Climate Change?
There is a research paper [1] that asserts that as the temperature increases, so does the likelihood of war. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon associated
changed rainfall patterns (from lower precipitation) with increased conflict in
Sudan’s Darfur region. Other individuals (Dr. Vesselin Popovski), however,
disagree and believe that causes of conflict are more political and economic,
rather than climatic. Those who really seek power, territory, money, etc. may
use events such as flooding or draughts to their advantage. If climate change does increase the potential
for conflict, then should we, as a society, attempt to solve the problems that are
allegedly causing the changes in our climate? I would agree with Ken Cloke in
his statement that “the problems we face can no longer be solved by individual
nations, or by military, bureaucratic, or autocratic methods.” [2] I believe this is true, however, I believe
it is true in large part because the problems have not been agreed upon as yet.
We have different groups with differing opinions as to what is causing the
climate change, and even, in fact, if it is really changing. Until the actual
issues can be agreed upon, what chance is there to effect any significant
change?
It is difficult to bring together multiple groups, each of which has a different type or level of
power, and expect them to agree on something. We have the formal authority of
individual governments. There is power from legal prerogatives (laws passed by
the different countries to control the behavior of their respective citizens)
and we have different countries with differing control over resources. [3] I
think information is important. Information is power, and perhaps the problem
is a lack of knowledge about climate change and if there is, in fact, something
that can be done to stop it.
An interesting definition of constructive dialogue is “an interchange of ideas that seeks to establish greater learning or understanding in the
context of mutual harmony.” [4] While I believe there have been some inroads
made in this direction, I don’t believe there has been any lasting or
significant dialogue, since as stated above, there has yet to be a consensus on
what role mankind is playing in climate change. Any effective dialogue will
need to first define the underlying issues.
[1] http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/does-climate-change-cause-conflict/
[2] Cloke, Conflict Revolution - Introduction and Chapter 1
[3] Mayer, Dynamics of Conflict Resolution
[4] http://www.public.iastate.edu/~acorreia/Watson%20et%20al..pdf
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jeff Thompson on
-
There is a research paper [1] that asserts that as the temperature increases, so does the likelihood of war.
Melanie,
Just a short quick comment- I still would much rather live in Australia than Siberia! :)
In all seriousness, I would question the research (and thus must now look into the paper myself!) on many levels as to the connection between temperature and war.
One reason would have me think that along with warmer climates comes larger populations compared to colder climates- do you agree?
Perahps that contributes more to the outbreak of war and not necessarily the temperature?
-jeff
-
Permalink Reply by Melanie Joshua on
-
Jeff,
I would rather live in Australia as well. I did not read the entire paper - I thought it was interesting that it presented both sides - one claiming that higher temps and lack of water did lead to more conflict and the other asserting that the warlords in those areas were merely exploiting the drought and resulting famines in order to gain more power.
Your point about the size of the population is a valid one - along with the increased population in a warmer climate, there is likely to be more interaction between the individuals since they are likely outside more often.
Thanks for the comments.
Melanie
Jeff Thompson said:There is a research paper [1] that asserts that as the temperature increases, so does the likelihood of war.
Melanie,
Just a short quick comment- I still would much rather live in Australia than Siberia! :)
In all seriousness, I would question the research (and thus must now look into the paper myself!) on many levels as to the connection between temperature and war.
One reason would have me think that along with warmer climates comes larger populations compared to colder climates- do you agree?
Perahps that contributes more to the outbreak of war and not necessarily the temperature?
-jeff
-
-
Melanie,
Interesting article--thanks for sharing!
As one of many variables that can impact availability of coveted resources (water and crops particularly) I have no doubt that climate changes can increase conflict. While conflicts may be triggered by opportunists who are taking advantage of droughts or other climate related events I think a society that is on the edge, with not much margin between thriving and surviving, could just as easily decompensate (on it's own with no opportunistic "helpers") and see an increase in conflicts when the margin disappears because of climate changes.
Although there is a correlation between increasing temperature and conflict in sub-Saharan Africa, I suspect we would not see that correlation in Alaska or Siberia (where this would increase the growing season and for the most part be a welcome change). I think the issue really is whether or not the climate change indirectly impacts availability of and demand for resources or creates some other form of societal stress.
"Hot town, summer in the city
Back of my neck gettin' dirt and gritty
Been down, isn't it a pity
Doesn't seem to be a shadow in the city" The Lovin' Spoonful 1966
Even though being hot and sweaty may make us somewhat irritable, I don't think there's any direct link between heat and conflict.
Cheers,
Milt
-
Permalink Reply by Jequan Merle on
-
Melanie,
I agree with your statement about the lack of consensus around the issues of climate change. I too believe that it is difficult to have a positive impact on climate change if we can’t even agree upon the issues surrounding climate change. With that said, I don’t think I’ll join any agreement upon war and climate change having direct correlations.
There may be an indirect connection between climate change and war, but certainly nothing noteworthy. Even the article that references the research paper notes that the correlation seems to be indirect if anything. I can come up lots of correlations to climate change. Casino gambling and oil spills have increased due to the changing climate. The point I’m making is that there are holes in that research. It’s probably best to stay away from the introduction of sketchy research when we can’t even get everyone to agree on the basic issues surrounding the subject.
-
-
Milt and Jequan,
I never said that I agreed with it and the article presented two sides - one saying there was a correlation and another saying there was not, that the "warlords" were merely using the ensuing droughts and famines to their advantage to create more conflict and thereby gain more power and resources. I was merely using it as a launching point for the post - and to show how much discord there is on the entire subject of climate change and its effects.
Thanks!
-
Permalink Reply by Sarah K on
-
Thank you for this risky topic Melanie! I have to agree with the logic behind changing temperatures and conflict. A hungry person is a cranky person... but thats beside the real point here.
Jaquan made an interesting point about sketchy research. I think this point is important because sketchy research is really going to clog our work rather than support it; bogus claims do nothing for credibility. However, in the case of climate change, when do we really know what is bogus and what is valid? Simply because ther is not loads of research in a certian direction does not invalidate it, as we learn more about the topic everyday. So then, how can we have a reliable source of information by which to go by? Is this where we can really dig into a specialized group of ADR practitioners with great knowledge about climate change? Or, can we have a sort of panel to sort through the massive amount of info and put it into books for use in our practices which can validate or invalidate a dispute? Hmmm, sounds too legal... but what do we do to sift through the bad research?
-
Permalink Reply by Morgan Rogers on
-
Just a quick note:
I was recently putting together some information related to the Iraq War and George W.'s presidency and was reminded that one of the major reasons that Cheney advocating for invading Iraq was for oil. This being primarily due to the fear that when the world runs out of this resource we want to be sure to be the ones to control it and it's allocation throughout the world.
So as we are seeing there is already conflict related to climate change, whether that be global warming or lack of resources. We are already seeing that conflict can and has arisen, and what is disturbing is that it is not war in a time of little resources it is war in a time of projected little resources. Therefore the necessity that we as practitioners enter this debate is even more important, we have very little time to sit around and debate amongst ourselves over the reasons why we should or should not be involved. The reality is whether we agree with it or not the climate surrounding climate change is constantly changing and becoming more and more frantic. There is little time to waste in my opinion, and wasting our time discussing whether or not we should get involved to help faciliate communication is no better than the parties who refuse to discuss the relevancy or resolution of the issue, just as they need mediators to communicate it would seem that we need mediators to mediate the mediators...uggg.
-
-
You know, seriously! I like where you're comming from, Morgan. Basically, we need to cut the cr*p and jump in if we're going to help. Its like, duh... some things are common sense, and this is one of them. Great deduction and way to swing us around to reality. Not that we weren't there already, but your comment sure cut through a lot of static to get to a gem (Bernie Mayer Lecture) :^)
Morgan Rogers said:Just a quick note:
I was recently putting together some information related to the Iraq War and George W.'s presidency and was reminded that one of the major reasons that Cheney advocating for invading Iraq was for oil. This being primarily due to the fear that when the world runs out of this resource we want to be sure to be the ones to control it and it's allocation throughout the world.
So as we are seeing there is already conflict related to climate change, whether that be global warming or lack of resources. We are already seeing that conflict can and has arisen, and what is disturbing is that it is not war in a time of little resources it is war in a time of projected little resources. Therefore the necessity that we as practitioners enter this debate is even more important, we have very little time to sit around and debate amongst ourselves over the reasons why we should or should not be involved. The reality is whether we agree with it or not the climate surrounding climate change is constantly changing and becoming more and more frantic. There is little time to waste in my opinion, and wasting our time discussing whether or not we should get involved to help faciliate communication is no better than the parties who refuse to discuss the relevancy or resolution of the issue, just as they need mediators to communicate it would seem that we need mediators to mediate the mediators...uggg.
-
-
Sarah K said:Thank you for this risky topic Melanie! I have to agree with the logic behind changing temperatures and conflict. A hungry person is a cranky person... but thats beside the real point here.
Jaquan made an interesting point about sketchy research. I think this point is important because sketchy research is really going to clog our work rather than support it; bogus claims do nothing for credibility. However, in the case of climate change, when do we really know what is bogus and what is valid? Simply because ther is not loads of research in a certian direction does not invalidate it, as we learn more about the topic everyday. So then, how can we have a reliable source of information by which to go by? Is this where we can really dig into a specialized group of ADR practitioners with great knowledge about climate change? Or, can we have a sort of panel to sort through the massive amount of info and put it into books for use in our practices which can validate or invalidate a dispute? Hmmm, sounds too legal... but what do we do to sift through the bad research?
Greetings. A couple of readers/commenters have talked about the confusion or lack of information about climate change. I work in the field, and I can tell you that that is not the case. Among people in the field - scientists doing the research - there is little doubt. Climate Change really consists of 2 questions. First, is there global warming? The answer is absolutely yes. There is no disagreement by anybody with a shred of scientific credibility. Even the people who are "against" climate change acknowledge that there is significant global warming. And with it, the droughts, flooding, greater storms, etc., which lead to destruction, water shortages, shortages of food, and with them, potential public health tragedies, high starvation, and war. We know how to measure temperature and have done so accurately for a couple of hundred years. Again, there is significant global warming. No doubt about it. The second critical question is whether man-made emissions of greenhouse gases plays a significant role in causing global warming. The answer is only slightly less than unanimous. Scientific research shows that the huge increase in greenhouse gases we have pumped into the air since the Industrial Revolution contributes significantly. There is a small fraction of scientists (and I'm talking about serious scientists in the field, not talking heads with ulterior motives on TV) who believe that the human contribution is insignificant. And that opinion should be respected. However, at a recent UN technical conference on climate change, 85% of the participants agreed with the statement that the research shows that there is a 90% chance that manmade emissions of greenhouse gases is a significant contributor to climate change. Remember the old commercial which said 4 out of 5 dentists (experts) recommend chewing sugarless gum over regular gum, produced so we believe in its credibility? Well, 85% is even greater than 4 out of 5. If 4 out of 5 experts tell me something (a diagnosis, for example), I'm going with the 4. The oil lobby and others who may be hurt in the short term by addressing climate change have funded people to confuse the public. But the research is now clear.
Here are two things to read to convince you. Each document is pretty large; perhaps the Executive Summaries will suffice. One is the IPCC's 4th Assessment Report on Climate Change. The IPCC is the international agency in charge of this. The other is the Stern Report, a commission headed by Sir Nicholas Stern independently investigating climate change. Sir Nicholas, by the way, is no flaming treehugger. He is the former head of the World Bank, about as capitalist as they come. And retired, not looking to be cool to run for office. His report reviewed scientific data and concluded absolutely that global warming is real and tied to manmade emissions of greenhouse gases.
I hope this was helpful.
Marc Karell
About
@ADRHub Tweets
ADRHub is supported and maintained by the Negotiation & Conflict Resolution Program at Creighton University
© 2024 Created by ADRhub.com - Creighton NCR.
Powered by
