Whither the weather? Climate change and conflict
| Author | Nils Petter Gleditsch |
| Date | 01 January 2012 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022343311431288 |
| Published date | 01 January 2012 |
| Subject Matter | Introduction |
Whither the weather? Climate
change and conflict
Nils Petter Gleditsch
Centre for the Study of Civil War, PRIO & Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Abstract
Until recently, most writings on the relationship between climate change and security were highly speculative. The
IPCC assessment reports to date offer little if any guidance on this issue and occasionally pay excessive attention to
questionable sources. The articles published in this special issue form the largest collection of peer-reviewed writings
on the topic to date. The number of such studies remains small compared to those that make up the natural science
base of the climate issue, and there is some confusion whether it is the effect of ‘climate’ or ‘weather’ that is being
tested. The results of the studies vary, and firm conclusions cannot always be drawn. Nevertheless, research in this
area has made considerable progress. More attention is being paid to the specific causal mechanisms linking climate
change to conflict, such as changes in rainfall and temperature, natural disasters, and economic growth. Systematic
climate data are used in most of the articles and climate projections in some. Several studies are going beyond state-
based conflict to look at possible implications for other kinds of violence, such as intercommunal conflict. Overall,
the research reported here offers only limited support for viewing climate change as an important influence on armed
conflict. However, framing the climate issue as a security problem could possibly influence the perceptions of the
actors and contribute to a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Keywords
armed conflict, climate change, security, war
Violence is on the wane in human affairs, even if slowly
and irregularly(Goldstein, 2011; Pinker, 2011). In recent
years, however, pundits and politicians, along with a few
scholars, have raised the specter that this encouraging
trend towards peace might be reversed by environmental
change generally and by climate change specifically. In his
acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace prize, for instance,
President Obama (2009) warned that ‘[t]here is little
scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more
drought, more famine, more mass displacement – all of
which will fuel more conflict for decades’. He would have
been more accurate had he said that there is little if any
scientific agreement about these points.
Despite the increasing certainty about global warming
and the man-made contribution to it, the two central
premises of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), uncertainty continues about many of
the physical consequences of climate change and even
more so about the social consequences. This uncertainty
is compounded by confusion about the definition of
‘climate’, an issue to which I return below. The IPCC
is not charged with the task of doing research; rather it
‘reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical
and socio-economic information produced worldwide’.
1
In an area where little or no research has been conducted,
the IPCC has a poor basis for an assessment. Therefore,
the two most recent assessment reports (IPCC, 2001,
2007) had little to say about the security implications
of climate change. Unfortunately, in the absence of
peer-reviewed sources, these reports fell prey to the
Corresponding author:
nilspg@prio.no
1
From the IPCC homepage, www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.
shtml.
Journal of Peace Research
49(1): 3–9
ªThe Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022343311431288
jpr.sagepub.com
p
eace
R
ESEARCH
journal of
To continue reading
Request your trial