by Qirat Mirza 2 October 2023
In the contemporary world, where each country is striving to have a preponderant position in global politics by either enhancing their military capabilities or alliances, they have failed to pay heed to climate change. Environmental security theory in International Relations argues that an increase in environmental disturbances namely the shortening of resources will increase confrontations between the states. In a globalized world, environmental change has raised serious concerns involving contributing to warfare whether it is civil or international wars. In areas where there are conflicts or wars, the people living there are often more at risk when it comes to the effects of climate change. This is because these regions are already dealing with the challenges of conflict, which can make it even harder for them to cope with things like extreme weather, droughts, or rising sea levels. Climate change is a threat multiplier that will exacerbate the problems that vulnerable community in the world is already facing. The poverty, political instability, and crime are magnified by increased droughts, floods, or heat waves. Increases in various climate-related disturbances such as floods, droughts, or fires further stress already vulnerable communities and threaten their livelihoods. The environmental disturbances might increase the competition between different nations of the world for access to natural resources or fertile lands, especially for the countries relying on agricultural practices for food production.
The failure of governments to invest in infrastructure for environmental protection leads to political instability, civil war and displacements of refugees. Researchers at Princeton University and UC Berkeley found that a rise in average annual temperature by even 1° Celsius (1.8° Fahrenheit) leads to a 4.5% increase in civil war that year. Sudan already had social and political tensions among different groups. Climate change aggravated these tensions as people fought for the limited resources. It also caused the land in Sudan to become drier and reduced rainfall. This made it difficult for people to find enough food and clean water. Scarcity of food and water due to climate change led to fear and tensions among the people. Some Sudanese people rebelled against the government due to these problems. The government responded to the rebellion with violence, making the situation worse.
Another example is of ongoing civil war in Syria since 2011 because of the drought, there wasn’t enough water, and people couldn’t grow food. This made many families hungry. As the farmers left their farms to go to the cities in search of food for their families, more and more people crowded into the cities. This caused tensions to rise because there wasn’t enough to go around, like jobs and food. Climate change not only made the drought worse, but also add in Syria’s already weak economy, bad leadership, and unfair treatment of some people, which created a situation where a civil war broke out. Somalia is also suffering one of the most acute humanitarian crises and the worst drought in the world. A crushing combination of conflict and climate change has left millions in jeopardy of starvation as famine again stalks the land. There has been no rain there since two years and many people have left their homes in search of food and water.
A big lake called Lake Chad used to be the sixth-largest freshwater lake in the world. It’s located near the Sahara Desert and provides water for people in Niger, Nigeria, Cameroon, and Chad. In the late 1900s, because of the drought Lake Chad started to shrink, like water in a puddle drying up. As the lake got smaller, the people who lived around it had to move closer to it to get water and other things they needed to live. Farmers and herders, who both relied on the lake had to compete for what was left, started to argue and fight over access to it.
When it comes to money and resources to tackle climate change, there’s a gap, or a difference, between countries that are relatively stable (not facing major conflicts) and countries that are fragile (experiencing conflicts or political instability). Most of the money and resources for dealing with climate change are often allocated to stable countries, where things are more organized and peaceful. However, it’s just as crucial, if not more so, to support places affected by conflict because they face a double challenge: managing the impacts of climate change while dealing with the fallout of conflict. We need to allocate a bigger portion of the funding meant for addressing climate change to these conflict-affected regions. This would help these communities better adapt to the changing climate, build resilience, and reduce the added burden of climate-related issues on top of their existing challenges. It’s about making sure that vulnerable communities, especially in conflict zones, get the support they need to face the growing threats of climate change.