Climate change and the social role of conflict have a long history.  If we take a moment and look back into history there are many societies that have failed. The Easter Islanders, Mayans and
Greenland Norse are examples of societies that have collapsed.  Each of these societies failed to recognize
and adapt to their changing environment. (Diamond 2005) Sometimes the changes
societies face are of their own making and other times the challenges that
societies encounter have little to do with what they have done. Today, we live
in a world that is globalized and wired, which means that the world is much
smaller place than what it was in our history.  Conflicts between people and nations great and
small can traverse globe in microseconds. As a result we are more aware of
global conflict. The role of social conflict relating to climate change
involves everyone on the planet no matter if you believe climate change is real
or not. The ability to change and adapt in order to solve a conflict is something
that is necessary for our society’s continued survival. Social conflict is the
way in which a society adapts to a changing environment (not just an
ecosystem). The change could be as a result of war, disease, the environment or
social/civil changes. Climate change involves every person, country, race,
tribe and group in the world. It is the one problem which we must all face. The
global aspect of this problem provides conflict resolution expert with many challenges
as well as many opportunities. The fact that we are all “in it together” is an
opportunity because we have no choice but to adapt or see our societies go the
way of the Mayans. The global aspect of this problem means that everyone has
the opportunity to be a part of the solution. Each nation state can make a
contribution in order to solve or adapt to climate change. The globalization of
information means that the average person is more educated on the problem of
climate change compared with earlier societies. Ideas about how to reverse the
change can be spread rapidly.

           The social conflict surrounding climate change involves many different types of power. Nation states possess formal authority over the laws enacted by
its citizens (in a democracy) who can then influence the individual conduct of
citizens and businesses in that nation. Scientists and countries that focus on
studying climate change possess informational power. For example, a country
such as Denmark would be considered by most to be more educated on the effects
of climate change than perhaps Somalia. The informational power advantage
exists not only between nations, but individual people as well. The power of
association is important whether that is in reference to political power or a group
such as the Sierra Club. Political power both within a nation and globally is
key to our modern society because that is how nations generally interact and resolve
conflicts. Another aspect of power concerning climate change is the availability
of resources. This is a key part of the debate about what should be done and
who should pay for climate changing policies. Associated with this is the application
of rewards and sanctions. A nation such as the US with a large GDP could choose
to help a smaller less developed nation deal with climate change policies. Moral
power is also involved in the climate change conflict because no matter what
faith you believe in, being a good steward of what we have been given is
important, and that includes the environment. One thing that has been lacking
in this conflict is personal characteristics. There has not been a global
leader who has truly taken charge of the issue of climate change. Our former
vice-president tried, but lost legitimacy. Currently the perception of power
concerning environmental change and the conflict surrounding it is in my opinion
at somewhat of a low due to the lack of consensus seen at the Copenhagen
conference. (Mayer 2000, 55-58)    

          A constructive dialogue surrounding climate change would be a welcome change to what has occurred in the UN and the summits on climate change. In order to truly understand what is needed to make headway
on climate change each nation state is going to have to look at what its
interests are surrounding climate change. To date, it seems most nations have
focused on one thing, what it will cost. This is legitimate concern, but it
makes any discussion on climate change positional rather than integrative.
Nations that have political and economic power cannot coerce less powerful countries
into changing their climate policies. Rather powerful nations must “Use power
to bring them to their sense, not their knees (Ury 1991, 133).” Countries with
economic power must act as an example and educate less developed nations on the
dangers of climate change. This will create an atmosphere of trust rather than
fear and anger. (Ury 1991, 132-134). As a result of nations considering both their
own interests and the interests of other nations a summit just might be able to
work towards a joint goal rather than a coercive goal. The first world needs
the third world to buy into climate change in order to make any global environmental
initiative successful. Countries must find interests that are shared. One thing
that I think we can all come together on is that we do not want our society
backtrack. No one knows what climate change will bring, but globally we must be
able to adapt and change together because "If we do not hang together, we shall surely hang separately (Thomas Paine)."    

Bibliography:

Mayer, Bernard. The Dynamics of Conflict Resolution:  A Practitioner's Guide. San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass, 2000.

Ury, William. Getting Past No: Negotiating With Difficult People. New York: Bantam Books, 1991.

 Diamond, Jared M. Collapse: How Societies Chose to Fail or Succeed. USA: Viking Penguin, 2005.

Disclaimer: While I do not believe that humans are the sole cause of the climate change I do believe that we need to be good stewards of our environment (something we are not always successful at)  I feel that most of the rhetoric surrounding global
climate change is designed to create fear and is a result a lack of respect for
humanity and human progress. To think that a third world nation that cannot
feed its citizens will bend to a group’s wish to be more environmentally
friendly is ignorant of human nature. How can we expect another nation to
ignore progress and slow their ability to improve their own lives?