16 responses to “Climate change and conflicts: Is there a link at all?”

1. Erik Johnson says:
   24 Dec 2007 18:02:39 GMT

   Shame on you. You managed to confuse and mislead the reader in the very first paragraph.

   Yes, Al Gore and the IPCC got the Nobel for their work on Climate Change awareness raising. Yes, many researchers think that climate change-induced environmental scarcitities will likely foment new conflicts or exacerbate old ones. But the two are not really linked, are they? By adopting the classic 'climate change denial' tone in your leader and confusing the reasons behind why the Nobel was awarded (i.e., you make it sound as if they received the Nobel because they argued on behalf of the link between climate change and conflict), you cast doubt about the wisdom of the choice.
   Journalists have a special duty when it comes to issues of collective social responsibility, and on there is simply no issue of this type on a scale commensurate to that of climate change. You don't shout 'fire' in a crowded building for kicks, but unless you're a fireman, you shouldn't tell everyone it's safe to stay inside, either. An open-ended doubt like the one that appears here, itself a report of a mere ONE study, without comparing similar studies or other information, certainly isn't adding much intelligent analysis to the debate.
   Finally, it's important to consider the researcher's null hypotheses in context: all anyone can do is say that so far, there is no statisically verifiable correlation between conflict and environmental production and consumption, YET. But since the social impacts of climate change have yet to be felt, despite the fact that we already know the imminent changes in our climate to be chemically inevitable, it's not surprising that the appearance of this link yet lack a statistically significant and measurable, nor should it be considered as yet more fodder for the deniers' cannons.

2. Peter Simmons says:
   28 Dec 2007 17:08:42 GMT

   This report is from the School of Sociology and Political Science, so not 'real' science at all. And the writer of the report in Science Daily [a publication unheard of until now] appears to lack an understanding of the word 'may'. They looked at past conflicts, they speak of future conflicts. Can the two be compared when climate change has barely even begun to impact on human societies yet? Anyone can juggle figures.

3. Simon Collery says:
   31 Dec 2007 11:45:04 GMT

   Perhaps we are looking for conflict in the wrong places. Rich countries have been causing, funding and otherwise stirring up conflict for centuries in order to retain their control over scarce resources. Just think about precious metals, precious stones, oil, cheap labour, privatisation of social services and utilities, food production and the GM and biofuel industries, to name a few. The conflicts will probably not take place in these rich countries, of course. We know how to externalise violence and corruption just as well as we know how to externalise other costs.

4. Baldwin van Maanen says:
   31 Dec 2007 11:46:54 GMT

   Erik Johnson and Peter Simmonds make very important points in the above debate. It pays readers of so called "scientific reports", to check the anticedents of report writers, as many reports carry little if any scientific authority. Many of such reports have "creationist" undertones and tend to exacerbate a dumbing down effect unless critically examined as the above correspondents did.

5. Mathis Wackernagel says:
   02 Jan 2008 16:59:06 GMT

   Unfortunately, Helga Malmin Binningsbø, Indra de Soysa and Nils Petter Gleditsch seem not to understand the indicator that they use for their claim that “there were no conflicts in the regions where consumption exceeded the production of natural resources”.

   The Ecological Footprint measures how much of the biosphere’s capacity (or “the planet’s biocapacity”) a country uses �€" not whether it overuses its own ecosystems. What a country consumes can come from either the country’s own biocapacity, or from imports.
   The researchers use Footprint numbers from Global Footprint Network’s National Footprint Accounts database. However, given the authors’ misinterpretation of our data, the conclusions they have drawn are unsound. To measure resource scarcity, one needs to compare the Ecological Footprint of production (what countries extract from their ecosystems) against the country’s biocapacity. Countries with both low per person Ecological Footprints and such resource scarcity (i.e., countries relying on their own biocapacity, without enough wealth to import significant amounts of resources) are, contrary to the authors’ claims, invariably experience severe social tensions or violent conflicts.
   It is true that countries like Switzerland, which are wealthy enough to import large amount of resources, do not experience social conflicts. On the other hand, Rwanda, with a low Footprint and low financial wealth has, before the war, not been able to grow its Footprint beyond its biocapacity. In fact, its per capita Footprint actually shrank for the last decades before the war in lockstep with its declining per capita biocapacity. After the war though, Rwanda has been able to overcome its biocapacity constraint: through significant food-aid from abroad which makes up the entire difference between its biocapacity and its Footprint. Without that food-aid, though, social tensions in Rwanda may well rise again.
   For more information on the Footprint and human development, visit www.footprintnetwork.org/africa

6. muthyavan says:
   02 Jan 2008 17:00:29 GMT

   Conflicts have nothing to do with climate change. Both are two different subjects. Now it is agreed by many that climate changes is due to global warming and over plundering of earth natural wealth. Conflicts around the world are due to many reasons. One main reason is between different ethnic societies. some time religion and some time it is because of different languages. Rich Natural wealth in certain parts of the world is also a cause for invasion and conflict in those areas. Climate changes are also causing mass displacement of populations and destruction of natural wealth. But there is no link between human conflicts and climate changes.

7. Dan Smith says:
   03 Jan 2008 15:18:47 GMT

   There are a lot of misunderstandings here and it is worth disentangling some of them. Mathis Wackemagel argues that the research reported in the paper by Binningsbo, de Soysa & Gleditsch was based on misunderstanding the Ecological Footprint indicator. Further, Science and the AlertNet reporter both seem to have misunderstood the researchers’ conclusion, which was that rich countries do not have wars as much as poor ones do. For civil conflicts, this conclusion is not new, and it has no bearing whatsoever on the issue of whether climate change may have an impact on risks of armed conflict.

   The paper quoted by Science and AlertNet (NB: not a new paper â€" it was presented at the International Studies Association Convention in March 2006) is not specifically about climate change and it is misleading to write as if it were. Like any statistical study, its conclusion is a relatively broad generalisation based on an assessment of the recent past. By contrast, the debate about conflict risk associated with climate change is a debate about now and the future. Statistical studies just aren’t enough to explore the issue, let alone settle it.
   The meta-misunderstanding that lies behind all this is to discuss the relationship between climate change and violent conflict in terms of one-to-one cause and effect. No armed conflict is ever caused by just one phenomenon. The consequences of climate change, however, are highly likely to interact with other economic, social and political factors to increase the risk of armed conflict in poor and poorly governed countries. For further, see our report, A Climate of Conflict, at www.international-alert.org.

8. Megan Rowling (AlertNet journalist) says:
   03 Jan 2008 16:50:26 GMT

   It is indeed worth pointing out that this research does not directly explore linkages between climate change and conflict. Rather it serves to highlight the impact of the inequities in global resource production/consumption, and the role of institutions (local, national and international) in mediating the tensions created by such imbalances.

   The paper (http://www.prio.no/files/file48433_binningsbo_desoysa_gleditsch_isa2006.pdf?PHPSESSID=791f486fa4d679314334f03591ce494a) suggests that the lower ecological footprints of poor countries coincide with a higher incidence of civil war. But why?
   As Dan Smith has pointed out on many occasions, tensions over scarce resources do not have to lead to violent conflict. Nonetheless, this can happen where there are no institutions capable of mediating a peaceful resolution - in other words, weak governance is a key driver of conflict in states where there aren't enough resources to go round.
   The authors of the research admit that their work "allows only limited policy-relevant conclusions". To summarise, they argue that poor countries would be less likely to experience conflict if rich countries permitted them to consume more and create wealth - reducing their dependence on their countries' own ecological resources (doing away with tensions arising from 'scarcity').
   The paper concludes: "Future research should probe the exact mechanisms that link higher footprints with peace, such as governance, economic modernization, and production and consumption structures."
   The researchers suggest that a higher level of 'economic development' lowers the risk of civil conflict. That may be, but as Simon Collery argues above, rich countries do 'do' wars, just not on their own territory.
   The best hope perhaps is that climate change will force greater attention on economic inequity worldwide, and lead to a fairer balance in who consumes the earth's finite resources. But this is a tall order, because it is unlikely to happen without a major shift in global economic governance.

9. DrChary says:
   08 Jan 2008 10:13:41 GMT

   The international conflicts may arise due to climate change as it effects the existing production systems.The way societies are organized may disrupt. Climate change is not a simple issue to be addressed.It is complex phenomenon.

10. meleze says:
    09 Jan 2008 10:01:03 GMT

    global warming is also reponsible for the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Then they are fighting for a very scarce ressource which is water.

11. mpb says:
    17 Jan 2008 08:21:59 GMT

    There has been much discussed in the archaeological literature of the rise of complex states that there is a link between environment and conflict. However, I seem to recall Bunny Fontana's historical analyses (UAz) that the link between climate and warfare is still not close. His work was fairly rigourous.

    I have never found the arguments very compelling because they seem to reflect a narrow assumption about power and human societies.

12. david hillmann says:
    25 Jan 2008 16:42:54 GMT

    Humans fight for any reason they can find. food,drugs,love,greed,the color of your shoes can get you killed.I am a carpenter from chicago and i have seen people die for nothing at all.How can any of you people clame to know the anser to this problem. I feel like killing you just to end the study of it. And buy the way the last time the planet was real hot animals grew to giant sizes and the planet was trapical. And then it froze over,then it melted, why. I think this is normal. Infact the planet is gonig to get hot and wet and then over time freez solid and repeat over and over. buy the way i only have a high school education but i can see that Al gore is A lier, he lives in a home that ueses more power than 20 homes and tells us he can becoues of his efforts, go plant a tree and your ok to waest power, well i own a farm but i dont throw shit all over the place. i have lots of trees and i love them. I think Al gore is looking for ! money from a shift in power buy skeering the shit out of all you. Does't that sound anything like the war? Know matTer what happens the earth is geting hotter Al can't lose he will go down as the guy who told you so but i know the earth has been geting hotter for thousands of years and it's just like an ice cub it starts out slow and melts faster as it goes.Peace love and happiness is not for the human race we are to smart for that shit. theirs no free lunch eather[miss Clinton].

13. JOHN FRANKLIN says:
    26 Jan 2008 10:13:14 GMT

    WE NEED TO STOP PLAYING AROUND WITH THE PROBLEM AT HAND. I AM PROUD OF VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE TAKING THE STEP TO TRY TO GET AWARENESS OUT ABOUT THE GREEN HOUSE EFFECT OR THE CLIMATE. WE KNEW ABOUT THIS OVER TWENTY YEARS AGO SCIENTISTS WARNED US THEN WE TOOK NO ACTION. AS FAR AS WAR OR CONFLICTS THEY HAVE BEEN GOING ON FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS. MAYBE IF WE PUT MORE INTREST IN COMMUNICATING WITH EACH OTHER MAYBE THAT WILL HELP. GOD BLESS MR VICE PRESIDENT FOR THE WORK HE HAS DONE.

14. Peter Moszynski says:
    27 Jan 2008 17:19:09 GMT

    Isn't the important issue here the carrying capacity of the land verses the population dependent on it? When a given number of people can no longer depend on a finite amount of land they tend to migrate - a process that frequently leads to conflict, particualrly between farmers and pastoralists

15. P Gosselin says:
    04 Feb 2008 12:39:02 GMT

    Got a social disaster? Blame it on the climate! There seems to be a growing tendency for political leaders and governments to blame their ineptitude and policy failures on climate change. These conflicts are due to government failures, and nothing else.

16. Kdoyle says:
    08 Feb 2008 09:46:29 GMT

    Look at what's happening in Kenya. Look at what has happened in Eastern DR Congo. And Burundi. And on and on and on. Armed conflict is the result of a number of factors, but natural resources (i.e. land) is a common theme. How can anyone deny that given the premise that global warming will dramatically shift ecological zones around the world, the fight for arable/habitable land for agriculture, livestock, and human living will not be exacerbated?

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Enter the code shown on on the left *