Current debates over the relation between climate change and conflict originate in a lack of data, as well as the complexity of pathways connecting the two phenomena.

A recent Climatic Change review article reports a remarkable convergence of scientific evidence for a link between climatic events and violent intergroup conflict, thus departing markedly from other contemporary assessments of the empirical literature. This commentary revisits the review in order to understand the discrepancy. We believe the origins of the disagreement can be traced back to the review article's underlying quantitative meta-analysis,

No abstract

No abstract

Recent research has provided new insights into the relationship between climate change and violent conflict. In this review we compare the results, methodologies, and data applied in the peer-reviewed literature to recap the current state of the debate. While long-term historical studies suggest a coincidence between climate variability and armed conflict, empirical findings are less conclusive for recent periods. Disentangling the climate-conflict nexus, we discuss causal pathways such as precipitation changes, freshwater scarcity, food insecurity, weather extremes, and environmental migration. A geographic differentiation indicates that countries with low human development are particularly vulnerable to the double exposure of natural disasters and armed conflict. Thus, effective institutional frameworks and governance mechanisms are important to prevent climate-induced conflicts and to strengthen cooperation. Applying an integrative framework connecting climate change, natural resources, human security, and societal stability, we pinpoint future research needs.

The structure of arms imports financing has changed considerably in the past. While in the fifties and sixties grants prevailed, in the seventies credits and cash-payments became most important. It is not possible to indicate how much of arms credits were included in available debt statistics. Anyhow, some theorizing has led to the conclusion that direct military credits might not be such an interesting indicator if we are interested in the total burden imposed on Third World countries through the credit financing of arms imports. I have therefore introduced an 'opportunity cost' assessment. Both from direct payment statistics and my indirect estimates, I conclude that in the second half of the nineteen seventies credit payments became the most important financing source of arms imports. Measured indirectly, in the second half of the seventies, more than half of all arms imports in the Third World were credit financed. The opportunity cost burden of military credits in the second half of the seventies rose to about 20 to 30% of all real inflow of debt to Third World countries. Had the Third World countries importing debt capital in 1979 not imported arms in 1979, the net transfers of debt could have been up to 20 to 30% lower. The opportunity cost burden of accumulated debt over time is estimated at around 20% of the total Third World debt burden for 1979. For the same year, I estimate that interest in amortization of old debt added up to more than twice the cost of new weapon imports for credit importing countries. The fast rising credit burden of arms imports adds a very important dimension for the burden measurement of Third World arms imports.

No abstract

This paper looks at recent studies that have addressed climate change as a security issue. Posing climate change as a pro blem for security has provided it with a major boost in attention. However, it raises the potential of 'securitization', i.e. that the issue is primarily addressed via traditional means of security policy. The paper analyses how selected studies frame the issue of climate change and security and considers what recommendations they make on dealing with the problem. Among its findings are that the framing of climate change as a security issue is not based on well founded analysis but is rather largely driven by ad hoc theo ries on the links between environmental degradation and violent conflict. A second finding is that different conceptualisations of security lead to different types of recommendation on how to deal with the consequences of climate change as they relate to peace and security. Securitizing the issue therefore does not necessarily lead the authors of studies to prescribe predominantly traditional security instruments for dealing with crises. However, although the authors reach different conclusions, their diagnosis of climate change as a security issue is likely to push the climate change discourse towards the use of traditional security instruments. A third finding of the paper is therefore that the mixing of different conceptions of security may increase the 'attention grabbing' power of studies but also muddle their messages.