It has become a trend of sorts to publish an assessment of the most recent scientific findings related to climate change in the run up to the next high level event of international climate negotiations. After Copenhagen 2009 the next such event is now scheduled for Paris at the end of 2015. Accordingly the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published a timely report outlining that the effects of climate change are already occurring – all over the world. As Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC, put it: “Nobody on this planet is going to be untouched by the impacts of climate change.”
Consequently it seems more than appropriate to highlight the geopolitical dimension of climate change – as Geoff Dabelko did, one of the authors of a new chapter of the fifth assessment report on the relevance of climate change for human security. This focus of the IPCC is new and Geoff Dabelko, senior advisor to the Environmental Change and Security Programme (ECSP) of the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington D.C. and director of environmental studies at Ohio University’s Voinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs, underlines in his interview with the blog New Security Beat that no one should underestimate the vulnerability of developed countries. The high risks of climate change impacts for regions characterized by high degrees of poverty have already been a major driving force for international climate negotiations, so human security as such is not a new topic for IPCC assessments. However, with a high concentration of wealth and infrastructure in certain areas of the developed world, damage to even relatively small areas can be potentially devastating.
Based on the careful assessments of the authors of the human security chapter, IPCC considers for the first time in greater detail the potential threat of violent conflicts caused or exacerbated by climate change. The authors avoid very simplistic answers. In the past, discussions of the potential role of a changing climate for peace and stability have too often been dominated by alarmist notions of future climate wars that lacked a sound scientific base.
The discussion on the relevance of climate change on migration patterns and in turn on violent conflicts can help to illustrate this point: too often the relationship has been presented as obvious, and numbers on future climate refugees have been used without clearly stating their speculative nature. The IPCC projects with medium confidence that climate change over the 21st century will increase displacement of people. However, changes in migration patterns can also indicate an effective adaptation strategy. In addition, there is only low confidence in quantitative projections of changes in mobility, due to the “complex, multi-causal nature of migration”.
Another example is the potential role of climate change for national security policies: sea-level rise poses risks to the territorial integrity of small-island states and states with extensive coastlines. In addition, transboundary impacts on shared water resources or fish stocks can increase rivalry among states. But here again, adaptation through the strengthening of national and intergovernmental institutions can offer pathways for enhanced cooperation and for the management of these rivalries.
As a basis for climate diplomacy, the geopolitical narrative can offer some positive momentum. By clearly stating some of the remaining uncertainties of climate change – including those that impact foreign and security policy – it can facilitate a frank and open discussion going beyond some of the business as usual scientific battles in the past on how certain climate projections are or can be.
Colombia’s long-standing internal conflict and the country’s contribution to climate change share one common root cause: land concentration. Policies to strengthen access to land and to ensure sustainable land use might therefore hold the key to promoting peacebuilding in Colombia, while simultaneously reducing emissions.
As disasters wreak havoc all over South Asia, health impacts have increasingly emerged as a major concern for communities and governments in the region. It underscores the need for concerted efforts towards building synergies between the Paris Agreement, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, particularly now, in the post-disaster reconstruction phase, to ensure “building back better” and future disaster prevention.
In the Inner Mongolian county of Horinger, Northwestern China, afforestation efforts have transformed a barren, dusty landscape into a pine forest. Planting trees has diminished the sandstorms, boosted biodiversity and improved the environment generally. As the climate emergency worsens, the potential for planted trees to draw carbon out of the atmosphere is being re-examined. What can the world learn from the Chinese experience with afforestation?
Two events in August 2019 underlined the complexity of paving the way to a climate-neutral world: the publishing of the new IPCC report and the Amazon fires. Both events demand that climate diplomats move beyond a narrowed focus on energy in decarbonisation debates.