Posting for Jude Menes

Although the issue of climate change has apparently been around for several years, I think it is finally beginning to get serious attention from all stakeholders – the global community. I suspect this has to do with some of the reasons Ken Cloke points out in his various discussions on the topic of climate change. For one, every country now seems to acknowledge that global interdependency is and will continue to be a reality in human existence. As Cloke illustrated, actions in one country can now easily have effects in other countries that are located thousands of miles away. Moreover, my understanding of Cloke’s observation is that one of the collateral consequences of advances made by mankind in technology and other areas is that life as we know it is no longer a guarantee unless we begin to seek out sustainable approaches to survival. But beyond the reasons that Cloke gave, I also think that certain social and political changes, including the end of the cold war, end of apartheid, and unification of Germany may have contributed to the increased attention and discussion about climate change. I believe that the end of these conflicts has now allowed the world to now focus more attention, resources, and discussions on the conflict of climate change.

I think one of the social roles of conflict in relation to climate change is that conflict generates discussion among the stakeholders. For instance, because one of the conflicts about the issue of climate change is based on the disagreement about its existence and extent, there has been more social discussion about the topic. Such discussion will of course educate more people and lead to necessary actions by relevant parties. Another social role of conflict is perhaps in the apportionment of resources that ultimately affect our social and standard of life. I suspect that as climate change continues, it may reduce the availability of those resources that are needed to keep up our social life. This will lead to need for redistribution which in turn may breed conflict.

The major opportunity embedded in the problem is that it will ultimately lead to more collaboration and peace building efforts among nations. As Cloke pointed out, nations will begin to realize that these problems can no longer be solved by individual nations, or by military, bureaucratic, or autocratic methods. Open communication and interest–based problem solving methods would be necessary to address the issues.

Of course the problem of climate change involves different types of power including, military might, human resources, finance, and technology. But besides these obvious types of power, we must also recognize other types of power such as human determination, resilience, perseverance, and passion to preserve our ways of life. In fact, it may be true that as Cloke suggested, the problem we are facing would need conflict revolutionists who intensely and passionately believe in their mission and also are aware of the dangers of being swallowed up by their passion.

I do not think that so far there has been a socially constrictive dialogue regarding the problems of climate change. I say this because it seems that the participants in the global discussion have so far been more interested in apportioning blames, revealing each other’s mistakes and short-comings, and celebrating their gotcha moments. Socially constructive dialogue will involve collaborative, interest-based discussions where one side begins to acknowledge the relevant points and interests of the other side. Such discussion will seek to build a bridge that will bring all research, data, and ideas together, so that the real problems are separated from imaginary issues and workable solutions are separated from unworkable theories.

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by JaneAnn Zimmerman Gifford on August 8, 2010 at 4:00am

Your thoughts about why climate change is now more prominent in our daily discussions is interesting. We have fewer social crises (end of cold war, apartheid, etc.) and as a global society less to worry about. Even though there is more dialogue, it isn't clear that climate change is a broadly acknowledged crisis. Climate change is an esoteric concept. To the average individual, there is no obvious cause and effect relationship between behaviors/practices, changes in our climate and adverse consequences. So the dialogue swirls around whether climate change is real. While that provides an open forum for education, it is inefficient and ineffective. As conflict specialists, our first objective should be to engage our global leaders to think beyond the concerns of a single nation to the concerns of a global society - a common message that explicitly defines shared interests e.g. what is jeopardized by climate change? This is the beginning of a socially constructive dialog.

Cloke quotes the Dalai Lama, "'We' and 'they' no longer exist. The planet is just us. The destruction of one area is the destruction of yourself. That is the new reality." The "new reality" informs Cloke's notion of the conflict revolutionist. By definition, a revolutionist is one that forcibly overthrows a social order in favor of a new system. Conflict revolutionists will expand and deepen conflict when diverse needs and interests are identified and shared. Only at this point, can the art of the possible begin to take shape and a plan to address climate change emerge. To your point Jude, success with one global problem offers greater opportunity and hope for more collaboration and peace-building among nations.