Trondheim: 21- 24 June 2010

The purpose of the Climate Change and Security Conference is to examine the broad security implications of climate change. For the last few years, the debate about climate change has increasingly focused on the social implications, including the implications for security and peace. But as yet there is little academic work in this area. While the science of climate change is well established on the basis of peer-reviewed publications, the literature on the security implications remains more speculative. We aim to move this field forward with the joint efforts of scholars from multiple fields.

The purpose of this conference is to examine the broad security implications of climate change. For the last few years, the debate about climate change has increasingly focused on the social implications, including the implications for security and peace. But as yet there is little academic work in this area. While the science of climate change is well established on the basis of peer-reviewed publications, the literature on the security implications remains more speculative. We aim to move this field forward with the joint efforts of scholars from multiple fields.

The Economist: Climate Wars

Check out The Economist’s coverage of the conference in the current issue.

Wrap up Session

After four days focusing and discussing climate and security issues, several attendants have suggested to repeat the conference in some years.

Erik Gartzke

During 18 impressive minutes Erik Gartzke summed up his main findings regarding the relationship between climate changes and interstate conflict.

Want to know more?  Have a look at his PowerPoint Presentation.

Midsummer Night

Photos from the trip are to be found at social events.

Participants: Contact Information

Here you find the contact information of all participants: Participants

If you are missing, or don’t  want your information to be made public; please send an email to mdahl@prio.no

Paul’s Way

My own Comment

What makes Paul unusual is not his publication list. Neither is it his career at the World Bank. It is rather the fact that he has combined the two careers, and is able to speak with both audiences; academics as well as policy makers. The topic of the Climate Change and Security Conference is just the kind that needs the policymaker’s attentions. Or to cite one of the participants here at the conference; there’s no need in doing what we are doing, unless someone outside cares. Well, Paul is an expert on this. He has his own way of simplifying the complexity; making both what is happening and what needs to be done obvious. Reading him, I’m not always convinced. Listening to him, I am.

Paul is trying to establish a middle ground far away from extremists on both sides. His commitment is proven by his mailbox. For every mail accusing him for sleeping with the environmentalist, he receives one claiming that he is too comfortable in the pockets of the capitalists. According to Paul neither the extremes on the left nor right will prove helpful when climate changes reaches Africa for real. While Africa is not the cause of the climate change, it seems to be one of the main targets of its unfortunate consequences. Africa’s economy is highly dependent on agriculture. As climate is expected to be more volatile, and probably warmer and dryer in the future, farming will be harder. Thus it is necessary to adjust to the forthcoming situation. To do so Paul has two suggestions: shifting to genetically modified crops (GMO’s), and boosting industrialization.

By shifting to GMO’s, Africa can develop crops that better tackles heat. However the necessary GMO’s does not exist yet, and the reason apparently is clear. To cite Paul: “In 1996, Europe for its own idiotic reasons rejected GMO crops”. The GMO ban, led by environmentalists such as Prince Charles, is lacking any scientific research showing why we should not have it. By re-abandoning the ban, Africa might be less sensitive to climate changes. Paul’s second suggestion is to boost industrialization. While agriculture is highly sensitive towards climate changes many industries are not.       Nonetheless, entering an already developed industry is not easy, and we need both to provide the necessary infrastructure and access to markets.

Both shifting to GMO’s and boosting industrialization is likely to make Africa’s economy less prone to climate changes. However, the obstacles to his initiative lay both to the left and the right of his very own position. If this is going to happen he will have to convince capitalists as well as environmentalists. Only question is how likely that is.

Does Climate Changes Lead to More Conflict?

Does Climate Changes lead to more conflicts? This is the topic of the first plenary session today, including Marshall B. Burke, Nils Petter Gleditsch and Karen M. Witsenburg. Dr Burke is the lead author of article on Warming increases the risk of civil war in Africa (Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 2009). His research suggests that warm years in the recent past are strongly linked to increases in African civil war, and when combined with climate model projections of future temperature trends, this historical response of war to temperature suggests as much as a 50% increase in incidence of civil war by 2030. Dr Gleditsch on the other hand argues there is little peer-reviewed evidence in favor of climate changes leading to an increase in civil conflicts.Dr. Witsenburg adds to the question with a case study from Northern Kenya.

15.45: Paul Collier

Today Paul Collier will give his speech on the implications of climate change in Africa. The heavy economic dependency on agriculture in African countries make them more vulnerable for climate change. In order to adapt to the changes Collier suggest that it might be wise to speed up industrialization, urbanization and make use of GMOs (Genetically modified organism).

If you have any questions; please contact press secretary Marianne Dahl at (+47)98822886

Discounting the future-the major controversy in the economics of climate change

Kjell Arne Brekke has just given an impressive overview of the major controversies in the economics for climate change.

His own summary of the speech:

The main benefits from reduced emissions of CO₂ are in the future – the far future – and have to be balanced against immediate costs. In the debate about the economics of climate change, the main issue has been the choice of the discount rate. William Nordhaus, a pioneer in the modelling of the economic effects of climate change, has criticized the Stern Review for using an excessively low discount rate. Some argue that discounting is unethical, others that no discounting is unethical. Some also argue that the market provides options for transfers to future generations that are better than extensive abatement. There has also been some confusion about what exactly is meant by the discount rate. I will survey the discussion and add some of my own perspectives, which generally favour a low rate.

Guided tour at Nidaros Cathedral followed by a delicious dinner in the Archbishop’s residence