Green Warriors? How the Military is Taking Leadership on Climate Change Policy

If falling rice yields in Asia, water crises in Sudan and hurricanes in the Caribbean were framed not as regional disasters, but as nontraditional security threats to the United States, would policymakers view climate change any differently? A growing literature does just that – it moves climate change from the abstract world of degrees Celsius and melting glaciers in Antarctica, to the jarring arena of national security. The U.S. military in particular is growing steadily more aware that global climate change poses, “a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address.” While politicians dither and wrangle over specifics it may take the Army’s clout to to show leadership on this area of emerging concern.

Several recently published studies have emphasized how U.S. security is imperiled by a changing climate. A Council on Foreign Relations report highlighted three primary threats: violence and armed conflict, natural disasters and humanitarian crises, and destabilizing forces such as disease or economic collapse. From coca in Colombia to water rights in Yemen and Sudan to oil in Nigeria, natural resource-fueled insurgencies directly affect the U.S. Humanitarian crises can create waves of climate refugees and destabilize already weak states, necessitating intervention. Other forces, such as spreading drought and disease vectors, have similar repercussions on domestic policy. As a recent CNA report on national security and climate change put it, “Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world.”

At a recent conference in Washington, Brigadier General W. King (Ret.) adroitly linked the issues by pointing out the strong statistical correlations between the failed state index and the major environmental degradation indices. As the latter rises, the former insidiously follows.

These reports may have a disproportionately large impact: in the United States and beyond, the military is widely viewed as being above partisan politics. If a panel of senior officers makes the case that immediate action is needed to allay these threats it may go further than a score of panels by our leading scientists. In the long run, the irony of climate change action being brought to the fore by an organization not known for its tree-hugging ways is a negligible price to pay.

The ASEAN Stance at Copenhagen

This week the ten ASEAN member states released a joint statement on climate change during the 15^th ASEAN summit. Beyond the standard boilerplate, it’s clear that ASEAN and its constituent states are preparing for an aggressive negotiation at Copenhagen—a move that aligns it heavily with China, but less so with its citizens. While nominally voicing support for the outgoing Kyoto Protocol and for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), one phrase in particular sums up its approach: “in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.” Although this position is not a new one, it is an indication that ASEAN is unlikely to show flexibility in its insistence that developed nations “take the lead” in reducing emissions. Whether the approval of ASEAN’s neighbor to the north is worth popular outrage remains to be seen.

Protestors outside the ASEAN summit in Thailand

There is, on the whole, little disagreement within the ASEAN governments about Copenhagen. The Singaporean Minister for the Environment, Yaacob Ibrahim, summed it up when he stated last week that, “We are not obligated to set targets or reduce emissions.” This sentiment has been widely echoed; to date, only Indonesia has committed to emissions cuts.

The question raised by this aggressive stance is how deeply it will pit ASEAN governments against their neighbors and their own citizens. Australia and Japan have voiced strong disapproval over the neighbors’ intransigence. A huge rally in Bangkok illustrated the extent of popular outrage over perceived inaction on climate change. At a Greenpeace protest at the Thailand summit, protestors railed against the states’ inactions on emissions and forestry: “Yet, instead of recognising their enormous obligation to safeguard the region, ASEAN appears to still be in denial over these threats.”

China and India are very likely the prime movers behind ASEAN’s united front. As the largest bilateral trade partners with ASEAN nations, they have vastly more leverage than Australia, Japan, or even popular protests. It is difficult to imagine that at Copenhagen, the individual ASEAN member states will have the gall to buck the Chinese mantra: “We’re all for emissions cuts – you go first.”

A PisaSPEAK Interview with Bui Duc Kinh

PISA was delighted this week to welcome Mr. Bui Duc Kinh for a visit at our Washington, DC office. Mr. Kinh is an alumnus of the 2008 LIGCC in Vietnam and works at the Southern Institute of Sustainable Development at the Vietnamese Academy of Social Sciences. He is currently a Humphrey fellow at Cornell University. We are pleased to excerpt some of his thoughts on climate change, adaptation and the role of the social sciences.

A multidisciplinary approach to climate change research in Vietnam is new – PISA’s LIGCC made such an approach seem practical and realistic:

PS: How did your participation in the LIGCC affect your current work and areas of study?

BK: I was inspired by their training course.  Very few Vietnamese people are studying climate change in Vietnam and a very small number of people are aware of it. There are a very small number of people who can work together on the issue. Until 2008, Vietnam had no interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary research projects on climate change adaptation. People had thought that social science had no empathy for climate change.

When PISA organized the training course, it was very nice because it brought people from different disciplines together – we could understand, “OK, we can work together.”

On the importance of social scientists working together with natural scientists on climate change:

PS: You mentioned the role of the social sciences in climate change. What do you see as their value in the field?

BK: People ask, “Why are you studying about climate change? Doesn’t that belong to the natural sciences?” People think that the only focus from a very technical approach is in natural science. We need adaptation to climate change, we need to have people and local governments be aware of climate change, to prepare for adaptation to climate change.

We need natural science people to hear the viewpoint of the social scientists. It is very important that we have the network that gives an opportunity to have wider view of climate change. We don’t limit ourselves to a certain view.

On the role that social scientists have to play in informing the climate change dialogue and communication:

PS: In what ways can social scientists contribute to adaptation in Vietnam?

BK: I think that the social scientists can contribute to community adaptation more than the natural science and technical people can. We can’t use a top-down approach; we have to use a bottom-up approach that uses local knowledge. We have to make sure it is participatory. Social scientists raise awareness of the local people and governments and businesses and prepare them. In the Mekong Delta, for instance, many people are being affected by climate change. The people there say there’s nowhere to go, no money to move. In their culture they don’t plan for the future, they rely on resource at hand, so they don’t have capital to move. Social scientists can help them prepare for the future, for adaptation.

I think that the natural scientists can plan planting mangroves in to help mitigate climate change, prevention. But adaptation is the realm of the social scientists primarily. Sociology, anthropology and history are also important in adaptation. The scientific view usually uses a “western” perspective, but action needs to be local. Why don’t we use the local knowledge? They already know it, and practice it, and social scientists can help explain how local knowledge can be used in adaptation and preparing for the future.

PS: What does your current work at Cornell involve?

BK: At Cornell I am studying indigenous knowledge and ways of knowing, ways of preparing communities to climate change. I am also studying using statistical / spatial analytics. GIS is very important to understand these issues. In the past we weren’t aware of these tools, but like they say,  “A picture is worth a thousand words.” So is being able to spatially map concepts.

PS: When you return to Vietnam next year, will you continue in this line of work?

BK: Back in Vietnam we are already preparing research proposals on climate change, on community adaptation, climate change and food security, climate change and migration and resettlement.

Research proposals:

“Knowledge, attitude and behaviour of people in south Vietnam towards climate change.”

“Vulnerability assessment of climate change’s impact from community-based approaches in southern Vietnam”.

We have three proposals out for the government to get funded.

PS: How is the situation in Vietnam unique?

BK: You know, people are already getting affected by climate change, losing their property. They can’t do any business because banks aren’t lending them money. We hope to work with local governments and businesses to have a dialog on how to deal with resettlement. When we resettle people, we don’t think about their culture, we don’t think about their rights. We have to think also about these things, and people don’t. People owe their loyalty to the place. We should study this, we should ask the people what they are thinking, where they would like to go, how they would react to these changes. We are experiencing a lot of natural disasters like floods and storms, but this experience is not well documented, so people are losing the knowledge of how to adapt.

Corporate Environmental Responsibility in the Era of Climate Change

The recent flurry of withdrawals from the United States Chamber of Commerce (USCC) by the likes of big-name corporations such as APPLE and NIKE suggests that business may not go on “as usual” in the US.  The USCC, an influential business lobby, disputes the reality of anthropogenic warming and stridently opposes any government-mandated emissions reductions.

 

The USCC position is exacting a toll. It’s not just corporate behemoths that have withdrawn from the Chamber of Commerce, energy and utility giants such as PNM Resources, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), and Exelon have also stepped down.  These corporations made it clear that they strongly disapprove of the Chamber of Commerce’s position and may be bellwethers’ for a changing corporate environment in the US: an Apple vice president said she “strongly objects” to efforts to hinder the EPA.

Nike was even more forthright: – “As we’ve stated, we fundamentally disagree with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on the issue of climate change and their recent action challenging the EPA is inconsistent with our view that climate change is an issue in need of urgent action.”

 

At the core of this debate, are questions as to the role of industry and the private sector in climate change mitigation and adaptation and the extent to which government should regulate industry. Too frequently the debate is reduced to caricatures: vulnerable citizens helplessly suffering because of the greed of polluting companies. As with citizens or governments, industry falls along a continuum. Some indeed spew carbon into the atmosphere and attempt to distort the facts behind climate change. But others have shown they have a key advantage over their counterparts in government: they are efficient.  Swiss Re, the reinsurance giant, has been calculating the risks and hazards posed by climate change for a decade. Deutsche Bank has positioned itself as a leader in the field and has committed to going carbon neutral by 2013.  If business and industry function on the basis of enlightened self-interest, it is clear that the once fuzzy line between “greening” industry and profit has become a clear, well-defined path.

The Payoffs of Disaster Preparedness

Last week’s cluster of disasters – typhoons Ketsana, Parma and Ondoy and the 7.6 temblor that rocked Padang, Indonesia – reinforced the need for robust disaster preparedness and mitigation programs for the world’s densest locations. The focus of disaster preparedness has largely been on Asia.

74% of natural disaster deaths in 2006 occurred in Asia

While this region may be at the forefront of the issue, a boost to funding and bolstering of readiness – starting in Copenhagen – will have positive effects from Sydney to Mexico City.

As with urban resilience, most plans for disaster preparedness follow the model of the UN’s International Strategy for Disaster Reduction and the 2005 Hyogo Framework: identify risks, design appropriate measures, and implement.

The Asian Development Bank, among other groups, has a sophisticated model (at right) that pairs a risk assessment specialist, a geoscientist and a GIS expert. Importantly, the UN, ADB and other groups in this field acknowledge the importance of continuing education and addressing ongoing environmental degradation.

A Child is Rescued from Flooding in Central Vietnam

Governments should recognize that the importance of emergency readiness lies in its cost-to-reward ratio. Convincing evidence shows that comparatively simple measures, affordable by developing nations, can have a huge payoff. The UNISDR notes that Gulf Coast residents who collectively spent $2.5 million on hurricane protection avoided nearly $500 million in damages. It further found that a comparatively inexpensive cyclone warning system in Bangladesh that utilizes volunteers with megaphones has reduced storm deaths by a hundredfold since 1970.

As Copenhagen approaches, countries such as Vietnam and the Philippines should go in prepared to argue for the proven effectiveness and financial viability of disaster preparedness analysis and implementation.

Urban Resilience

Flooding in Quezon City

This week’s horrifying news of the flooding that has inundated the Quezon City area of Manila brings to the fore the increasingly relevant discussion of how best to prepare urban areas for changing climates. By the year 2050, 70% of the Earth’s inhabitants will live in cities, up from 50% today. Much of this growth will occur in Asian cities that already struggle with overpopulation, poor sanitation and access to clean water. If the unique hazards of climate change are to be successfully mitigated, a frank conversation is needed about how to make urban areas adaptable and resilient.

A constellation of studies has shown that urban centers in low and middle income nations are particularly vulnerable to the sort of periodic, high-intensity disasters commonly associated with climate change. The effects of flooding, sea level rise, cyclonic storms, landslide and heat waves are concentrated: “a large and growing proportion of these deaths are in these nations’ urban areas,” a UN Secretariat report notes. Indeed, a 2009 primer from the World Bank’s Climate Resilient Cities program highlighted the specific danger of “widespread flooding” to Makati City, another low-lying area of Manila.

GIS maps, such as this one of the Mekong Delta, can facilitate urban disaster preparedness

That climate change will potentiate the growing health, economic and social crises of urbanization is well established. Less so is how to tackle the problem of resilience; as the UN report notes, local governments are often ill-equipped to prepare for events such as cataclysmic flooding. One promising approach, introduced by The Rockefeller Foundation’s Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network, involves a multi-phased approach. Utilizing partner groups at the city, regional and national level, ACCCRN calls first for city selection based on risk and capacity, followed by urban-level vulnerability assessments and a resilience action plan. The final step – implementation – is monitored and adapted on an ongoing basis and successes tagged for replication.

Building on the knowledge that each city faces unique challenges and has unique capabilities, the goal, in the World Bank’s words, of building, “compact, efficient, and walkable cities” that minimize risk must be a top priority for climate change policymakers and planners alike.

Beyond the Hotspot – What Vietnam Can Teach Us About Biodiversity

Central Annamites Mountains, courtesy of Indochina Legend

Biodiversity hotspots, according to Conservation International, are, “the richest and most threatened reservoirs of plant and animal life on earth.” These islands of natural abundance cover less than 3% of the Earth’s surface yet host a stunning array of plant and animal life. Imperiled by the twin threats of habitat loss and climate change, hotspots may be ground zero for the jump in extinctions that is widely believed to be looming.  Amid the busy schedule of upcoming summits such as COP-15, the best hope for prioritizing the preservation of biodiversity may hinge upon adoption of a more pragmatic approach to negotiation.  Stressing the favorable impact of forested land on reducing temperatures and providing food and economic security to the broader community, may prove a more persuasive argument than preservation for the sake of exotic plant and animal life.

Vietnam provides an excellent example of how biodiversity preservation may be tied to the larger climate change and economic policy debates. A WWF Vietnam study has found that the Central Annamites forests in Vietnam have been steadily losing biodiversity as they are degraded by climate change and human encroachment. As forests recede, loss of biodiversity creates a cascade effect that ultimately harms local rice, soybean, fish and fruit harvests thereby reducing the food security of the surrounding communities. It is these considerations, and not the plight of comparatively obscure hotspot species that will be in negotiators’ minds as they sit down at Copenhagen. Combined with the assertion, made by scientists such as Nguyen Ninh in this study, that biodiversity may be a powerful mitigation tool, policymakers and environmentalists need to confront the reality that hotspots, which capture the imagination, may be less useful for climate progress than the forests and fields that drive the global economy.

COP 15 – Shifting Perceptions of Global Power

 

As the COP-15 meetings draw closer, some observers note that at the end of the day, measureable progress will hinge on the cooperation of two nations – China and the United States. The two largest emitters of greenhouse gases, these powerhouses will ultimately decide the extent of the forward progress made in Copenhagen. Regardless of how desirable it is for two countries to monopolize the debate to such an extent, it is clear that the situation is very much a double-edged sword for climate negotiators.

For long-time observers of the Sino-US relationship, the inability of the US to persuade China to adopt key policy concessions is another sign that the balance of power in Asia may be shifting.

Chinese negotiators are clear that they will enter the COP-15 negotiation with Chinese economic and development priorities at the forefront of their climate platform.

There is little doubt that a failure to compromise could jeopardize the outcomes of the Copenhagen meetings before they begin. UN climate secretary Yvo de Boer summed it up, “If these two countries don’t cooperate further, then we’re not going to get a result.” At the center of the dispute is the commitment level that developing nations must make in reducing GHG emissions, and China has consistently maintained that industrialized countries must shoulder the brunt of the reductions.

With China’s economy rebounding ahead of that of the U.S., growing trade imbalances between the two nations, and a continued need for the US to fund a domestic bailout scheme with borrowed foreign dollars, the negotiating power of the U.S. is arguably diminished.  The COP-15 negotiations may mark a significant change in the perception of the international community about where the seat of global economic power will reside going forward with the outcomes of the COP-15 bearing significance beyond the technical details of any agreement that is reached.  Outcomes will play an important role in reshaping perceptions of power and a “win” by China will signal a decrease in American influence across Asia.

U.S. climate envoy Todd Stern has expressed hope, however, that an “accommodation” can be reached with China.

Asia Society Fellow Simon Tay At the 2009 PSIGCC

Asia Society Bernard Schwartz Fellow Simon Tay indicated at the 2009 PISA Summer Institute on Global Climate Change that China may also be forced into action by the Obama administration. Tay pointed out that American recalcitrance can no longer be used as an excuse for inaction.  Indeed, the world is watching these two nations: are they boxers entering the ring for the ultimate prize of superpower status and regional dominance or will China and the US meet as equals with different national priorities but a shared vision of building a sustainable future and understanding of the mutual sacrifice needed to halt the consequences of climate change?

A Day on the Water

On Saturday the group once again escaped the conference room and the city, heading out to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation in Annapolis, Maryland. The Foundation is headquarted in the Philip Merrill Environmental Center, a building that is as much of an attraction as the organization it houses. The PSIGCC participants had the opportunity of exploring this remarkable building, which was the first in the world to earn the U.S. Green Building Council’s coveted LEED Platinum certification for its sustainability and energy efficiency. From unfinished, unpainted interiors to passive solar and geothermal heating, waterless toilets, recycled materials and low-energy lighting, the Philip Merrill center is a testament to the possibilities of green design. And as Rick, our tour guide pointed out on several occasions, energy efficient design does not necessarily need to be high-tech; in fact, some of the building’s best innovations are delightfully simple. As a case in point, he noted that overheating in one glass-encased conference room was solved not by $10,000 in computer-modelled airflow changes, but by a simple awning.

Reviewing maps out on the Bay

From the building tour we headed out on the water – Brad the captain and his wife Claire used the boat ride to demonstrate crab pots, lecture on eutrophication and pollution in the Bay and point out unique characteristics of the Chesapeake watershed. In particular they focused on the blue crab as a bellweather animal of the Bay. This iconic animal has suffered from waterway erosion, habitat loss and increased turbidity; its crashing population represents the overall health of this remarkable estuary. After a picnic lunch on the water and time spent measuring salinity and dissolved oxygen in the Bay, participants returned to the Philip Merrill center for a concluding presentation on local stream fauna and water quality.

A “Cascade of Uncertainty” – Economics of Growth and Climate Mitigation

From the country-wide ramifications of a dam on the Mekong River to the viability of emissions trading, the second full day of PSIGCC 2009 frequently came back to economic considerations. Led by two Henry L. Stimson Center scholars – Dr. Richard Cronin and Mr. David Michel, the participants were asked throughout the day to place their local and regional solutions within the context of economic reality.

In the case of the Mekong, Dr. Cronin’s presentation revealed the fragility of the ecosystem and the vulnerability of a huge swathe of Vietnam’s population to the changes a new dam could effect. This case study is particularly germane to the wider field of climate change because it pits many interrelated forces against each other: local versus regional policies, development versus environmental degradation, upstream versus downstream countries. The at-risk fisheries and the Mekong Delta as a whole, the working groups decided, must benefit from multilateral cooperation between Vietnam’s government and local communities, Cambodia, China, developers and other interested parties. Similarly,  Mr. Michel broke the participants into groups to wrangle over the relative merits of carbon caps or taxes. After a spirited discussion Michel concluded the session by suggesting that governments may arrive at workable solutions not by focusing on the burdens of emission controls but by looking for public goods generated by sound environmental policies.