E3G

Delivering Climate Security: International Security Responses to a Climate Changed World

By Nick Mabey

The impact on foreign policy

The reality of climate change will require fundamental changes in how international relations are conducted, and will alter much of the focus of international security policy. It will change strategic interests, alliances, borders, threats, economic relationships, comparative advantages and the nature of international co-operation, and will help determine the continued legitimacy of the UN in the eyes of much of the world. Climate change geo-politics will extend far outside the environmental sphere, and will link old problems in new ways.

Managing the complexity of our collective climate security will become an ever more important part of foreign policy. Climate change will require OECD countries to revisit their international industrial policies by sharing advanced energy technologies and funding large-scale investment in economic competitors such as China and India. OECD countries must recognise that achieving climate security is a more vital national interest than the narrow maximisation of domestic company profits.

Energy security interests will be increasingly delivered through co-operation with energy consuming countries on technology development and diffusion, rather than through relationships with producing countries on fossil fuel discoveries and delivery. Declining use of imported fossil fuels may cause tensions with many producer countries. Countries will not be able to achieve national energy security by undermining other countries’ climate security by using coal without capturing the carbon. There will be no agreement on climate security without guaranteeing all countries’ energy security.
Nuclear proliferation mechanisms will need to be greatly strengthened if nuclear power is to be deployed at a scale which would make a real difference to climate change. Climate change will be used as a political mask for some states to acquire nuclear technology for military purposes, and development and sharing of more benign energy alternatives is the best protection against this. A major climate change disaster in the next decade would also drive pressure for a ‘crash programme’ of rapid deployment of nuclear power worldwide; at rates which would compromise the ability of the current nuclear industry supply chain to preserve safety or security.

Climate change and geopolitics

Rising sea levels and melting ice caps in the Arctic are already leading to territorial disputes between major powers. The disappearance of small islands could release valuable marine resources into the already contested waters of the Indian Ocean, Pacific and South China Sea. The rights of environmental refugees and migrants will become a source of national and international tensions, especially in delta regions such as Bangladesh, Nigeria and Egypt. Fisheries stocks will collapse or move, destroying millions of people’s livelihoods and undermining delicately negotiated international management regimes. The EU Common Fisheries Policy will not survive in its present form.

Countries will respond to the forecasts of more erratic water flows in all major river basins by building new upstream dams and water storage. Such ‘climate change adaptation’ will drive cross-border tensions in the next decade, including the potential for armed interstate conflict. Strengthened international rules and more activist preventative diplomacy from the international community will be needed to peacefully manage changes in shared water and fisheries resources, and to preserve the rights of displaced people and states.

Justice, terrorism and insecurity

Issues of justice and ethics lie at the heart of climate change; the rich have caused the problem but the poor are bearing the brunt of the impact. Global resentment against the current international order will rise if there is a failure to agree and deliver aggressive emission reduction goals, or adequately help the victims of climate change adapt and obtain compensation. Radical protest movements are building around the globe, and direct action against new airports and power stations is growing. Violent extremists will use these tensions to fuel existing causes and Osama bin Laden has spoken several times on the inequities of climate change: Muslim countries will be among the hardest hit by climate change. If frustrated by inaction to slow climate change, radical environmental movements may spawn eco-terrorist groups in a parallel with the evolution of extreme left-wing movements in the 1970s. Failure to act effectively will undermine the legitimacy of the international system, reducing its effectiveness in tackling other security threats.

In general, climate change could drive a more collaborative approach in inter-state relations or it could exacerbate tensions between and within countries, leading to a ‘politics of insecurity’ as countries focus on protecting themselves against the impact. The pattern of co-operation which arises will depend on how effectively climate change is incorporated into mainstream foreign policy, and is perceived as changing the balance of national interests in major countries across a wide range of security and geo-political issues.

Climate change is already increasing conflict risks in unstable regions – especially Africa – as fragile governance systems are overwhelmed by the social stresses released by drought, famine, flood, migration, extreme weather events and rising sea levels. At moderate levels of change, conflict is preventable and conflict causality is complex as climate change acts as a stress multiplier of existing tensions. But the growing information on present and future serious climate security impacts is as good, if not better, than other information routinely used in security planning and assessment. If climate change is not slowed and critical environmental thresholds are exceeded, then it will become a primary driver of conflicts between and within states.