause such disruption that local public health, law enforcement, and emergency response teams would not be able to contain the threat. In poor countries, the immiserating effects of these events could cause major humanitarian crises, encourage desperate people to take up arms against their governments, and lead to cross-border tensions from refugee flows. Africa and parts of Asia are particularly vulnerable, given their location and their limited governmental capacities to respond to flooding, droughts, and declining food production. Even rich countries in Europe and North America will face a number of negative consequences from droughts, heat waves, and storms.
From Concern to Action
If climate change is a security threat, what should be done? Some climate change at this point is inevitable. Both industrialized and developing countries must therefore acknowledge the threat and take steps to minimize its effects.
- Countries should provide expanded support for adaptation. A major risk reduction and adaptation program is needed to insulate us from the worst effects of climate change. Policies that should be on the agenda include vulnerability assessments, early warning systems, emergency response plans, better building codes, coastal defenses, water conservation, and investment in drought-resistant crops.
Though developing countries are the most vulnerable, there are scant funds available to help them. The World Bank’s Global Environmental Facility (GEF) administers two adaptation-related funds for developing countries, but they only have about $215 million, rather than the tens of billions that are needed.
While the United States is a contributor to the GEF, it has not contributed to either adaptation fund. Moreover, since the US is not a party to the Kyoto Protocol, American firms are also not taking advantage of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), one of the flexibility mechanisms that allows firms to pay for emissions reductions in the developing world. Some proceeds from the CDM are going to support adaptation.
Adaptation is on the agenda for the December 2007 climate negotiations in Bali. Europe can continue its climate leadership with major new pledges and challenge the U.S. to finally contribute to these funds. - Countries should also provide expanded support for disaster response. Even if adaptation measures are successful, some disasters are inevitable and advance preparation could be the difference between the deaths of hundreds and the deaths of tens of thousands. Advanced industrialized countries should support training programs to enhance developing country disaster response capabilities. They should also be prepared to invest more resources in weather observation technology in developing countries such as unmanned aircraft.
- Countries must retain the focus on emissions reductions. Adaptation alone will not insulate us from climate risks. Without breakthroughs in clean energy technologies that allow us to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and capture carbon, climate damages are likely to exceed most governments’ adaptive capacities. Negotiations on a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol are likely stuck until the United States adopts a national cap on carbon emissions, and China will not act until the United States does.
Europe can put pressure on the United States by staying the course on their emissions trading scheme and making sure that market is robust. If European politicians lose their nerve and loosen the emissions caps in the second phase of the European emissions trading scheme, that will let American politicians off the hook. The shift in the U.S. position may not come until after the 2008 elections, but when it does, Europe should be ready with new proposals to encourage private sector innovation, particularly for clean energy technology exports to China and India.
President Bush is convening a meeting of major greenhouse gas emitters in Washington in late September 2007. He would be wise to incorporate some of these action items into the agenda.
Josh Busby is an Assistant Professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas-Austin. He has been a research fellow at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School, Harvard’s Kennedy School, and the Brookings Institution. In 2004, Dr. Busby and Nigel Purvis were commissioned to contribute a paper for the UN’s High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change on “The Security Implications of Climate Change for the UN System.” He has two forthcoming papers on climate change and national security, one from the Council on Foreign Relations and another in Disarmament Times. A longer academic piece on climate and security is also available through his website.
Related Materials From The Atlantic Community:
- Katherina Reiche thinks that US and EU Should Cooperate on New Energy Technology
- Niklas Keller asks Should the Polluter Pay?
- Jeffrey Sachs on Hundreds of Millions Destined to Flee Environmental Pressures in the Coming Decades
- 0
