The Journal Climate Change has just released a new special issue titled “Climate and Security: Evidence, Emerging Risks, and a New Agenda.” This issue provides a timely assessment of the current state of peer-reviewed climate and security research. It is critically important to continue research in the space and disentangle the links between climate change, peace and conflict. This body of research suggests that there is ample evidence that climate change can act as a “threat multiplier” – exacerbating other socio-political, economic and environmental conditions, but that there is a need to continue investigating the minutiae of how exactly climate change interacts with these factors, and what it could mean for a future with a greater intensity and frequency of climatic events.
Here are the articles in the issue. Unfortunately, full access requires payment, but even if you are unable to access the journal it is worth reading the abstracts.
- Climate and security: evidence, emerging risks, and a new agenda, François Gemenne, Jon Barnett, W. Neil Adger, Geoffrey D. Dabelko
- Climate science in climate security scenarios, Kirsty Lewis
- Climate change hotspots mapping: what have we learned?, Alex de Sherbinin
- Climate, conflict, and social stability: what does the evidence say?, Solomon M. Hsiang, Marshall Burke
- Climate change and energy security: an analysis of policy research, Marcus DuBois King, Jay Gulledge (we covered this article previously here).
- Hydro-climatic change, conflict and security, Giorgos Kallis, Christos Zografos
- Integrating climate change into peace building, Richard Matthew
Thank you, very informative. IMHO, the greatest interest was the essay «Integrating climate change into peacebuilding» by Richard Matthew. Least because it referred to “an instrument of climate change ” and ” … to reduce the likelihood of a more complex and costly problems in the future .” When I started work on the development of technology climate stabilization in the Northern hemisphere , used vehicle ” Probability Theory » by von Mizes. I made the first model had a probabilistic nature , so forth – to stabilize the climate – recommendations could well prove to be erroneous . Anyway, used , and possibly inaccurate raw data (realized probabilistic model ) to guarantee error in the results obtained . Consequently, formulated on the basis of false positives recommendations could not be – in principle ! – Workers. Then I tried to put myself ( sorry) to the place of the Creator , and concluded that in the activity Creator did not use ” probabilistic approach” , but was guided by “pure determinism .” Building a deterministic model was much more difficult … compared to manufacturing a probabilistic model . But the accuracy of the results and recommendations were adjusted incomparably better . PS. I think , Richard Matthew – on the right track .