The Nobel Peace Prize has been wrongly awarded, argues Clionadh Raleigh
Does climate change have anything to do with war or peace?
The existing evidence does not support the claims about climate change and human security made by the Nobel committee, Al Gore and scores of other public figures.
What we do know is that the levels of degradation and water shortages are certainly increasing, as is the occurrence of droughts and natural disasters, particularly in lesser-developed countries. Populations migrate from areas affected by these climatic disasters and move into already crowded urban areas, marginal rural land and across borders.
The conclusions by the Nobel committee and the IPCC are that these "environmental refugees" may wreak havoc, leading to an increase in both internal and international wars. The governments of these countries are often too poor and weak to prevent these wars from occurring. The foregone conclusion is that human security is at risk and wars will flourish.
There are multiple problems with these and other claims linking the environment, and migratory changes, to increased incidence of war. Civil wars are almost entirely relegated now to the poorest of developing countries and are not monocausal.
They are due to a myriad of political, economic and social forces operating at a particular time and place. These forces may involve issues of income inequality, land tenure, uneven development and political representation. Peace researchers have found little evidence linking increased degradation, water scarcity and natural disasters to civil war.
The evidence which does point to a link between climate change and conflict is very measured, emphasising that political and economic factors far outweigh those between local-level demographic and environmental changes and conflict. There is also little evidence that the indirect effects of climate change are related to higher civil war risks.
The most thorough study on climate change and migration has found that the effects are as diverse as the populations involved and that they largely depend on the community affected. The insistence that such migration will lead to war implies that these refugees in some way incite large-scale violence. But there was no increase in civil conflict in the vast majority of countries that received 8.4 million refugees in 2006.
Environmental degradation is certainly occurring, especially in lesser-developed countries, where much of the population depends on the land to sustain itself. But there remain three critical points regarding the environment and human security: firstly, within countries, peoples and regions are differently vulnerable to climate change. Secondly, it simply does not do the victims of civil wars any favours to assign the environment as the cause of their conflicts. Thirdly, limited research has been undertaken with respect to climate change's social and political impacts. It is true that climate change will affect human security, broadly defined. But it is in all our interests to not dictate conclusions and effects long before more research is undertaken.
Dr Clionadh Raleigh is a researcher in the department of government at the University of Essex