New Security Challenges in the Global Era: Environmental Security

Ms. Elizabeth L. Chalecki

Research Associate

Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security  

We are more sensible of what is done against custom than against Nature.

-Plutarch (A.D. 46 – A.D. 120)

Introduction

The environment is the planetary support system on which all other human enterprises depend. If political, social, cultural, religious, and most importantly economic systems are to remain secure and viable, the environment must also remain secure and viable. This makes global environmental conditions a legitimate U.S. national security concern.

The security of individuals, communities, nations, and the entire global community is increasingly jeopardized by unpremeditated, non-military environmental threats. These threats are self-generated: we perpetrate them on ourselves, by fouling our air and water, and overharvesting our land. These threats are not felt equally around the world. Southern countries face severe problems from desertification, while northern industrial countries deal with acid rain, and polar regions see large depositions of persistent organic chemical pollutants. Climate change will cause uneven effects over the entire globe for the next fifty to 100 years, with some countries benefiting and others suffering. This paper briefly examines the concept of environmental security and offers some current examples. Ensuring environmental security means accepting a new definition of what it means to be secure: that a military response is not applicable to all security threats, and that we must consider trans-boundary, cooperative solutions.

What is Environmental Security?

The flow chart below illustrates the path by which human economic activities can lead to environmental instability and from there to conflict.

This pathway contains feedback loops to prevent the process from reaching the final stage. For example, a system of carbon dioxide emission trading permits helps mitigate the global environmental changes from industry and manufacturing (1). Alternatively, rationing scarce resources might prevent civil disturbance following shortages (2). Any such negative feedback loop contributes to environmental security.

Environmental security reflects the ability of a nation or society to withstand 1) environmental asset scarcity, 2) environmental risks or adverse changes, and 3) environment-related tensions or conflicts. Any or all of these problems can result in a nation facing a security problem of environmental origins.

Asset Scarcity – Fresh Water Resources

The world's supply of fresh water remains roughly constant, at about 2 ½ percent of all water, and of that, almost two thirds is stored in ice caps and glaciers, inaccessible to humans. We have existed and flourished on our use of the remaining amount. However, humans have grown so numerous that the usual response to anticipated water scarcity--to increase supply with dams, aqueducts, canals, and wells--is beginning to push against the absolute limit of how much water we can access. Consequently, fresh water is becoming a scarce resource, both in terms of absolute, or ecological, scarcity as well as relative, or economic, scarcity.

Water Quantity

Many different users compete for water: agriculture, industry, ecosystem users, and domestic users. To offset quantity shortages, water is often allocated from low-value uses such as agriculture to high-value uses such as urban consumption. This competition can lead to bitter social and economic divisions. Recently in California, drought and previously negotiated ecosystem uses denied farmers in the Klamath Valley their irrigation water. As a result, they tore down irrigation gates and occupied state property.[1] They dispersed before the National Guard was called, but on a larger scale, such a situation could easily have given rise to significant civil unrest. Internationally, civil unrest erupted over use and allocation of water from Baiyangdian Lake – the largest natural lake in northern China. Several people died in riots by villagers in July 2000 in Shandong after officials cut off water supplies. In August 2000, six died when officials in the southern province of Guangdong blew up a water channel to prevent a neighboring county from diverting water.[2] Depending on the parties involved, unrest over water in foreign countries can easily become a security problem for the United States, which may be called to send peacekeeping troops to divide opposing forces and restore order.

International water unrest is not limited to a few areas, either. The map below shows the river basins shared by two or more nations. In five of the world's most contentious water basins--the Aral Sea region, the Ganges, the Jordan, the Nile, and the Tigris-Euphrates--rapid projected population growth--up to 75% by 2025--threatens to turn the basins into cauldrons of hostility.

To date, however, water wars haven't been as prevalent as it would seem. Aaron Wolf, an Oregon State University specialist in water conflicts, has found that during the twentieth century only 7 minor skirmishes were fought over water while 145 water-related treaties were signed. He argues that one reason is strategic: in a conflict involving river water, the aggressor would have to be both downstream (since the upstream nation enjoys unhampered access to the river) and militarily superior. An upstream riparian would have no cause to launch an attack, and a weaker state would be foolhardy to do so.[3]

Water Quality

Even when water is allocated equitably, diminishing water quality can give rise to new conflicts. Upstream pollution from industrial and agricultural runoff can make water unsuitable for its intended downstream use. In addition, salt water is increasingly intruding into coastal aquifers and estuaries from increasing fresh water diversions, making the resulting water brackish. Excessive groundwater drawdown is also causing land subsidence in places like Los Angeles, Beijing, and Mexico City.

Some free market proponents have advocated free trade in water; in essence, making fresh water another tradable commodity on the global market. However, a water market is not a safety valve for water scarcity by any means. An open market merely means that available water goes to the highest bidder, causing resentment in poorer areas. This type of water fiat by wealth can cause both a civil and international backlash. U.S.- Canada relations are currently souring over the issue of exporting Canadian water to the United States.

Risks and Adverse Changes: Climate Change

Climate change is undoubtedly the most wide-ranging environmental security problem we face. Climate change, also known as global warming, occurs when carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap heat from the sun’s rays, raising ambient air temperature and altering precipitation patterns all over the planet. These gases are emitted from industrial production, from combustion engines, and to a lesser degree from living ecosystems. The effects of climate change have already begun, but we won’t feel the full effects for another 50-100 years.

Climate change poses considerable national security risks. Sea level rise will inundate coastlines in Florida, Louisiana, Hawaii, New York and other states, causing physical loss of U.S. territory and accelerating saline intrusion into aquifers. Thawing permafrost will cause land subsidence in Alaska, disrupting operations of security facilities such as Eielson Air Force Base. The nation’s energy security will be affected by climate change as well. Fluctuating temperatures will cause greater fuel demand for heating and air conditioning. This means greater demand for fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas, entangling the United States permanently in the politics and battles of the Middle East. President Bush’s energy plan calls for an increased reliance on fossil fuels, while at the same time slashing the amount dedicated to research on renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and geothermal by 37%.[4] Yet this approach would seem to contradict the idea of energy security: we are now more dependent upon imported fossil fuels than we were at the height of the energy crisis in the 1970s.

Those who decry renewables as a California eco-pipe dream, and yet wish to disentangle U.S. energy demand from the situation in the Middle East state that the answer is simple: the United States needs to revive its investments in nuclear power.

However, g

reater emphasis on nuclear power has its own security concerns. A larger number of operational nuclear plants means more attention must be paid to nuclear plant security; while a terrorist strike into a nuclear plant could not cause an atomic explosion, radiogenically contaminated material from a damaged plant is dangerous and costly to clean up. In addition, there would be a greater chance for illegal diversion and further enrichment of nuclear fuel materials, both on the front and back ends of the nuclear cycle.

Climate change will alter disease vectors globally. This impacts military readiness by incapacitating troops stationed overseas. It also exacerbates instability in countries where the United States has interests. Public health emergencies may slow down the transitions to democracy and a free market economy in areas like the former Soviet Union. Higher disease rates also contribute to humanitarian emergencies and civil conflicts. Infectious disease-related embargoes and restrictions on travel and immigration can cause foreign policy friction between the United States and other countries.

Food security is defined as “access by all peoples at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life”[5] Climate change, through its effects of precipitation and soil moisture, will affect U.S. agricultural output, directly impacting the nation’s food security. This is one area where the United States might benefit from climate change, at least in the beginning. Due to increasing precipitation, most non-irrigated crops should show an increase in yield, though irrigated crops will suffer.[6] Despite the fact that individual predictions are uncertain, nothing is as essential to maintaining civil order as food security. Fluctuations in agricultural output are likely to spook the grain and food commodity markets, and may result in shortages and food riots.

Tensions and Conflicts: Land Degradation

An example of environmentally-related general tension is the degradation and desertification of land. This degradation is caused by many factors: climate change, poor farming, drought, and pre-existing conflicts, to name a few. This is also a serious environmental security issue, because as mentioned previously, nothing worries a government more than a population that can’t be fed. The loss of arable land leads to the displacement of rural agricultural workers, mostly men, to urban areas to look for work. The problems of this move are twofold. First, the less land in production and fewer workers to farm the land means a net loss of food production. Second, many cities, especially in the developing world, do not have enough jobs and are not equipped to handle a large influx of workers. Consequently, more and more of those moving to cities are unable to find work and live in poverty. This concentration of idle men can provide a willing breeding ground for revolutionary philosophy and civil war, as occurred in both the Philippines and in Somalia. Only the latter has resulted in active U.S. military intervention, but as land degradation forces more workers into the cities, this type of situation is likely to arise more often.

Tensions and Conflicts: Southeastern Anatolia Project

Alternatively, an example of a specific environmentally-related conflict is Turkey’s plan to dam the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Called the Southeastern Anatolia Project (or its Turkish acronym, GAP), this massive development work will cost $32 billion USD and envisages construction of 22 dams and 19 hydroelectric power plants on these rivers and their tributaries.[7] In the Tigris-Euphrates basin, Turkey's position upstream gives it enormous leverage over its downstream neighbors, Syria and Iraq, who are concerned about the continuity of their water supply. It's likely that Syria's longtime support of the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party in Turkey was at least partly a way of countering Turkey's control over 80 percent or more of Syria's water.[8] But once Turkey captured Abdullah Ocalan, a Kurdish guerrilla leader who had lived in Syria for nearly two decades, Syria's leverage against Turkey declined, and the GAP moved ahead. The map below shows Turkey’s southeastern border. The GAP will further diminish the flow of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, already diminished by drought and development, into Iraq and Syria, increasing the likelihood of water conflicts in this region.

Environmental Terrorism

One frightening and plausible resource attack is environmental terrorism. This is defined as, “The unlawful use of force against in situ environmental resources so as to deprive populations of their benefit(s) and/or destroy other property.”[9] With the horrific terrorist attacks of September 11 only recently behind us, the United States must re-examine how its resources and infrastructure are vulnerable to such terror. Built structures like skyscrapers were the last attack; environmental resources may well be the next one.

The targets of environmental terrorism can be varied and quite damaging. In the area of water resources, a dam, a river, or a reservoir could be vulnerable to physical attack or contamination through a chemical or biological agent. The picture below shows the Meuse River, in France, after striking chemical plant workers dumped 790 tons of sulfuric acid into it in order to force the French government to give in to their labor demands. The French government did give in, and it is unknown whether or not the workers were ever prosecuted for their actions, but since they made no attempt to isolate the effects of the acid from non-combatant civilians, this was clearly an act of environmental terrorism.

Other resources besides water are also vulnerable. Forest fires can be set on purpose, resulting in property damage and human health threats. Agricultural crops can be poisoned, resulting in food insecurity. Petroleum fields or pipelines are vulnerable to physical attack, depriving the United States of energy supplies as well as fouling the environment.

Environmental Refugees

Each of the above security threats can, in turn, generate a serious environmental problem: refugees. An increase in the number of refugees fleeing an unstable situation is an environmental nightmare in itself. As these adverse changes and conflicts multiply, the United States will see more trans-border land crossings from Mexico and Canada, and increased INS applications from other parts of the world.

A larger number of environmental refugees means greater environmental degradation from pressure of refugee populations; they can literally overwhelm the carrying capacity of the land they are forced onto. This means that food and fresh water will rapidly run out, resulting in refugees scrounging for whatever sustenance they can find. Deteriorating conditions at refugee camps also lead to outbreaks of disease such as cholera.

Large numbers of refugees can create security problems for the government of the country that accepts them. If the refugees are of another race or ethnic group, social instability can result from refugee absorption into the dominant culture. In addition, accepting refugees means officially acknowledging the causative problem in the neighboring country (e.g., a civil war or inept environmental management). Depending upon the situation, this can have negative foreign policy ramifications.

Conclusion

Environmental security threats are coming up on military threats as a leading cause of international insecurity, between states and between peoples. However, international cooperation in solving environmental problems can assist in solving security problems as well. Since many environmental issues such as acid rain, ozone depletion and climate change are not confined to one nation, or even one bioregion or watershed, building a cooperative tradition in dealing with these issues before they cause conflict.

The United States is currently signatory to several critical multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs): the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, the Basel Convention on the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste, the Montreal Protocol on the Depletion of the Ozone Layer, and the Convention on Migratory Species to name a few. By adopting this international environmental protective regime to issues of environmental degradation, we can work to alleviate conditions that may lead to future insecurity and violence. Embracing environmental security offers a fruitful basis for international cooperation because successful resolution requires states to work together rather than against each other. The transboundary nature of globalization can work for our security as well as against it.

---

[1] Martin, Glen. 2001. “Drought Could Be Our Next Crisis” San Francisco Chronicle, 22 July 2001, A-1.

[2] Pottinger, M. 2000. “Major Chinese lake disappearing in water crisis.” Reuters Science News, http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20001220/sc/environment_china_dc_1.html.

[3] Leslie, Jacques. 2000. “Running Dry” Harper’s Magazine. July 2000.

[4] Sierra Club. 2001. As found at www.sierraclub.org/energy/bush_plan.html.

[5] World Bank. 1996.

[6] U.S. National Assessment of Climate Change: Agricultural Sector Report. As found at www.nacc.usgcrp.gov/sectors/agriculture.

[7] Mann, Amar S. 2001. “Archaeology and the Southeastern Anatolia Project (GAP)” As found in Gleick, Peter H., ed. The World’s Water 2002-2003. Forthcoming.

[8] Leslie, Jacques. 2000. “Running Dry” Harper’s Magazine. July 2000.

[9] Chalecki, Elizabeth L. “A New Vigilance: Identifying and Reducing the Risks of Environmental Terrorism” Global Environmental Politics. In press.