Search

Begin New Search Topic Environment Publication Year within 25 Years

731. Himalayan Impasse: How China Would Fight an Indian Border Conflict

Author:
Kevin McCauley
Publication Date:
09-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
China Brief
Institution:
The Jamestown Foundation
Abstract:
At the end of August, Chinese and Indian troops both pulled back from the Doklam region in Bhutan after weeks of tense posturing. The face off began in June when Chinese construction crews accompanied by soldiers began building a road. The area is sensitive to Indian national interests not only because of its ally Bhutan, but also due to area’s proximity to a narrow corridor connecting eastern India with the rest of the country. Beijing repeatedly ratcheted up the messaging to India, including the release of a Ministry of Foreign Affairs legal justification of China’s territorial claims against India (China Daily, August 3, 2017). If the two sides decide to face off again, forces on both sides will need to contend with the difficult mountain terrain and complex weather conditions. To prepare for such a contingency, both India and China have invested significantly in units capable of mountain and high-altitude warfare. An examination of the Chinese Military’s doctrine and training of such units provides important insights into how such a conflict would be conducted.
Topic:
Environment, Military Strategy, Territorial Disputes, and Military Affairs
Political Geography:
China, India, Asia, and Himalayas

732. The US exits Paris Can the EU drive international climate action?

Author:
Romain Pardo
Publication Date:
07-2017
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
European Policy Centre (EPC)
Abstract:
The Trump administration's decision to withdraw from the Paris agreement will make its implementation more challenging. The United States (US) had been instrumental in brokering a successful deal in Paris and speeding the ratification process for an early entry into force of the agreement. While the US remains party to the agreement for the next four years, its involvement in upcoming international climate discussions remains uncertain. Meanwhile, policy developments in the country such as the "Energy Independence Executive Order" indicate that the current administration has currently no intention to fulfil the pledge made by the previous one to lower CO2 emissions by 26 to 28% below 2005 levels in 2025.
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, and International Development
Political Geography:
Global Focus

733. After Paris A Climate Agenda that Serves U.S. Interests

Author:
David F. Gordon, Divya P. Reddy, and Elizabeth Rosenberg
Publication Date:
09-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:
The dust is now settling on President Donald Trump’s controversial decision to withdraw the United States from the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change. This decision was a foreign policy mistake. It will make sustaining American credibility more difficult in other multilateral institutions and settings. It will exacerbate anti-American sentiment in Europe, making trans-Atlantic leadership collaboration more difficult well beyond climate policy. On climate, it threatens to undermine the balance achieved in Paris between the centralized and top-down approach favored by the Europeans and the more decentralized and market-friendly approach of the United States, which was supported by China. As a result, it also could lead to the creation of an uneven playing field for U.S. businesses.
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, and Global Political Economy
Political Geography:
Global Focus

734. Environmental Gems in Trade Agreements: Little-known Clauses for Progressive Trade Agreements

Author:
Jean-Frederic Morin and Rosalie Nadeau
Publication Date:
10-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI)
Abstract:
Trade agreements contain an increasing number of environmental provisions. Some of these provisions now relate to precise environmental issues, such as biodiversity or hazardous waste management. Certain trade agreements even devote entire chapters to environmental protection. However, the rate of innovative environmental clauses per agreement has declined over the years. This paper draws attention to some of the lesser-known provisions encountered in five agreements or fewer. These “legal one-hit wonders” do not often reach the billboard, despite their uniqueness and creativity.
Topic:
Environment and International Political Economy
Political Geography:
Global Focus

735. Flood Risk and Shared Responsibility in Canada: Operating on Flawed Assumptions?

Author:
Daniel Henstra and Jason Thistlethwaite
Publication Date:
09-2017
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI)
Abstract:
Floods cause more property damage than any other hazard in Canada, and water-related losses now exceed fire and theft as the main source of property insurance claims. Public spending on flood relief has grown, and is projected to increase dramatically over the next decade, so governments have been changing their policies to reduce their financial exposure by shifting responsibility to homeowners. An implicit assumption of this policy shift is that individual homeowners must share greater responsibility for protecting their property by purchasing newly available flood insurance. Evidence is presented suggesting that consumer demand for flood insurance may be insufficient for economic viability. Low risk perception and a moral hazard created by government disaster assistance limit incentives for purchasing insurance.
Topic:
Environment and International Security
Political Geography:
Canada

736. Defense of Animal Agriculture Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense et al.

Author:
Blue Ribbon Panel
Publication Date:
10-2017
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
The increasing rate of emerging and reemerging zoonotic disease, along with threats and attempts by those with nefarious intent to attack food and agriculture, point to the need to exert more effort to eliminate vulnerabilities and reduce consequences associated with America’s agricultural sector. The Food and Agriculture (F&A) critical infrastructure sector produces, processes, and delivers the systems and commodities that feed billions of people and animals throughout the United States and globally. In 2015, the agriculture, food, and related industries contributed $992 billion (5.5%) to U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), making it one of the largest sectors of the U.S. economy. Given its critical importance to food safety and availability in the United States and around the world, protecting this sector is a matter of national security. Federal agencies; state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) governments; academic institutions; and industry partners all contribute to and are responsible for this vast enterprise. Our lives, culture, economy, and livelihood depend on their efforts.
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, and International Affairs
Political Geography:
Global Focus

737. New challenges to Human Security: Environmental Change and Human Mobility

Author:
Georgetown University nstitute for the Study of Diplomacy
Publication Date:
04-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University
Abstract:
Climate change and shifting weather patterns are not the Tinker Bells of science or of policy. Disbelief, or denial, or a suspension of research will not make melting icecaps, rising sea levels, desertification, and floods go away. There may be legitimate debate on the pace of these changes, or whether there is a meaningful difference between the degrees of global warming that will result in inconvenient, catastrophic, or apocalyptic scenarios. But the empirical data is there. There is change and it affects human security—whether food can be grown, if water is available, and which lands are likely to become uninhabitable. And these needs, along with other drivers, will influence where humans live—and whether they must abandon their homes. As people are forced to migrate simply to survive, we face the possibility of major shifts in human settlement patterns, along with increased competition for resources.
Topic:
Environment and Human Rights
Political Geography:
Global Focus

738. Climate Change, Water Security, and U.S. National Security

Author:
Carolyn Kenney
Publication Date:
03-2017
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
The first months of Donald Trump’s presidency have raised serious concerns about the new administration’s understanding of climate change and the associated security risks. President Trump’s vocal skepticism of climate change and his appointment of several prominent climate deniers to his Cabinet, along with deep proposed budget cuts to government activities aimed at slowing or adapting to climate change, could see the new administration do untold damage to the environment, human health and security, economic development, and international peace and stability. The Trump administration’s disengagement comes at a time when severe weather conditions spurred on by climate change are having devastating effects in the United States and around the world. In California, for example, despite a recent respite, the state’s long-running drought cost the state’s agricultural sector an estimated $2.7 billion in 2015 alone, and the state is expected to experience chronic water shortages in the future.1 In southern Africa, for example, millions are at risk of starvation following a two-year drought and above-average temperatures.2 And in Sri Lanka, the worst drought in 40 years has left more than 1 million people affected by acute water shortages.3 These worrying signs early in the Trump administration contrast sharply with the legacy of former President Barack Obama. Before leaving office, President Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum on Climate Change and National Security designed to elevate and address the national security implications of climate change. Hailed as an historic step, the memorandum directed federal departments and agencies to “ensure that climate change-related impacts are fully considered in the development of national security doctrine, policies, and plans.”4 Released alongside a National Intelligence Council, or NIC, report, “Implications for US National Security of Anticipated Climate Change,” the memorandum reflected the consensus among U.S. national security experts that climate change is a core national security concern and should be addressed as such.5 Indeed, even some within the Trump administration agree with this consensus: Trump’s Secretary of Defense James Mattis, in his written testimony following his confirmation hearing, noted that climate change poses a serious threat to American interests abroad.6 Both Obama’s presidential memorandum and the NIC report argue that extreme and more frequent weather events, droughts, heat waves, rising sea levels, and ocean acidification—all driven or exacerbated by climate change—will increasingly threaten food and water security, energy and transportation infrastructure, and other crucial systems in the decades to come. These disruptions can seriously stress or overwhelm affected governments’ ability to respond to crises, threatening human security and eroding state legitimacy. Deteriorating conditions or severe crises can undermine economic livelihoods and contribute to decisions to migrate. Taken in the aggregate, these stresses can create political instability and amplify conditions that lead to conflict, especially in already fragile or unstable regions.7 And, as many recent crises have demonstrated, instability and violence in one country often do not remain confined solely within that country’s borders. Both reports therefore conclude that it is in the United States’ national interest to try and address the underlying drivers of crises abroad to prevent future instability and avoid more expensive crisis interventions. While the Trump administration’s approach to the issues outlined in the memorandum and the NIC report are shaping up to be hostile, the fact that such challenges exist is unequivocal.8 The administration would do well to heed the advice of climate and national security experts and ensure that the United States continues to address these issues.
Topic:
Security, Climate Change, Environment, Water, and Crisis Management
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

739. A Proposal for U.S. Leadership on International Climate Finance During the Trump Administration

Author:
Gwynne Taraska
Publication Date:
05-2017
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
Finance for low-carbon and climate-resilient international development accounts for only a small fraction of the U.S. federal budget: an estimated 0.04 percent of overall spending per year from 2010 to 2015.1 Nevertheless, it is a key means for the United States to advance the global climate effort. In fact, because of its role in addressing the climate challenge worldwide, U.S. climate aid rivals or exceeds the U.S. emissions reduction target in international importance. Climate finance is also integral to domestic interests given the economic and security effects of climate change. Accordingly, investment in clean energy and disaster preparedness in developing countries has a long history of bipartisan support in the United States. The current administration, however, has proposed dramatically reducing the international climate budget. This is consistent with its general abdication of climate leadership to date. Regardless of whether the administration nominally participates in international climate initiatives and forums, it is likely to continue undermining domestic climate policies and environmental protections.
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, International Cooperation, and Leadership
Political Geography:
North America, Global Focus, and United States of America

740. The Big Melt: Curbing Arctic Climate Change Aligns with U.S. Economic and National Security Goals

Author:
Cathleen Kelly and Howard Marano
Publication Date:
05-2017
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
The United States has long been a leader in advancing diplomatic cooperation, peace, stability, and environmental stewardship in the Arctic—from the purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867, to the creation of the Arctic Council in 1996, and the beginning of the U.S. chairmanship of the Arctic Council in 2015.1 A new scientific assessment of rapid changes in the Arctic reveals that U.S. economic prosperity and national security may well hinge on continued U.S. leadership and cooperation in the region. The Arctic assessment by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, or AMAP, concludes with even higher confidence than in the past that rapid and persistent Arctic climate change is transforming the region with global economic, security, and environmental repercussions that will be more serious than previously predicted.2 The more than 90 authors of the “Snow, Water, Ice, Permafrost in the Arctic,” or SWIPA2, report concluded that Arctic warming will drive global sea levels to rise faster and higher than earlier estimates and that the region will see ice-free summers sooner than expected.3 The AMAP report also concludes that the global costs of Arctic climate change—including damages to infrastructure, homes, communities, and businesses from global sea level rise and more extreme weather—will be astronomical, reaching $7 trillion to $90 trillion between 2010 and 2100.4 Arctic warming will also have significant U.S. national security consequences, including flooding of U.S. coastal communities and military bases; increased instability in vulnerable regions; and strained U.S. humanitarian and disaster response resources.5 So far, the Trump administration’s Arctic policy has ignored these rapidly unfolding threats and focused entirely on easing offshore oil and gas drilling in the region, despite extreme risks. 6 This includes rescinding Obama administration accomplishments such as marine protected areas established to prevent oil spills in areas critical for subsistence hunting and fishing; terminating a new formal consultation mechanism with coastal Alaska Native tribes along the Bering Sea; and ordering Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke to review several drilling safety standards for potential cancellation.7 Meanwhile, perennially perilous conditions in the Arctic Ocean—including drifting sea ice, hurricane force winds, and extended periods of darkness—and a lack of emergency response infrastructure would mean any oil spill would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to respond to and clean up.8 Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has an opportunity to reaffirm the United States’ long-standing commitment to safeguarding the Arctic when he chairs the May 11 Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting in Fairbanks, Alaska. This meeting is the 10th gathering of foreign ministers and indigenous leaders from the eight Arctic nations: Canada, Norway, Russia, the United States, Finland, Iceland, Sweden, and the Kingdom of Denmark, via its dominion over Greenland and the Faroe Islands. These countries make up the Arctic Council, the international body designed to address emerging challenges in the region.9 With costly and rapid Arctic climate change already underway, strong diplomatic partnerships are more essential than ever to prepare for warming effects and avert the most costly and dangerous repercussions down the road.10 At the May ministerial—which marks the end of the two-year U.S. Arctic Council Chairmanship—Secretary Tillerson is expected to reach a binding agreement with Arctic nations; Arctic Council observer countries; and indigenous leaders to strengthen international science cooperation in order to deepen the world’s understanding of rapid Arctic warming and its consequences.11 Past binding agreements adopted by the council secured commitments to strengthen oil spill response as well as search and rescue in the region.12 The eight countries are also expected to agree to meet a regional target to reduce black carbon pollution—a potent driver of Arctic warming. By locking in these agreements and working with other nations to curb global climate change, Secretary Tillerson can strengthen diplomatic ties with key allies while advancing U.S. economic, security, and environmental interests at home and at the top of the world.
Topic:
Security, Climate Change, Economics, Environment, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
North America, Arctic, and United States of America