Securitising of climate change

(1)

by

Nathanael Wilner

BA, Concordia University, 2007 A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS

in the Department Of Political Science

_{Nathanael Wilner, 2010} University of Victoria

(2)

Securitising Climate Change by

Nathanael Wilner

BA, Concordia University, 2007

Supervisory Committee

Dr. James Lawson, Supervisor (Department of Political Science)

Dr. Scott Watson, Departmental Member (Department of Political Science)

(3)

Supervisory Committee

Dr. James Lawson, Supervisor (Department of Political Science)

Dr. Scott Watson, Departmental Member (Department of Political Science)

ABSTRACT

Unchecked climate change has the potential to have devastating effect on the Earth and its inhabitants. However, there is still time to avoid most of the worst impacts climate change will bring through massive mitigative actions. While state led

governance mechanisms must be employed to effectively mitigate climate change, states seem unwilling or unable to effectuate the needed actions. How can states be pushed to take action aimed at mitigating climate change? This thesis utilises Securitisation Theory, as a starting point to test not only whether or not securitising climate change can induce state action on it, but also whether induced policies constitute ‘good’ or ‘bad’ actions. This thesis undertakes two case studies that focus on the executive level of governance of two sate: the United States and California

(4)

List of Figures

Figure 1.1- Good versus Bad Potential Actions...5

Figure 6.1-Seriousness of Global Warming (US)...99

Figure 6.2-Concerns over Global Warming (US)...99

Figure 6.3-When the Effects of Global Warming Will Begin (US)...99

Figure 6.4-Prioritising the Environment over the Economy (US)...100

Figure 6.5-Government Actions (US)...100

Figure 6.6-Support for Particular Actions (US)...100

Figure 6.7-Seriousness of Global Warming (CA)...124

Figure 6.8-Concern over Particular Effects (CA)...125

Figure 6.9- When the Effects of Global Warming Will Begin (CA)...125

Figure 6.10- When Actions Should Be Taken (CA)...125

Figure 6.11-Should the Government Make its Own Policies (CA) ...126

Figure 6.12-Should Car Emission Standards be Raised (CA)...127

(7)

Introduction

Many experts, interested analysts and informed individuals accept that climate change is caused by human induced factors. The anthropogenic factors which induce climate change have been traced back to higher levels of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere due to human activity. Atmospheric GHG concentrations have remained relatively constant since at least 300 000 years before the first ‘modern humans’ (Homo

sapiens) began foraging on African savannas. Almost all living organisms on the planet

today, including animals, plants and the ecosystems which they require for survival have evolved into what they are today within the last 500 000 years. Furthermore, most living organisms are specifically tuned to live in certain conditions which have remained quite stable over that period of time.1 Changes in the GHG concentrations due to human activities and subsequent global warming threaten to have serious impacts on all of the Earth’s systems on which animals and plants rely.

Minimising the amount of change the climate will undergo in the coming years is one of the most important tasks ever undertaken by humans and is the only way to stave off a looming global catastrophe. Adapting to a climate changed world, although

extremely important considering certain future impacts of climate change cannot be undone, must not be the main thrust of action on climate change. Adaptation can only deal with the symptoms and not the cause of climate change. Without actions aimed at tackling the causes of climate change, symptoms will continue to grow progressively worse. Mitigation of climate change can only be achieved through a change in the human activities which affect levels of GHGs in the atmosphere namely the burning of fossil fuels, changes in land use patterns and degradation of natural GHG ‘sinks’. The necessary cuts in emissions of GHGs must be quick and deep and the protection and restoration of various ‘sinks’ must begin as soon as possible. Strong and effective governance mechanisms, which create rules and regulations around these issues, are the

1

Wolfram Kurschner, et al., “The Impact of Miocene Atmospheric Carbon

Dioxide Fluctuation on Climate and the Evolution of Terrestrial Ecosystems,” Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105, no. 2 (January 2008): 452

(8)

best way to achieve these required changes. Environmental governance can be accomplished in a variety of ways depending on the site of governance. The state site should be placed at the center of environmental governance because it can achieve both the authority and legitimacy that environmental governance requires. However, very little governance dealing with climate change has been achieved, and what little has been undertaken has generally not originated from the state. The state, it seems, is incapable or unwilling to deal with climate change.

In recent years, however, climate change has become an increasingly important topic. Some world leaders have even described climate change as one of the most pressing issue the human race has ever dealt with. In 2007, former US Vice President and 2007 Nobel Peace Prize winner (along with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—IPCC) Al Gore, stated that "We [humans] face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of

humanity... [and is] the greatest challenge we've ever faced."2 More recently, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressed the same view during a keynote speech presented on August 10, 2009 at the Planetary Assembly of the World Federation of

United Nations’ Associations in Seoul. He stated that "It [climate change] is, simply, the

greatest collective challenge we face as a human family."3

Likewise, a recent explosion of scholarly work and analysis revolves around the notion of climate change and security. Many authors and scholars have begun to view climate change as a security concern.4 Climate change, it seems, has been presented a security issue.

2

Al Gore, as quoted by: MSNBC, “Gore, U.N. Climate Panel Win Nobel Peace Prize,” MSNBC (12/10/07). Accessed at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21262661/ (accessed on: 02/20/10)

3

Ban ki-moon, as quoted by: B. Meyer, “UN Chief Calls Climate Change Biggest Challenge Ever,” Cleveland: World News (10/08/09). Accessed at:

http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2009/08/

un_chief_calls_climate_change.html (accessed on: 02/20/10) 4

The potential list of analysts that could be cited here is quite long. For an example see: John Podersta, & Peter Ogden, “The Security Implications of Climate Change,” The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 31, No.1, (Winter 2007): 115–138.; Nick Mabey Delivering Climate Security: International Security Responses to a Climate Changed World, (Philadelphia PA: Taylor Francis Inc. 2005); Or, Jon Barnet and W. Neil

(9)

Securitisation theory, developed by the Copenhagen School of international relations, is a constructivist theory which suggests that when issues are perceived as threats they become constituted as security issues. Once viewed as a security threat these issues are said to be securitised. According to this theory, once a given population is convinced that an issue presents a threat, extraordinary actions are required to deal with the real or perceived insecurity. Can securitising climate change induce states to act on it? And if so, has securitising it induced states to act in ways they should or should not?

Providing an answer to these two overriding questions will be the focus of this work. Their answers will provide us with a better understanding of the relationship between security and climate change, a better appreciation for whether or not

securitisation plays a role in inducing states to enact climate change policy and will help us to decide whether securitising climate change provokes states to employ ‘good’ or ‘bad’ policies. This analysis will also highlight the utility of securitising climate change as a tactic to encourage state action on climate change. Understanding how states react to a securitised climate change will help concerned individuals and groups to create

strategies aimed at pushing states to take the necessary action.

The objective of this work is to determine whether or not securitising climate change induces state action on it and whether or not those actions constitute ‘good’ or ‘bad’ policies. To properly fulfill this objective this work must undertake two tasks. Firstly, three notions must be unpacked and explained. These are (1) that climate change is real, occurring and caused by human activities; (2) that the state is the best ‘site’ for effective environmental governance; and (3) that there are ‘good’ and ‘bad’ ways to tackle climate change. Second, this work will undertake a case study of two states for an appreciation of (1) the level of securitisation in relation to climate change in either state; (2) whether or not actions was taken on climate change; and (3) the type of actions taken. The first task of this work, unpacking and explaining the three notions will be undertaken in part one and part two. Part three will undertake the case studies.

Before a more detailed description of the structure of this work can be provided, a explanatory note on the use of the terms ‘good’ and ‘bad’ policies/actions is necessary. Adger, “Climate Change, Human Security and Violent Conflict,” Political Geography 26, (2007): 639-655.

(10)

The use of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are not meant to be a reflection of the action’s moral characteristics, nor are they meant to instil a sort of value or judgment to either types of policies/actions. Instead, the terms ‘good’ and ‘bad’ policies/actions are meant to

illustrate difference between policies in two fundamental ways. First, because this entire project began from a point which sought to find a means of inducing states to implement the ‘solutions’ to climate change, ‘good’ policies will seek to ‘fix’ climate change and mitigate potential future impacts and not only adapt to progressively worsening effects. Second, because this project utilises securitisation as a ‘strategy’ to induce state actions, ‘good’ policies are those that do not fall into the ‘securitisation trap’. The ‘trap’ is the very real potential for security induced actions to create undemocratic, coercive, hasty and altogether poor policies based on exclusion, fear and hyperbole. This potential

problem with securitising issues has been noted by many scholars including securitisation theory’s originators5. ‘Good’ policies must not unduly utilise the coercive apparatuses of the state nor can they be based on the conflictual logic of security which brings the us versus them paradigm into existence. These two distinctions between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ policies/actions will be further discussed in both part one and two. Part one will deal with the first distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ policies and part two (chapter 4

specifically) will deal with the second distinction.

The distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ should not be understood as a binary difference but more so as a scale between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ potential actions. Actions and policies can lie somewhere in-between and should be viewed in relation to each other. One way of understanding and visualising the distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ policies/actions is to create a two by two chart which places mitigative and adaptive on one axis and the ‘securitisation trap’ on the other. Policies and actions could be situated within any of the four boxes but more importantly can be situated in various locations within each box. Actions and policies can move between boxes as well as within boxes. The two by two chart is represented below in Figure 1.1.

5

See Chapter 4, sub heading Securitisation Critics of this work for a detailed description of the ‘securitisation trap’.

(11)

Figure 1.1- Good versus Bad Potential Actions Presence of the Securitisation Trap High E D Low A B C

Mitigative Adaptive Type of action Policies or actions which fall in the lower left hand box will be deemed ‘good’ while policies in the other three boxes will be considered ‘bad’. However, policies and actions can fall anywhere within each box. For instance, imagine five actions or policies

A, B, C,D and E. Both A and B should be viewed as ‘good’ even though A has higher

presence of the ‘securitisation trap and is closer to an adaptive action. Likewise, ‘bad’ policies and actions should be seen on a sliding scale. Policy/action C is low on the presence of the ‘securitisations trap’ yet very much an adaptive action of action type is action making it a ‘bad’ policy. Policy/action D while closer to a mitigative type of action then C is high on the presence of a securitisation trap ultimately making it a ‘bad’ policy. Finally, policy/action E is located at the very high end of the ‘securitisation trap’ yet very much a mitigative type action, making it a ‘bad’ policy. The use of a two by two chart is meant to illustrate both the nuances between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ policies or actions as well as between two ‘good’ or two ‘bad’ policies or actions. Likewise, though the utilisation of a chart, it becomes clear that deeming a particular policy as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is relative to other policies taken.

The structure of this thesis is divided into three parts. Part one will be separated into two chapters. The first will focus on providing some necessary background

information on the causes of climate change and its potential impact. Chapter one focuses on the questions: What is climate change? How is it caused? And what impacts will climate change have? The second chapter will focus, not only on what sort of actions are possible to fight climate change, but more so on what actions should be taken. The question at the heart of this chapter is what is the best way to deal with climate change? The purpose of part one is not only to provide background information on climate

(12)

change, but also to give some insight into the nature of climate change (anthropogenic caused, potentially devastating, and mostly avoidable). Unpacking the nature of climate change gives insight into the best way of dealing with it and illustrates why giving priority to climate change adaptation efforts while not working towards mitigation is misguided. Mitigation of climate change is the only way to offset much of its potential impacts. Effective mitigation must proceed by limiting the amount of GHG emitted into the atmosphere through strong environmental governance mechanisms.

Part two will also be divided into two chapters. The first chapter will be a theoretical one devoted to explaining the statist assumptions of this analysis. Explaining why the state should be paramount in fighting climate change begins with the nature of climate change and its best ‘solutions’,6 as outlined in part one. Environmental

governance can be seen as coming from four broad sites which are: the state, the

international, the market and the individual. These four sites will be explained and it will be demonstrated that only the state site can rectify the lack of legitimacy and authority that all too often plagues environmental governance. The second chapter of part two will be a discussion of securitisation theory itself. Here, a discussion of how issue becomes securitised as well as an overview of some critiques of the securitisation process will be presented. The criticisms of the process of securitisation will highlight the second distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ policies. The first chapter in part two will focus on the question why is the state site essential for effective environmental governance in climate change? The second section will ask the questions: How does an issue become securitised? What critiques have been levelled against the securitisation process?

Part three is the case study section. This section is also divided into two chapters. The first chapter provides the rationale for the cases selected. The two cases selected are the executives of the United Sates and California The second chapter in part three

undertakes the actual case studies. Chapter six begins by analysing a number of speeches

6

The term ‘solution’ is put in quotations here because there is no way to completely solve climate change. Human activities have already altered the chemical composition of the Earth’s atmosphere enough to insure that some climate impacts cannot be avoided. According to the IPCC, the average surface temperature on Earth has increased by 0.5oC between 1990 and 2000 and even if all GHG emissions where to halt today the average surface temperature would be a half degree Celsius warmer by the end of the 21st century.

(13)

delivered by the American and Californian Executive Officers that are either high profile or that deal specifically with climate change. This discursive analysis will aim to

distinguish whether or not the process of securitisation has occurred in either case and to what level. Second, chapter six will analyse a number of public opinion polls for the purpose of uncovering whether or not the public, in either state, accepted climate change as a security issue and ay what level. Finally, chapter six analyses the pertinent policies undertaken by either executive to uncover whether or not those policies constitute a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ course of action.

(14)

(15)

Part one: Unpacking Climate Change

The focus of this entire thesis is two pronged. First it hopes to uncover whether or not perceiving climate change as a security issue, by a given state’s government, provides the impetus for states to take action against it. Second, this analysis hopes to better

understand whether the measures taken by states are those that should or should not be taken to deal with climate change. However, before being able to provide insight into this important relationship or provide a discussion which outlines why states are the most effective institutions to adequately combat climate change, some background information on climate change is required. Essentially, part one will provide the problem of and solutions to climate change and part two will provide theory with regards to who should implement these solutions and how they can be pushed to act. Finally, part three will provide a test of the theory put forth in part two.

Part one is divided into two chapters. Chapter one is devoted to understanding and highlighting the pertinent scientific information regarding how and why climate change is occurring and what effects it will have. This will provide an understanding into the three key elements in the nature of climate change which are that climate change: 1) is human caused (anthropogenic); 2) will have serious effects; and 3) is largely avoidable. Chapter two will ask: what type of measures must be taken to prepare for, alleviate and counter climate change? Chapter two will answer these questions by providing a discussion on the two possible categories of actions aimed at addressing climate change—adaptation and mitigation.

Climate change is inherently an environmental issue. Although climate change will have many effects other than direct environmental impacts such as lower food production capabilities or increased disease vectors, it is still an environmental issue because the potential non-environmental impacts are caused by the environmental

changes that climate change will bring. For instance, without higher surface temperatures and changing weather patterns due to climate change food production or freshwater availability would not be affected in the same way. Inherent in environmental issues and environmental politics is scientific knowledge and therefore the science behind climate

(16)

change cannot be glossed over completely. As Stephen Bocking suggests, “more than perhaps any other political issue, the environment is defined in terms of the search for, and argument over, the ‘facts’ about nature. In defining these facts, science is

primary...indeed, the view that an issue only exists once science has described it is pervasive in environmental politics.”7 Furthermore, the science behind climate change must be made explicit because it will allow for an understanding of the necessary ‘solutions’ and what types of measures must be taken to make the solutions possible. How can possible actions taken be deemed either ‘good’ or ‘bad’ actions without an appreciation for the needed solutions which only science can furnish.

The science in part one has many purposes. It will give insight into the physical nature of climate change and what types of measures are necessary to effectively deal with it. It will also demonstrate how mitigative actions, best achieved through the creation and implementation of rules and regulations (i.e. environmental governance) must be the focus of attention. Furthermore, by highlighting the nature of climate change and by fleshing out what type of actions are needed for effective environmental

governance, part one will provide the impetus for part two as it focuses on how to best foster environmental governance and achieve desired governance mechanism.

Part one also provides the basis for part three. Part one will define what

constitutes an adaptive or mitigative measure, which is the first step in assessing whether the states, investigated in part three, implemented ‘good’ or ‘bad’ policies in combating climate change. Likewise, considerations of vulnerability to and equity in climate change, presented in chapter two, will be used in the case selection provided in chapter three.

CHAPTER ONE: CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE

The purpose of this chapter is to understand certain aspects of climate change which will highlight what actions must be taken to fight it. This chapter proceeds by first outlining what causes climate change, how anthropogenic climate change differs from natural climate change and how climate change differs from global warming. This

7

Stephen Bocking, Nature’s Experts: Science, Politics, and the Environment, (New York: NY, Rutgers University Press, 2004):4

(17)

chapter then moves to a discussion on climate projections and emission scenarios which focus on giving some examples of different potential futures. This illustrates the urgency of the problem, which justifies the consideration of securitization as a possible response. The scenarios give way to a look at the potential impacts global warming will have on the Earth and its inhabitants. To begin however, any discussion regarding climate change must start where climate change begins—with greenhouse gases (GHG).

Anthropogenic Climate Change

GHGs, so named because they create a greenhouse effect by trapping heat in the Earth’s atmosphere, are the chemical drivers of climate change. However, at normal levels they are natural and essential to the survival of life on Earth. In fact, without any GHGs, the average temperature on earth would be unable to support life as we know it. According to some estimates, the global average temperature without any GHGs would be a chilly -18oC.8 Likewise, the Earth’s climate has maintained radiative equilibrium for at least 500,000 years, achieved through relatively constant concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere due to a balance between levels of GHGs in the Earth’s atmosphere and their various ‘sinks’ which sequester and store their respective GHG.9

Through ice core samples from Antarctica and Greenland concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2, the most abundant GHG) in the atmosphere have been measured for the past 420,000 years. It was found that concentrations of CO2 have stayed steady between 180-280 parts per million (ppm) until approximately 300 years ago. The lower concentrations occurred during glacial periods and the higher concentrations during interglacial periods.10 Atmospheric levels of CO2 remained relatively constant through

8

John Abatzoglou, et al,(1) “A Primer on Global Climate Change and its Likely Impacts,” in: Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our

Grandchildren, Joseph F.C. DiMento and Pamela Doughman (eds.) (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2007):16

9

Stefan Rahmstorf, “Anthropogenic Climate Change: Revisiting the Facts,” in Global Warming: Looking beyond Kyoto, Ernesto Zedillo (ed.), (Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press, 2008): 42

10

(18)

the carbon cycle. When carbon is present as CO2 in the atmosphere, land and sea flora trap it in their cells through the processes of photosynthesis. These plants die and the carbon in their cells is often buried and eventually trapped in rocks and in deep-sea sediments. Some of the carbon is rereleased into the atmosphere as CO2 through land and water plant respiration and decay. Likewise, when carbon-rich sediments and rocks are subducted into the lower lithosphere and melt beneath tectonic boundary zones

volcanoes and other plate-tectonic movements, such as geysers and even the simple break up of rocks, rerelease stored carbon into the atmosphere.11

The Earth’s climate is and has always been changing due, in part, to atmospheric concentrations of GHGs, as well as other natural processes such as amounts of solar radiation or the ratio of land to water cover on the Earth’s surface (water takes almost 300 times longer to release its stored heat than air).12 These are natural changes that occur on a climactic or geological timescale, meaning thousands, if not millions, of years.13 However, today's atmosphere contains 32% more CO2, 130% added methane and almost 20% greater concentrations of nitrous oxide than at the start of the industrial era.14 The change in GHG concentrations has been attributed to various human activities. The most common culprits associated with GHG emissions are the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land usage patterns.15

Anthropogenic climate change should be understood as the change in the chemical composition of the Earth’s atmosphere due to such human activities. The change in the Earth’s atmosphere increases the natural greenhouse effect which traps more heat in the Earth’s atmosphere; this is global warming. Climate change and subsequent global warming will undoubtedly have many adverse effects on people the

11

Michael Pidwirny, "Carbon cycle," in Encyclopaedia of Earth. Cleveland Cutler(ed.), Sep. 16, 2009, Environmental Information Coalition,

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Carbon_cycle (accessed on: 24/11/2009) 12

Ross Garnaut, The Garnaut Climate Change Review: Final Report (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2008): 84

13

Dan J. Charman, et al, “Climate Drivers for Peatland Palaeoclimate Records,” Quaternary Science Reviews 28, Issues 19-20 (September 2009): 1815

14

T.J. Blasing, “Recent Greenhouse Gas concentrations,” December 2009, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center,

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html (accessed on: 02/12/2009) 15

(19)

world over. However, forecasting what effects climate change and global warming will have is quite a challenging task.

Many potential scenarios of anthropogenic climate change exist, depending on the model used to predict future climate trends. The Earth’s future climate will depend on a range of natural changes, human actions and inactions, and how the climate itself responds to these changes. These variables are difficult to predict, can occur somewhat randomly and may interact in a way that amplifies or reduces the effect of particular elements.16 How models are set up, which elements are incorporated and to what degree these elements are priorities in the climate model affect its outcomes. Climate models can have uncertainty because they provide a range of possible outcomes in their predictions and because of the limited current understanding of the complexities in Earth’s climate system.17

Uncertainties in future climate trends, inherent in climate models, do not make them false, as some climate change sceptics would argue. 18 Climate models’

uncertainties lie not in the doubt that climate change is occurring, nor in the uncertainty of anthropogenic factors in causing climate change, but in the very nature of trying to predict a future with endless possibilities. Countless factors, such as future population, emission levels, economic development levels, technological change as well as non-anthropogenic-factors such as the reaction of the carbon (or other) cycle, or climactic responses, must be interpreted and plugged into computer modeling programs.19 The more factors put into the model, the more potential outcomes there are. This should not

16

Stephen H. Schneider and Janica Lane. “An Overview of Dangerous Climate Change” In: Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, et al (eds.). (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2006):20

17

Klaus Keller, et al. “Managing the Risk of Climate Thresholds: uncertainty and Information Needs,” Climate Change 91, no. 1-2(November, 2008): 6

18

For examples of this reasoning see: Roy W. Spencer. Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor, (New York, NY: Encounter Books, 2008) chapters 1,2 and 7 especially; any of the ‘articles’ presented on the Friends of Science

(http://www.friendsofscience.org/) such as: Norm Kalmanovitch, “How Many IPCC Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research” Friends of Science:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HOW_MANY_IPCC_SCIENTISTS_FABRICATE_AND_ FALSIFY_ RESEARCH.pdf. (accessed: 23/11 /09)

19

(20)

be taken to infer that scientists are unable to determine to a high degree of confidence that climate change will have impacts on our future climate but that the possible varieties of impacts are huge.

Climate models can reproduce past and present climate factors such as

temperature, but their ability to tell the future is also dependent on the presumed actions taken in the future. Accurate climate projections depend on which emission scenario is plugged into the model. For this reason the IPPC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) uses six families of emission scenarios. The six families of scenarios discussed in the IPCC's Third and Fourth Assessment Report are called A1FI, A1B, A1T, A2, B1, and B2. 20 Each scenario family is projected to result in different levels of future GHG emissions and concentrations. The A1F1, A2 and B2 emission scenario families each predict continuously increasing GHG emissions for the next century. The A1B, A1T and B1 emission scenarios each predict GHG emission levels will stabilise and begin to lower before 2050.

Each scenario family is predicting the amount of GHGs emitted per year at a global scale. These predictions indicate the amount of anthropogenic climate change, meaning the amount of change in the chemical composition of the atmosphere that will occur in the next hundred years. The A2 emission scenario family is predicted to have the greatest amount of GHGs emitted by 2100 and the B1 family the least. The different emission levels between the two opposing scenarios result from the diverging political and economic future they predict. The B1 family present a future where states have transformed, through rapid economic growth, into information and service centered economies which work together to deal with global issues and where, by 2050, the world population has peaked at 9 billion and begins to decline. Likewise, the B1 scenarios predict a future where knowledge and technologies transfer between regions, states and people quickly and openly and where material intensive production practises have

20

Descriptions of scenario families come from: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment (AR4), 2007, Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. eds: Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A.(Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC). Accessed at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf (accessed on: 13/12/2009). P.44-46

(21)

declined and resource/energy efficient technologies become the norm. The A2 family of scenarios is characterized by a world of independently operating, self-reliant states. It is a world with a continuously increasing population, regionally oriented economic

development with slow and more fragmented technological and knowledge transfers and slow uneven improvements to per capita income.

Effects of Climate Change

Climate scenarios/projections, like the ones presented above, can then be used to predict the varying degree of global warming that may occur. The emission scenarios with greater levels of GHGs in the atmosphere predict greater and faster global warming. Predictions on the amount of global warming that will occur can be used to create

predictions on what physical impact different amounts of global warming will have. The IPCC projects that due to climate change, caused by GHG emissions, and subsequent global warming, humans will live in a world that, within the next 30 years, will be more threatened by overwhelming natural disasters, changes in weather patterns, ocean acidification, ecosystem collapse, loss of biodiversity, and rising sea levels. These direct impacts of global warming will affect humans by creating and exacerbating water and food shortages, health issues, and refugee movements.21

Today it is estimated that 1.1 billion people are without regular access to fresh water and, that by 2080 this number will likely triple due to factors relating to climate change, such as changing precipitation patterns, rising sea levels and extreme weather events.22 Moreover, climate change compounded by population growth, especially in regions where fresh water sources are shared between numerous states, will make fresh water an even more precious resource. It is estimated that in the regions of North Africa and the Middle East, 30 million people will be living in water stressed areas by 2025.23

21

IPCC. AR4 (accesses on: 17/12/2009):48-50 22

Roland Dannreuther. International Security: The Contemporary Agenda, (Malden, MA: Polity, 2007): 81-82

23

Erika Weinthal, “Water, Climate Change and Human Security”. In: Global Climate Change: National Security Implications. Carolyn Pumphrey (Ed.). (Strategic Studies Institute of US Army War College: May, 2008): 82

(22)

Furthermore, according to the German Ministry for Economic Development and Cooperation (GMEDC), extreme weather events will not only have severe economic consequences but will also have a negative effect on fresh water quality which will most likely lead to disease epidemics.24 Likewise, the IPCC states that rising sea levels will increase ground water and river water salinity in coastal regions which will make much of the coastal water supply undrinkable and will have severe effects on irrigation and food production capabilities in those areas.25

Degradation of soil, such as massive erosion, due to climate change induces extreme weather events such as severe droughts or flash flooding will have a negative effect on food production and may cause severe famines. Likewise, extreme and shifting weather patterns will increase desertification and erosion of arable land. This will

decrease the availability of croplands and their potential yields substantially. 26 One estimate is that with an increase of 3°C of the world’s average temperature, the amount of malnourished people worldwide will double, mainly due to soil erosion and

desertification.27 Likewise, fisheries will be adversely affected by climate change. Fish provide more than 2.6 billion people with at least 20% of their protein intake. However, three-quarters of global fisheries are currently fully exploited, overexploited or

depleted.28 According to the GMEDC’s report on climate change and security,

acidification of oceans and the greater uptake of CO2 within water will result in declining fish stocks. Likewise, a change in water temperatures will affect regional changes in the distribution and productivity of particular fish species and local extinctions will occur, particularly in freshwater and anadromous species such as salmon and sturgeon.29

Furthermore, according to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, sea level rise, glacier melting, ocean acidification, changes in precipitation, groundwater and river flows will significantly affect coral reefs, wetlands, rivers, lakes and estuaries.

24

Dennis Tanzler, et. al. “Climate Change and Security: Challenges for German Development Cooperation” GZT Publications 69 (Eschborn: GTZ.,2008): 26

25

IPCC. AR4 (accessed on: 17/12/2009):49 26

Clionadh Raleigh and Henrik Urdal, “Climate Change, Environmental

Degradation and Armed Conflict” Political Geography 26,no. 6 (August, 2007) 682-685 27

Dennis Tanzler, et.al.: 28 28

IPCC, AR4. (accessed on: 19/12/09):48 29

(23)

This will also have large impacts on fisheries and aquaculture systems which will in turn have a negative impact on global food availability.30

Climate change is also expected to intensify threats to health, especially for the more vulnerable segments of society including the young, old, and chronically ill.31 The IPCC expects increased health issues, such as malnutrition, diarrhoeal, cardio-respiratory problems and infectious diseases. Likewise, people will suffer more health problems because of increased heat waves, floods, droughts and greater distribution of infectious diseases.32 According to some estimates, deaths due to extreme weather events could rise by upwards of 400% within the next 25 years, potentially causing upward of 150 000 death per year in Europe alone.33

Population movements are also likely to increase as the climate changes. Environmental damages, exacerbated by climate change such as desertification, soil erosion, and loss of arable land due to rising sea levels, declining fresh water and food production resources, and many others will have an enormous impact on population movements.34 According to Reuveny, climate change induced environmental

degradation will increase the so called push factors which induce refugee movements. People will want to leave certain areas due to both, actual environmental devastation or collapse such as, severe drought or flooding, and because of other factors such as increased violence and insecurity caused by heightened resource competition. Famine is also a reason cited for increased refugee movements. 35

Reuveney estimated that at least 200 million people will be displaced by 2080 due to the impacts of climate change.36 Assuming no adjustments in the adaptive social

30

Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO). Report of the FAO Expert Workshop on Climate Change Implications for Fisheries and Aquaculture. (FAO: Fisheries Report No. 870, Rome, April 7-9, 2008): 2

31

A. McMichael, et al., “Climate Change and Human Health: Present and Future Risks.” The Lancet 367, issue: 9513 (march 2006): 860

32

IPCC, AR4. (accessed on:19/12/09): 10 33

George Luber and Natasha Prudent, “Climate Change and Human Health.” Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association, 120 (2009): 115

34

IPCC, AR4. (accessed on: 19/ 12/09):50 35

Rafael Reuveny, “Climate Change-induced migration and Violent Conflict”, Political Geography 26 Issue 6(Aug 2007): 659

36

(24)

infrastructure has been undertaken this would constitute an increase of more than 400% from 2008 which saw a total of approximately 42 million displaced persons worldwide.37 Whether or not the increased refugee movements are due directly to severe weather patterns or to other climate change induced factors, such as increased violence or famines, is inconsequential. What is important to understand is that climate change, whether directly or indirectly, will create millions upon millions of ‘environmental refugees’. That is to say that the original catalyst of the population movement was climate change. For instance, conflict erupts between a number of groups within a state, or between states, over the use of the increasingly scarce freshwater supply. The

insecurity created by the intra or inter-state conflict pushes people to flee the area as refugees. Although it was the conflict over fresh water that pushed the people to become refugees, it was climate change which created the conditions that allowed for the conflict in the first place.

The potential climate change impacts highlighted above are not overly dramatic. The impacts listed are based on the IPCC’s mid-range models which assume and

incorporate into their projections midlevel emission scenario which presumes constant atmospheric GHG concentrations in the future through mitigative measures and that some adaptive measures have been taken to lessen the worst impacts. However, they do not take into account that global warming has the potential to create and induce positive feedback loops (PFLs) which could have even more devastating consequences.

PFLs, in terms of climate change, are instances where global warming, due to anthropogenic climate change, creates conditions which provoke more warming in a self-reinforcing cycle. Take the cryosphere as an example. The cryosphere is the name given to all parts of the planet which are covered in ice. This includes the ice sheets in

Greenland, Antarctica and Siberia, sea ice in the Arctic and Southern Oceans, and all other ice and snow covered surfaces such as mountain peaks and glaciers around the world. Snow and ice cover in the cryosphere is important to the Earth’s climate because snow and ice have high albedos (amount of light reflected) which reflect almost 90% of

37

UNHCR, “UNHCR Annual Report Shows 42 Million People uprooted Worldwide,” UNHCR (June 19, 2009). http://www.unhcr.org/4a2fd52412d.html (accessed on:15/01/2010).

(25)

the solar radiation that hit it, thereby not allowing much radiant energy to warm the surface. However, due to anthropogenic global warming, ice cover in the cryosphere is, and will continue to retreat allowing more energy to be absorbed by the newly uncovered parts of the Earth’s surface.38 Newly heated ‘dark’ (with a much lower albedo) water and land creates further melting of the ice and snow in the cryosphere which uncovers more of the Earth’s ‘dark’ surface thereby creating the self-reinforcing cycle or PFL.

The above described PFL is but one of many. There has been much recent research done on PLF within the climate cycle. Many feedback mechanisms have been isolated and studied, such as water vapour, frozen methane in permafrost, and

degradation of high-carbon ecosystems such as the Amazon basin.39 Anthropogenic global warming means hotter surface temperatures which allows for more water to evaporate creating higher concentrations of atmospheric water vapour which is a potent GHG.40 More water vapour in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect which further heats the planet and allows more water to evaporate which further increases the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere thereby increasing the greenhouse effect, and so on. This PFL could potentially continue until Earth’s atmosphere is thick, humid and extremely hot (100s of degrees Celsius), much like the atmosphere of Venus.41

Anthropogenic climate change and subsequent global warming have great potential to trigger PFLs which would induce, what some have called ‘runaway climate change’42 or ‘catastrophic climate change’.43 Some analysts predict that if PFLs are

38

Abatzoglou, et al. (1): 20 39

For an in depth analysis of these FL see: Richard A. Betts, et al. “Climate Change, Deforestation and the Fate of the Amazon,” Science 319, no. 5860(January 2008): 169-172; L. C. Smith, et al, “Siberian Peatlands a Net Carbon Sink and Global Methane Source Since the Early Holocene, ” Sciencen 303: no. 5656, (January 2004): 353-356; or: Kathryn Hansen, “Water Vapour Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change” Nov. 18, 2008, NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center,

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html, (accessed: 2/12/2009) 40 Kathryn Hansen 41 ibid 42

See: William H. Calvin. Global Fever, (Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 2008); Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, et al (eds.). Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2006); or, V. Ramanathan, Y. Feng. “On Avoiding Dangerous Anthropogenic ?Interferences with the Climate System: Formidable

(26)

triggered many of the possible impacts pointed to by the IPCC are quite conservative. For example, if PFLs are set off, global average temperatures may rise up to 5oC higher than the worse-case-scenario predictions laid out by the IPCC, meaning that global average temperatures could increase by a total of 12oC within the next 100 years.44 Likewise, some argue that PFLs could cause sea levels to rise (in certain areas) as much as 40% more than estimated by the IPCC.45 The most troubling aspect of PFLs with regards to climate change is that their thresholds or ‘tipping points’ are unknown. Current scientific knowledge is unable to determine at what temperature PFLs will begin, and it is possible, but unknown whether or not some PFLs have already commenced.46 There is scientific certainty that if these tipping points are crossed human activities will have pushed the planet into a climate which will be continuously heating and which grows more hostile towards life by the day.47

Avoiding Catastrophic Climate Change

The impacts outlined above, including the impacts based on the IPCC’s ‘mid-range’ scenarios and those more catastrophic scenarios based on triggered PFLs, can be mostly avoided. For example, associated temperature rise in different IPCC scenarios are quite different. The B1 scenario predicts an increase of almost 2oC whereas the A1F1 Challenges Ahead,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America 105, no 38 (September 2008) 1445-1450

43

See: Michael C. MacCracken, et al (eds.) Sudden and Disruptive Climate Change: Exploring the Real Risks and How We Can Avoid Them, (Sterling, VA: EarthScan Publishing, 2008); Nick Bostrom, Milan Cirkovic (eds.). Global Catastrophic Risk,

(Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press, 2008); or, Martin Weitzman, “On Modeling and Interpreting the Economics of Catastrophic Climate Change,” the Review of Economics and Statistics 91, no. 1 (February 2009): 1-19

44

Gerard Roe. “Feedback, Timescales, and Seeing Red,” Annual review of Earth and Planetary Science 37,(May 2009): 97

45

Jonathan Bamber, et al. “Reassessment of the Potential Sea Level Rise from a Collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheets,” Science 324, no. 5929 (May 2009): 902

46

Timothy M Lenton, et al., “Tipping Elements in the Earth’s Climate System.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America 105, no. 6 (February 2008): 1789

47

James S. Risbey, “The New Climate Discourse: Alarmist or Alarming?” Global Environmental Change 18,(2008): 29

(27)

scenarios predict an increase of around 4oC.48 Degree of temperature rise is what will determine the severity of global warming. The change in the potential amount of

temperature rise would change the amount and intensity of potential climate impacts; less temperature rise means less impacts. 49

The IPCC scenarios are based on futures where little, if any mitigative or adaptive actions have been undertaken. However, the ability to alter the amount of projected temperature rise depends on what mitigative actions are taken to fight climate change in the coming decades. Much work has been done relating to limiting temperature rise which point to a 2oC rise as a threshold for dangerous and catastrophic climate change. It is argued that limiting temperature rise to a total of 2oC would diminish many of the most devastating consequences of global warming. 50 However, a 2oC rise is still associated with many negative consequences and many places would be adversely affected. This points to the necessity of adaptive actions which can alleviate many of the social consequences climate change will bring.

To achieve no more than a 2oC rise, it is estimated that at the upper limits,

atmospheric concentrations of GHGs must peak at 450ppm and begin to diminish rapidly by 2050. However, 450ppm is the high end estimate, and maintaining the 2oC warming target is considered much more likely if concentrations peak around 400ppm.51 The good news is that limiting global temperature rise to 2oC is believed possible with today’s technologies if they are quickly implemented and if other mitigative measures which focus on cutting GHG emissions and restoring natural GHG ‘sinks’ are implemented through strong and effective governance mechanisms.52 The fact that potential climate

48

IPCC. AR4 (accesses on: 17/12/2009):48-50 49

Ross Garnaut: 67 50

James E. Hansen “A slippery slope: How much global warming constitutes ‘dangerous anthropogenic interference’?” Climate Change 68, no. 3(February, 2005):269-270

51

Malte Meinshausen, “What Does a 2oC Target Mean for Green House Gas Concentrations? A Brief Analysis on Multi-Gas Emission Pathways and Several Climate Sensitivity Uncertainty Estimates,” in: Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, Hans Schellnhuber, et al. (eds.), (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2006):274-275

52

Hans Schellnhuber, “Global warming: Stop worrying, start panicking?”

Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United State of America 105, no. 38 (September, 2008): 14239-14240; Bryan K. Mignone, et al., “Atmospheric

(28)

change impacts can be greatly reduced if actions are taken is an extremely important, if not the most important factor in the nature of climate change.

In outlining the nature of climate change as anthropogenic, devastating in its effects, and largely avoidable, this chapter has provided insight which can be used to determine how to best ‘solve’ it. Likewise, this chapter has highlighted the kind and scale of the problems climate change poses which in turn inform the need for rapid action and isolated which factors the ‘solutions’ must deal with. The inability of

knowing whether PFLs and their catastrophic consequences will outpace and overpower negative feedback loops reinforces the need for immediate and effective actions taken to counter climate change. Even if PFLs and ‘catastrophic climate change’ are more fears than facts, mid-range climate change projections (as summarised above from the IPCC) are quite stark. The actions required to diminish the impacts of climate change can be divided into two large categories. The next chapter will examine the two broad categories of possible actions aimed at fighting climate change–adaptation and mitigation.

Stabilization and the Timing of Carbon Mitigation.” Climate Change 88, no. 3-4 (June, 2008): 262-265; and: Naomi E. Vaughan, et al., “Climate Change Mitigation: Trade-Offs Between Delay and Strength of Action Required,” Climate Change 96, no. 1-2

(29)

Chapter Two: Climate Change Solutions

This chapter is devoted to understanding what is needed to fight climate change as it focuses on what the solutions are to the problems laid out in chapter one. The nature of climate change makes it so that certain actions will have a more positive effect towards halting and countering it than others. There are a number of important considerations which must be addressed to properly understand what is necessary for combating climate change. Outlining the different principles of adaptation and mitigation, their intent and potential actions, is important in understanding the best way of fighting climate change. Likewise, considerations on vulnerability to climate impacts and its effect on adaptation, as well as considerations of equity in climate change solutions and its impacts on

mitigation, are essential in outlining the best means of countering climate change. This chapter will first provide a discussion on the differences between adaptation and mitigation. It will then move to an analysis of vulnerability and equity in regards to climate change ‘solutions’. The differences in the impacts climate change will have between regions as well as between people and their ability to cope with those effects is an extremely important factor to incorporate in assessing where, when and with what degree of urgency adaptive measure must be taken and implemented. Likewise, deterring differences in the responsibility for creating and causing climate change between states (i.e. assessing fault) has particular significance for mitigation because not all places are equally to blame for causing climate change and therefore do not have equal

responsibilities or even abilities to mitigate it.

Possible Actions

Due to the anthropogenic cause of climate change, its potential for devastation and the fact that it is mostly avoidable, both adaptation and mitigation activities must proceed and be implemented at a rapid rate. Adaptation refers to the ability of a system to adjust to changes, to moderate potential damage, to take advantage of opportunities created by the change, and to cope with the consequences. Adaptation to climate change, more specifically, refers to the modifications made in natural or human systems in

(30)

response to climate impacts, which moderate harm or exploit beneficial opportunities.53 Climate mitigation, on the other hand, is any action taken to permanently eliminate or reduce the long-term risk and hazards of climate change on human life, property, and well being. The IPCC defines mitigation as anthropogenic intervention for the purpose of reducing the sources or enhance the sinks of GHGs.54 The fact that climate change could have devastating effects must be dealt with, not only through immediate adaptive

activities, but also through fostering mitigation which will lessen the potential future impacts global warming will have. Finally, the more delay before mitigative actions are taken the less avoidable climate change becomes.

The intent of actions taken, whether adaptive or mitigative, is among the most important considerations when trying to understand the best way to fight climate change. Climate adaptation refers to actions that are aimed at dealing with the symptoms of climate change, such as building a higher sea wall along coastlines or securing water resources. Its intent is to cope with climate change by lessening the effect of individual impacts. Climate mitigation refers to actions aimed at tackling the cause of climate change, such as reducing GHG emissions or the restoration of various GHG ‘sinks’. Its intent is to curb the severity or existence of potential future impacts themselves by lessening the causes of climate change.

Adaptation to climate change and subsequent global warming is extremely important considering certain impacts have already begun and some future impacts are now unavoidable. Anthropogenic climate change has been happening for the past two hundred years, and the pace of global warming is quickening. The first minor (as compared to potential future climate change impacts) climate impacts have begun to be felt around the world. According to the IPCC there are existing impacts that can be observed today on natural ecosystems such as the alteration in forests’ distribution and

53

IPCC, Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change: Glossary. Accessed at:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/annex1-ensglossary-a-d.html (03/01/10)

54IPCC, Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis: Glossary. Accessed at:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/annex1sglossary-e-o.html (03/01/10)

(31)

resiliencies due to forest fires and the increased range and resilience of certain pests, as well as observable human impacts such as increased heat-related mortality in Europe and changes in infectious disease vectors in most parts of the world.55

The decade between 1998 and 2008 saw almost a 400% increase in total amount of forest fires worldwide, and a doubling in the average amount of burnt area per year over the same period with over 10 million km2 of burnt forest in 2007 alone.56 Although there are many reasons associated with increased forest fires such as fuel loading

(increased underbrush which acts as fire starters and transmitters to other trees) or changes in land use patterns, it is believed that the increase in overall amount of forest fires and increases in total amount of land area burnt per year is closely related to warmer and drier summer conditions due mainly to climate change.57 Furthermore, as of 2008, a total of almost 15 million hectares (over four times the size of Vancouver Island) of pine forest in British Columbia (B.C.) have been affected by the mountain pine beetle

(MPB).58 Likewise, as of 2008 50% of the mature pine trees in B.C. have died, and at the current rate of spread, it is estimated that 80% will be dead by 2013 due to the MPB infestation.59 The MPB outbreak is due to warmer average winter temperatures, associated with global warming, which are not cold enough to cull the MPB populations.60

55

IPCC, Synthesis Repor:33 56

Johann G. Goldammer and Nikola Nikolov, “Climate Change and Forest Fire Risk,” Global Fire Monitoring Center. Power Point presented at: European and

Mediterranean Workshop: Climate Change Impacts on Water-Related and Marine Risks (26-27 October 2009, Murcia: Spain). Accessed at: http://www.coe.int/t/dg4

/majorhazards/activites/Murcia_26-27oct2009/Murcia_26-27oct09_Nikolov.pdf (04/01/2010)

57

M.D. Flannigan, et al. “Future Area Burned in Canada,” Climate Change: 72 (2005): 4

58

W.A.Kurz, et. al. “Mountain Pine Beetle and Forest Carbon Feedback to Climate Change,” Nature 425 (April 2008):988

59

“Total Area Affected by Mountain Pine Beetle in Western Canada.” In: Meet the mountain Pine Beetle: Ministry of Natural Resources Canada (MNR). Accessed at: http://www.mpb.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/map_e.html (04/01/10)

60

MNR, “Mountain Pine Beetle Biology,” in: Meet the Mountain Pine Beetle: MNR. Accessed at: http://www.mpb.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/biology/biology_e.html (04/01/10)

(32)

Moreover, adaptive measures are necessary due to the lag in time between climate change and global warming. Many of the effects that are now unavoidable have yet to become apparent. It is estimated that if all GHG emissions were to stop and

concentrations were to remain at 2007 levels, and slowly decline, the extent of global warming and it impacts may take upwards of 300 years to be fully felt and the amount of global warming that takes place (total temperature rise) is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop. 61 Some irreversible impacts that should be expected over the coming century are dry-season rainfall reductions in several regions comparable to those of the “dust bowl” era, unavoidable fresh water scarcity and inescapable sea level rise. For instance, thermal expansion of the warming ocean alone provides a conservative lower limit to irreversible global average sea level rise estimates of possibly 1m.62

Although adaptive measures are extremely and increasingly important mitigation must be pursued with equal if not more importance attached. Only alleviating the symptoms of climate change through adaptation will not counter the effects. Without proper actions aimed at lessening the cause of climate change it will continue unabated, the symptoms will get worse and could eventually outpace the ability to adapt to them. Mitigating climate change is essential in lessening the potential future effects of global warming. Without mitigative actions, climate change will continue unabated and global warming will undoubtedly reach catastrophic levels. However, before being able to outline adaptive and mitigative strategies certain considerations become inescapable; they are vulnerability to and equity in climate change.

Vulnerability To and Equity in Climate Change

When determining what potential actions should be taken in dealing with climate change and global warming, notions of vulnerability and equity become extremely important. Vulnerability to climate change refers to the propensity of peoples or systems to be harmed by dangers caused by climate change. Vulnerability of a person, group of

61

Susan Solomon, et al. “Irreversible Climate Change due to Carbon Dioxide Emissions,” Proceeding of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America 106, no. 6 (February 2009):1705-6

62

(33)

people, region, group of regions etc. is determined by the amount of exposure and sensitivity to climate change impacts as well as their ability to resist, cope with, recover from and exploit the hazards of climate change impacts.63 Although everyone will feel the effects of climate change, vulnerability to it varies greatly.

Differences in vulnerability between countries affect how they can deal with it. If a state is extremely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change it will be forced to focus on adaptation in order to lessen its vulnerability. In other words, more vulnerable places will be less geared towards mitigation because their survival depends on it. This

highlights one important consideration for the overarching questions posed in this work. More vulnerable places have less ability to work towards mitigation; for those states adaptation may be their only means of addressing climate change.

Differences in vulnerability between states have been categorised to create a means of assessing climate change vulnerabilities through various vulnerability indexes. The idea behind vulnerability indexes is to obtain a score or ranking of how vulnerable a certain place or group is to the effects of climate change and global warming. Different rankings exist, yet most are relatively similar, generally designating the most

vulnerability to developing states.64 The prevalence of poverty and a lack of adequate public infrastructure are two factors that will augment the ecological, social and economic impacts of climate change in developing countries, i.e. their vulnerability.65 Likewise, climate change will make it even more difficult for developing states to break out of their current situations and reach their poverty alleviation and development objectives making them more vulnerable.66

63

Neil Leary, et al. “For Whom the Bell Tolls: Vulnerability in Climate Change.” In: Climate Change and Vulnerability, Neil Leary, et al. (eds.) (Sterling, VA: Earthscan

Publishing, 2008) :4 64

Hans-Martin Füssel and Richard J. T. Klein “Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments: An Evolution of Conceptual Thinking,” Climate Chang 75, no.3 ( April, 2006):305-307

65

Neil Leary, et al. : 8 66

John Abatzoglou, et al. (2), “Climate Change Effects: Global and Local Views,” in: Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren, Joseph F.C. DiMento and Pamela Doughman (eds.) (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2007):46-48

(34)

The Maplecroft Team, a British risk assessment consulting firm produced the

2009/10 Climate Change Risk Report that rated 166 countries on their climate change

vulnerability. The index measures how vulnerable a country is currently and how well prepared it is to combat the impacts of global warming in the future. The report names Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone and Burundi as the top five most vulnerable places to global warming and Norway, Finland, Japan, Canada and New Zealand as the countries least vulnerable to its effects.67 It seems counter intuitive that Nordic states or island states should be the least vulnerable to climate change, however vulnerability is a measurement of not only the potential effects in a given state but also the ability of that state to counter those effects. Norway, Finland, Japan, Canada and New Zealand are each highly developed states with high per capita incomes, good public services as well as democratic and transparent governing features which will be

positioned to effectively adapt to the effects they receive.

A recent World Bank report indicated which 12 states are the most vulnerable states for 6 different climate impacts including drought, flood, extreme weather events, sea level rise of 1m, sea level rise of 5m and agricultural productivity loss. Over 95 % of indicated states (69 of 72 states) are low income or middle income states and just over 4% are high income (3 of 72 states).68 When compared to the overall proportions of low or middle income states worldwide, it becomes abundantly clear that climate change will disproportionately affect those states. According to the 2010 World Economic Outlook released in April of 2010 by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) almost 16.5 % of states (32 of the 195) analysed fell under the high income category where as 83.5 % of

67

“Climate Change Vulnerability Map: 2010,” Climate Change Atlas: 2010. The Maplecroft Team (2009).

http://maplecroft.com/portfolio/doc/climate_change/Climate_Change_Poster_A3_201 0_ Web_V01.pdf (accessed on: 10/01/10)

68

World Bank, “Six Climate Threats: Top 12 Countries Most at Risk from Each,” reproduced in: Climate Adaptation and Development (Power Point presentation). (Washington, DC :Bali Breakfast/Development Committee Series, April 13, 2008):4. Accessed at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTCC/Resources/

Securitising of climate change

Table of Contents

List of Figures

Introduction

Part one: Unpacking Climate Change