Conflict from Climate Change

Conflict from Climate Change Post #3

Concurring with Neo-Malthusian arguments, environmental depletion and human caused climate
change lead to scarcity-based conflict. Of course this cannot be true in all circumstances, but the
financial tension between governments and their people caused from scarcity is a convincing cause for conflict in poor nations. Furthermore, expediential population growth, which appears mostly in these particularly poor areas, can exacerbate the scarcity, which increases financial insecurity as the government struggles to raise revenue and create solutions at the same time (Kahl, 257-258). Although scarcity conflicts might all be similar, there is no uniform solution to these problems, but instead any solution, which would need to come from a developed nation, would have to be determined on a case-by-case instance.  First I will argue that climate change and scarcity in poor environments lead to conflicts. Then I will propose possible solutions or responses to these problems.

Accepting conflict at “individual level violence and aggression to county-level political instability and civil war,” Solomon Hsuang found significant evidence arguing that extremes in rain fall and temperature in low-income states are associated with political instability (Huang et all). Droughts might seem like a silly reason to start a conflict with the government in an American setting, but removing oneself from the comfort and luxury provided in the American system it begins to make sense. In poor sub Saharan lands where the economy is driven by agriculture, not enough rain limits the access to water and the ability to grow crops. These people now are not only struggling to gain access to water and grow enough food to eat, but their livelihood is also destroyed. In America we could either trade for the necessary products, because we have money or develop the necessary technology to battle the drought as we have with GMO’s. The poor developing country does not have those available buyouts.  Instead they have a double-edged sword of demand and no supply to fix the problems. The people will turn to their government to create a solution (irrigation or dam), but in order for the government to provide a solution they would need to collect money from the people who have no money because of the drought. The solution to the problem requires that the problem never happened in the first place. The government’s inability to help can cause political instability or possibly a violent response as seen in the next paragraphs example. Poor countries do not have the resources to create proper mitigation plans.

         
Now imagine the same government developed some land that suffered less from the drought and they were going to give certain farmers this land. The unequal distribution and scarcity of this land is similar to the Kenya African National Union Party’s monopoly over fertile Rift Valley in the 1980’s.  In this case the control over a scarce resource in an overpopulated area led to “clashes that left 1,500 dead and hundreds of thousands homeless” (Kahl 258)

         
Arguments against scarcity-conflicts rely on technology, money and stable governments. The Cornucopian response argues that humans will always find a way to overcome scarcity either by creating an alternate source or by becoming more efficient. Thomas Homer Dixon finds that although we may have found solutions in the past, the new problems are harder to fix and there are more problems occurring simultaneously. Furthermore, he points out that our consumption is only going to increase as population increases making finding a solution to scarcity much more severe.

         
Lastly, developed countries created many developing countries environmental problems, hence making it the developed countries responsibility to help solve these issues.  A Becky Oskin article, “Africa’s Worst Drought Tied to West’s Pollution” on LiveScience.com explains that American and European aerosol usage created one of the longest droughts in African history. From 1970-1990 rain patterns were altered because of northern hemisphere pollution causing massive droughts. These droughts, which likely led to famines, killed hundreds of thousands of people (Oskin). These developed powers should take an active role in helping to heal poor countries of their scarcity issues, without exploiting their resources. Oil is money driven and a complex issue that more American intervention in would likely create even more conflicts. As for countries that rely on oil or diamonds for income there will be a greater struggle in solving scarcity-conflicts. But helping poor countries create irrigation systems or water purification plants could help developing nations regulate scarce resources in a more civil manor.  Mitigation is an important step to avoid having scarcity conflicts in the future. As stated earlier there is no uniform solution, but instead in areas where conflicts over scarcity have occurred, the developed countries should work with those governments on creating a solution.

Kahl, Colin, "Demography, Environment and Civil Strife". Green Planet Blue. West View Press (2010).

Oskin, Becky, "Africa's Worst Drought Tied to West's Pollution"  http://www.livescience.com/37282-north-america-pollution-caused-africa-drought.html (2013)

Quantifying the Influence of Climate on Human Conflict
Solomon M. Hsiang et al. Science 341, (2013);


Homer-Dixon, "Cornucopian and Neo-Malthusians" (1991)