As President Obama readies a new road map for addressing climate change in the United States, experts warn that poorly designed and implemented initiatives could unintentionally provoke conflicts, rather than diffuse them.
“As we respond to climate change, we need to go in with our eyes open,” explained Geoff Dabelko, senior advisor for ECSP and director of environmental studies at Ohio University, in a recent episode of Dialogue at the Wilson Center. “There are ways we can do this well, and ways we can do this poorly.”
Dabelko was joined by Lisa Friedman, deputy editor of ClimateWire, and Stacy VanDeveer, associate professor of political science at the University of New Hampshire, to discuss ECSP’s latest report, Backdraft: The Conflict Potential of Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation.
“In the past, the climate community has focused on what the impacts of climate change may mean for the security realm, or for the conflict realm. What this report does is offer another set of issues that we have not thought about in a systematic manner, but that we must now consider,” said Dabelko.
As countries develop technological and policy interventions in response to, and anticipation of, climate change, the potential for such measures to instigate conflict may be greater than previously supposed.
Because the future impacts of climate change remain uncertain, policymakers have tended to favor state-oriented initiatives, rather than confront the complexities of trans-boundary and regional climate-policy development. Backdraft “looks around the corner to tell us what’s next,” said Friedman.
For the complete article, please see New Security Beat.
