Yes, says David Miliband, UK Environment Secretary. 

He draws a connection between the fight against climate change and natural resource conflicts.

Mr Miliband, in a speech to the global environment campaign group WWF, said tackling climate change was “our best hope of addressing the underlying causes of future conflict in the world, and is as significant for foreign policy as it is environment policy”.

Well, I like where his heart is, optimism is certainly a useful attitude when attempting to tackle such an enormous problem.  These sound to me like the words of an environmentalist overestimating his issue’s importance.  While I agree that a successful campaign against global warming would increase future prospects for cooperation, I think it would be foolish to assume that it is our best foreign policy hope, or that it would curtail future conflicts.  In light of the growing consensus concerning climate change, it is reasonable to expect undesirable consequences from global warming (even if it is successfully halted.)  In other words, the environmental and natural resource conflicts to which Mr. Miliband refers will likely continue to take place even after global warming is stopped.

3 Responses to “Fight Climate Change as a Security Measure?”


  1. [...] The Security Ecology Link In view of the post quoted below it might be interesting to read Gregg Easterbrook’s Global Warming: Who Loses–And Wins? in the April issue of The Atlantic Monthly Fight Climate Change as a Security Measure? [...]

  2. ccloud Says:

    I definately agree in that I don’t think that global warming is our best foreign policy hope. However, I also think that I’m reading this post differently than I would have before class on Monday – it is interesting now to look at the idea of global warming from different viewpoints and seeing how it does, in fact, have the potential to change our foreign policy and international politics. (IE: Darfur like we discussed in class.)


Leave a Reply