Climate change and environmental collapse are undoubtedly two of the greatest security threats facing international society today. Scientists at the University of Bern have concluded that the speed and extent of current global warming is unparalleled by a similar event in 2000 years.

Michael Head

Climate change and environmental collapse are undoubtedly two of the greatest security threats facing international society today. Scientists at the University of Bern have concluded that the speed and extent of current global warming is unparalleled by a similar event in 2000 years. Despite this, the din created by these global matters has, at least in Britain, been drowned out by the asinine rumble of Brexit proceedings and domestic in-fighting. The following articles will point out, through the lenses of international inequality, crime and migration, that climate scepticism or governmental inertia surrounding it, is self-defeating, not only for the planet at large, but also for the domestic security and legitimacy of nation states.
-
Given the increasing precedence of jingoistic anti-immigration politics in the Western hemisphere, particularly in the shape of Trump’s pledge to “build a wall,” and an increasing number of forced migrants from extreme regions such as the Sahel, climate change must be integrated far more thoroughly into our understanding of global migration patterns. Centrally, those states pursuing stringent border policies would be far better served by leaders who recognise climate change as a key factor behind the increasing number of migrants and refugees trying to enter their countries in the first place. There is also scope to introduce the term “climate refugee” into international discourse, where currently there is limited protection for those forced from their homes due to environmental degradation.
To outline the startling correlation between climate change and migration, it is worth referring to the research carried out by Professor Norman Myers. A well respected Oxford don on the matter, Myers estimates, albeit roughly, that extreme environmental degradation could leave 200 million climate migrants displaced by 2050. This alone is greater than the current total migrant population and in real terms would mean one in every 45 people will have been driven from their homes at the hands of climate change by the middle of the century. The extreme predictions issued by researchers - constant droughts, intense rainfall patterns, smaller crop yields, depleted fish stocks, widespread health problems, reduced ice coverage, rising sea levels and frequent flooding - are well documented. However, these physical impacts appear to be neglected by key states, institutions and organisations in their approaches to migration and environmental policy.
Trump’s pledge to build a border wall along the US’ southern border proves this. Trump’s xenophobic and lazy response to what he perceives as a border “crisis” is shocking, given that unauthorised migration across the US borders is at a record low in recent years. His short response demonstrates an ignorance towards the growing threat posed to Central America by climate change and environmental degradation. As outlined by Myers, the effects of environmental degradation have begun forcing citizens north, to where the economy and workforce is industry-based rather than agricultural. In a Guardian article, it is reported that the average temperature in Central America has increased 0.5C since 1950 and it is projected to rise another 1-2 degrees before 2050. This suggests the guidelines of the Paris Climate Agreement will be surpassed in this region. Trump’s withdrawal from such a treaty is a politically charged and baseless act - it has created space for his generalisations of the Mexican population as criminal drug lords to linger in US media, whilst the environmental push factors behind migration are completely pushed to the side.
Trump’s blatant refusal to accept the impact of climate change upon the region he scorns is self-defeating and ignores a root cause of migration’s build up. Furthermore, the cutting of foreign aid to Central America will, in the long run, contribute to worsening conditions for populations. This removes a safety net of provisions for things like drought mitigation and climate-resistant agricultural practices. Given the widely reported conditions of US immigration detention centres, it is difficult to imagine, beyond economic benefits, wider motives to leave for such a hostile welcome. Climate change has started and will only continue to push large numbers of the Central American population to Trump’s America. To reiterate an earlier argument, Trump would be well advised to cooperate internationally on matters of climate in order to stem his fears regarding domestic border security.
The EU was also exposed to the real effects of climate-driven migration during the 2015-16 crisis. In particular, the Sahel region, made near enough inhospitable by desertification and widespread drought, is a notable case study in climate migration. Citizens of affected countries, including Niger, Chad and Mali, were branded ineligible for the kind of protection that would be given if they were fleeing war, dictatorship or persecution. Given that 80% of the Sahel’s workforce is based in agriculture, according to the Executive Secretary of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification, Monique Barbut, the extreme conditions precipitated by climate change do pose as serious a threat to this population as, say, the outbreak of civil war would. In response, the EU has established a $4.6 billion Emergency Trust Fund for Africa, aimed at addressing the root causes of displaced persons in Africa. Although this is promising, the scepticism of some EU member states, particularly those with hard-right governments like Orban’s Hungary, has raised concerns that the funds will be used to bolster border security at transit states in Northern Africa, Libya being a key example of this. As Trump’s border wall would, this traditional securitisation approach ultimately ignores a root cause of forced climate migration - land degradation - and compounds the suffering of those where government resources are drastically lacking. Put simply, an interminable quarantine will not solve the problem; resource sharing will.
Climate change should massively alter the way in which we label and classify migrants. As the danger posed by climate change becomes increasingly difficult for world leaders to ignore, it is now a realistic suggestion that the term “climate refugee” be incorporated into the discourse surrounding this important intersection. The UN Global Compact, currently the world’s largest corporate sustainability initiative, with over 13,000 participants and stakeholders over 170 countries, provides a “protection gap” for people forced from their homes due to environmental factors. However, such migrants are excluded from the current global asylum regime on the basis of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention which does not legislate for environmental factors, which were far less prevalent in the post-1945 era. This must be updated to match the current global security risk posed by irreversible climate change. Ultimately, the shortcomings and tardiness of international engagement on the matter of environmental degradation should not be burdened upon those forced to flee for a modicum of safety.
Future Thought Leaders is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of rising Energy &amp; Sustainability writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem. This article was also published as part of the <a href="https://issuu.com/kcldialogue/docs/dialogue_final_print">20th Edition </a>of <a href="https://issuu.com/kcldialogue">KCL Dialogue</a>.

Emerging Securities Part 3 of 3: Fleeing For Safety, The Link Between Our Changing Climate And Migration

Climate change and environmental collapse are undoubtedly two of the greatest security threats facing international society today. Scientists at the University of Bern have concluded that the speed and extent of current global warming is unparalleled by a similar event in 2000 years. Despite this, the din created by these global matters has, at least in Britain, been drowned out by the asinine rumble of Brexit proceedings and domestic in-fighting. The following articles will point out, through the lenses of international inequality, crime and migration, that climate scepticism or governmental inertia surrounding it, is self-defeating, not only for the planet at large, but also for the domestic security and legitimacy of nation states.
-
Walking across Waterloo Bridge was a somewhat eerie and disorientating necessity during the last two weeks of April. Rather than a flurry of buses, the bridge was gridlocked by an army of tents and Extinction Rebellion protestors. This was a central part of a two week lockdown of various key locations in London in response to the “criminal inaction” of government surrounding climate change, as explained by Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion, in early 2019. From its founding in October 2018, Extinction Rebellion has had three clear aims: to expose the true nature of climate change, to establish a citizen’s assembly and to turn Britain zero-carbon by 2025. Undoubtedly these aims are somewhat lacking in detail, yet they illustrate the clear conviction of the movement in altering policy and lifestyle in light of the immediate threat posed by climate change and environmental collapse. Since April, there has been a constant hum of dissent. More than 1,150 protestors have been arrested and major roads and workplaces have been blocked in London, Bristol, Cardiff and Glasgow, to name a few places.
This unprecedented level of civil disobedience in relation to climate change and environmental damage constitutes a threat to the domestic legitimacy of governments unwilling to make meaningful policy changes. It is the opinion of this article that the protests initiated in April are not evidence of anarchism; the relative intransigence in government energy, environmental and climate policy ought to be criticised. Extinction Rebellion has set out to do this, without aiming to overthrow government altogether. As such, government should realise the domestic security risk created by such civil disobedience and do all that is possible to change its approach.
Of course, it can be argued that the government has met this challenge. In June 2019, Theresa May legislated for a commitment to reach net zero emissions by the middle of the century, making Britain the first of the world’s seven major economies to do so. Despite this, protestors made their presence felt again a month later, blocking the Strand at the Royal Courts of Justice.
There are a handful of key issues with May’s approach. Firstly, it pushes the commitment date back to 2050, leaving methods to actually achieve this relatively undefined and at the mercy of whoever finds themselves in power over the next 30 years. Secondly, it does not exclude international carbon credits, whereby a country can pay for cuts elsewhere in lieu of domestic emissions. This pushes the burden upon developing countries and does not reflect the global threat posed by climate change, something argued by environmental group Greenpeace. Thirdly, the legislation was clearly part of a last ditch attempt made by May to establish some kind of positive legacy amongst the chaos of Brexit. Although this ambitious target is promising, it must be stated that it has not come without extreme pressure, from both Extinction Rebellion protestors and from within a hostile House of Commons. A public concession was needed to stem the disruption caused by the former and a relatively neutral policy needed to appease both sides of the latter. In a political environment saturated by Brexit, climate change was used to dispute claims that Theresa May had become a premier in office, but without power. More sincere and radical action is still needed however. Setting a target is a necessary first step but this does not give those in power time to rest on their laurels.
If one thing is clear, it is that government inaction will only reproduce further unrest. In July 2019, following the Extinction’s protest in Central London, the Met Police called for courts to pass tougher sentences for environmental protestors accused of causing “high disruption,” hoping they will act as a deterrent. The Met advised this would apply to acts of civil disobedience which verge on criminality and confirmed 900 cases from the April lockdown were being progressed by the Crown Prosecution Service, despite the fact it is expected many of those tried will be discharged on the condition there is no repeat offence. Police, of course, had to ensure disruption was ended quickly during the Spring, but this out of proportion crackdown months after risks stoking further animosity between protestors and the authorities. Indeed, members of Extinction Rebellion see an appearance in court as an opportunity to further stress the need for a radical overhaul of current environmental policy. Government should realise that conceding to these calls is not a sign of weakness, rather evidence-based policy making in action.
At a time of policing deficits, rising knife crime and an already overstretched criminal justice system, targeting those concerned by the prospect of complete environmental collapse and their right to peaceful protest, circumvents and ignores the underlying solution to this problem. Government has failed to take radical, far reaching action beyond setting this new emissions target. As such, frontline policing has been further drained by the Summer’s protests. This is expected to be further demonstrated in October, when the movement’s next mass protests will coincide with the deadline for Britain’s exit from the European Union. Ultimately the onus must land on our Government given that their slow approach to our changing environment, much like other G7 nations, has legitimised the actions of protestors. As such, the nation’s largest police force should not be relied upon to suppress non-violent environmental protest, whilst government is well positioned to prevent it.
Extinction Rebellion will continue to make headlines, not just because of the celebrity support it has garnered, but because its members demonstrate the growing threat posed by the destruction of our environment, to which government currently either cannot or will not properly respond. Labelling them as delinquent hippies or dangerous anarchists does little to help. Criticism of those who want to initiate change should be followed by more constructive suggestions of how protestors can use less damaging methods to secure their aims. Conservative-leaning commentary often forgets this through framing protestors, like those seen in April on Waterloo Bridge, as public enemies. One can only hope that such analysis becomes more inward looking, as government must now take hold of our environmental crisis with two firm hands and apply to it the same vigour consistently dedicated to Britain’s departure from Europe.
Future Thought Leaders is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of rising Energy &amp; Sustainability writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem. This article was also published as part of the <a href="https://issuu.com/kcldialogue/docs/dialogue_final_print">20th Edition </a>of <a href="https://issuu.com/kcldialogue">KCL Dialogue</a>.

Emerging Securities Part 2 of 3: Extinction Rebellion, Dangerous Anarchists Or Peaceful  Protestors? 

<h1>Overview</h1>
Climate change and environmental collapse are undoubtedly two of the greatest security threats facing international society today. Scientists at the University of Bern have concluded that the speed and extent of current global warming is unparalleled by a similar event in 2000 years. Despite this, the din created by these global matters has, at least in Britain, been drowned out by the asinine rumble of Brexit proceedings and domestic in-fighting. The following articles will point out, through the lenses of international inequality, crime and migration, that climate scepticism or governmental inertia surrounding it, is self-defeating, not only for the planet at large, but also for the domestic security and legitimacy of nation states.
<h1>EXPLAINING THE INEQUALITY OF CLIMATE CHANGE</h1>
The connection between inequality and climate change is one widely discussed and in this article it will be used to reinforce the need for strong leadership in light of the emerging global security threat posed by systemic climate trends. The summer’s European heatwave confirmed what has been increasingly clear since the signing of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol: swift and immediate action is needed to ensure that the damage caused by our changing climate does not become irreversible. Such sentiments are contradicted by a recent report submitted to the UN Human Rights Council in June 2019 which outlines the risk of a ‘climate apartheid,’ an inequality between developed and developing nations in terms of how global warming impacts them. The report suggested that poorer countries are expected to suffer at least 75% of the costs of climate change despite the fact that the poorer half of the world’s population generate just 10% of emissions. Climate intersects the structural poverty faced by the non-Western world; the unsustainable practices of the modern industrialised North could serve to undo poverty’s reduction.
The impacts of such inequality are well documented. A ground-breaking report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Autumn 2018 demonstrated that a global temperature rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius before the end of the century will result in poorer countries facing the risk of millions of premature deaths. Rising temperatures will greatly damage the economic security of the underdeveloped, with labour productivity lowered by extreme heat, not to mention a decreased crop yield which would reproduce the starvation that the UN has tried to reduce through Millennial Development Goals and the like. The prescriptions outlined by documents such as the Kyoto Protocol and The Paris Agreement acknowledge these threats but do not translate into concrete policies, meaning major powers, namely the US, have had leeway to play the “sovereignty card” and establish far stricter boundaries regarding their responsibility in fighting climate change if such commitments are not broadly upheld across the Atlantic. This was something demonstrated through Trump’s unilateral decision to withdraw the United States from the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement in June 2017, arguing against “draconian financial and economic burdens.” As such, collective agreement on the nature of current climate trends is needed in order to redress the imbalance seen in state action being taken to mitigate it and the starkly disparate consequences predicted if no action is taken at all.
In a time of burgeoning populism, it is becoming increasingly evident that the emerging security concerns surrounding climate change are also conditioned by key individuals who wield domestic influence. It is difficult to ignore the ill-defined stance taken by the Trump Administration vis-a-vis climate change, particularly as it is one which is presaged by the international inequality facilitated by the capitalist economy it presides over and must maintain at all costs. In this instance, business interests appear to override scientific evidence. If Trump can still confidently argue that climate change is a ‘Chinese hoax’ established to negatively impact US export capacity, as he did in 2012, then he must consider China’s efforts in mitigating climate change a mere accessory to this charade rather than an attempt to protect its own citizens from the harsh impact of its polluting industrialism.
If anything, this is demonstrative of populism’s assault upon nuanced policy. Focusing on the target of Trump’s bluster, China’s ongoing battle against air pollution means mitigating international climate change is in its own security interests. A highly circulated 2015 report by Robert Rohde and Richard Muller concluded that air pollution is responsible for up to 1.6 million deaths per year in China, explaining the establishment of a “carbon market” in 2017, through which the rights to emit greenhouse gases are being sold, providing a financial incentive for Chinese power companies to operate more cleanly and sustainably. Surely if China wanted to weaken US economic predominance through launching a climate change “hoax,” it could find simpler methods to establish it. Its recent policies are not scaffolding for a facade aimed at limiting American growth, but an acknowledgement of the threat current trends and predictions pose to China as a nation. Yet populism, immune to reason, blinds current policymakers in the White House. What should be clear is that the economic interests of the United States and China are interlinked with the progress made in mitigating climate change. Trump’s rhetoric may satisfy his national voter base but it also ignores this fundamental link and will harm his country both economically and environmentally in the long run.
The inequality global climate change is predicted to establish is one ultimately paralleled by an unequal distribution of power within the international system, something illustrated by US-Chinese relations. Trump’s unreliable approach to climate change is one of many failings which has revived a state of superpower suspicion paralleled by late Cold War tensions. As such, the human impact of extreme climate is often underestimated and the vulnerability of those who will suffer most, forgotten. The world’s superpowers, meanwhile, are quick to ensure a certain degree of autonomy on the issue, despite the fact it is themselves that have seen record temperatures during the Summer’s heatwave, leading to deaths in the worst cases. France, for example, recorded its highest ever temperature of 45.9C in the southern village of Gallargues-le-Montueux during a June heatwave, whilst the extreme heat sparked wildfires in Spain and claimed two lives. Of course, this cannot be equated to a particular state’s energy and climate policy alone, but it does reinforce the fact that climate change is a globally threatening phenomenon. As such, it is not time for the world’s great economies to pull their purse strings tighter but to accept that development occurs at uneven rates and superpower leadership and cooperation is still needed on matters of global security.
Acknowledging inequality is key in fighting climate change; it must be a central focus in any discussion regarding it. Although explanation for our changing climate is atmospheric, its most brutal consequences will be faced by those with two feet planted firmly on the ground and often by those lacking the most basic resources required for self-protection. According to the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), the 20 warmest years since records began have all been within the past 22 years. Perhaps more alarming is the fact that the years 2015-2018 make up the four hottest years on record. Given that the ramifications of this are expected to be realised in our century, pressure must be placed upon policy makers to put global security and collective action ahead of state interest. If one thing is certain, it is that succumbing to populism and reigniting superpower suspicion will not fit the bill.
Future Thought Leaders is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of rising Energy &amp; Sustainability writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem. This article was also published as part of the <a href="https://issuu.com/kcldialogue/docs/dialogue_final_print">20th Edition </a>of <a href="https://issuu.com/kcldialogue">KCL Dialogue</a>.

You can’t miss it!

Michael Head

Michael Head

Emerging Securities Part 3 of 3: Fleeing For Safety, The Link Between Our Changing Climate And Migration

Recent publications

Readers also like

Want to know more about illuminem Voices?