Climate Change: A Mainstream Security Issue for Canada? - Nov 20, 2021
Wednesday, 30 March 2022 06:53
Climate Change: A Mainstream Security Issue for Canada?

A Presentation to the Ottawa Roundtable on Security and Intelligence
University of Ottawa -- November 20, 2021

by Margaret Purdy
Co-Director, Climate Change and Security Project
University of British Columbia


OPENING

About two years ago, my UBC colleague, Brian Job, sent me a link to a Council on Foreign Relations report on the US national security implications of climate change. He asked me if anyone in Canada had done a comparable study. His question stuck with me as I watched a veritable flood of reports appear on this topic in 2007 and early 2008 - from Europe, Australia, Asia, New Zealand and many US organizations.

I looked around, talked to people here in Ottawa, and found nothing even close to the work under way in many other parts of the world. As far as I could tell, the climate change-security nexus had not been discussed, debated or analysed in any serious, sustained or comprehensive way in Canada. The issue did not feature in strategic documents or in speeches by Ministers or senior officials.
Neither academics nor journalists seemed interested in it - except in relation to the Arctic. Indeed, the security dimensions of climate change were - and still are -- obscure, almost invisible, to Canadians.

This inattention puzzles me - particularly because two federal government departments have produced impressive studies which could serve as the basis for a systematic assessment of security risks. Natural Resources Canada engaged hundreds of Canadian scientists in the production of From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate in 2007, while Health Canada followed in 2008 with Human Health in a Changing Climate: A Canadian Assessment of Vulnerabilities and Adaptive Capacity.

Together, these two reports provide almost 1,000 pages of Canada-specific scientific analysis and projections - an extraordinary advantage which most other countries lack.

When I read these two reports - along with the 2007 assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - the security implications jumped off the page at me. The more I read, the more I realized that this phenomenon - climate change - was potentially far more serious than any of the threats which had preoccupied me for the 28 years I spent working in this city on security, policing, intelligence and defence issues.

So, long story short, Brian Job and I launched a small project at UBC - aimed at identifying and assessing the full range of potential security implications of climate change for Canada.

Today, I want to do three things:

First, share my thoughts on why climate change is not getting serious security attention in Ottawa

Second, explain why I consider climate change a legitimate security concern

Third, offer some recommendations for what could and should be done.


WHY NO SERIOUS ATTENTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE?

I have come up with a pretty long list of reasons why we seem allergic, apprehensive or hesitant to think of climate change in security terms. Let me share eight of them.

First, too many people still believe that climate science is imprecise and uncertain, and that scientists cannot agree on the existence, origins or consequences of a changing climate.

This is simply wrong. In fact, an unprecedented consensus now exists among the world's leading climate scientists. They agree:

• that the climate is changing in dramatic ways,

• that no region of the world is untouched, and

• that human activity is the principal contributor to increased concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere.

Scientific uncertainty cannot be cited as a legitimate reason for ignoring the security implications of climate change. Indeed, scientists are now concluding that the Nobel Prize-winning IPCC -- even in the worst-case emission scenarios in its 2007 assessment -- underestimated many aspects of climate change. Among the more disturbing recent findings are the following:

• The impacts of climate change may persist for more than 1,000 years, even after human-induced emissions of carbon dioxide stop completely.

• New estimates of average global sea level rise are up significantly.

• Arctic sea ice and permafrost are melting more quickly than projected just two years ago.

Second, too many people assume that those of us who are raising security concerns are scaremongers who tend to exaggerate risks and dangers.

Again, this is simply wrong. The list of non-scientific individuals and organizations taking the climate change-security linkage seriously is impressive. Just check out the list of publications and authors on our UBC web site. Also impressive is the degree of unanimity on the following points:

• No country is fully prepared to deal with the consequences of climate change; however, poor, unstable countries are going to feel the brunt and they will be the least able to cope.

• Climate change will create problems on its own, but will also trigger, exacerbate and multiply other sources of instability and insecurity.

• Many impacts are inevitable; mitigation efforts can only change their severity. More attention should be directed towards adaptation.

• Downplaying the threat of climate change when it is competing with other items on a security agenda is dangerously short-sighted.

Third reason for inaction -- there is no overarching impetus to act

Canada was one of the first countries to sign the Kyoto Protocol, and Parliament ratified the accord in 2002. Yet Canada has one of the worst records of major signatories to the agreement, with emissions rising about 26 per cent since 1990 and now registering about 34 per cent above Canada's Kyoto targets.

So long as Canada is a poor performer and a reluctant follower, not a leader, on the climate change file, the associated security consequences are unlikely to garner much attention among Canadian decision makers -- especially since none of the major agents of influence outside government are urging more attention. Unlike their counterparts in many other countries, Canadian academics, journalists and think tank researchers are not studying, investigating and reporting regularly on this topic.

Fourth reason, there is no leadership on this issue.

A 2008 British think tank report commented that "many of the policy and political actors in charge of responding to climate change are not used to dealing with large, existential threats to their nations' prosperity and stability."

It is not easy to get one's mind around an issue as complex and seemingly intractable as climate change. And, in Canada, the security aspects of the issue have local, national and international dimensions and accountabilities spanning all levels of government, the private sector and non-governmental organizations.

Without strong, committed federal leadership, players will likely continue to ignore the issue or to procrastinate. To date, however, no department, agency or official in Ottawa has taken ownership of the climate change-security file.

Fifth, people are busy

I know that the agendas of Canada's security organizations are already crowded with here-and-now problems and higher political priorities -- Afghanistan, a growing cyber threat, organized crime gang activity, the Olympics, the G8, the G20.

I am encouraged that pockets of public servants are getting together to talk about the security consequences of climate change. And I know that serious work is under way on specific aspects of this issue, particularly with respect to the Arctic. But I am discouraged that only a few senior officials are engaged, and that the issue still has no public visibility.

Sixth reason - this is not a typical security issue

For example, it demands a different analytical approach - one less dependent on classified information from clandestine sources and investigations than on extensive mining of open sources and leveraging of outside expertise.


Seventh -- it is too easy to dismiss climate change as a problem for tomorrow, not today

It is not easy to get one's mind around an issue as complex and seemingly intractable as climate change. And, in Canada, the security aspects of the issue have local, national and international dimensions and accountabilities spanning all levels of government, the private sector and non-governmental organizations.

Without strong, committed federal leadership, players will likely continue to ignore the issue or to procrastinate. To date, however, no department, agency or official in Ottawa has taken ownership of the climate change-security file.

Fifth, people are busy

I know that the agendas of Canada's security organizations are already crowded with here-and-now problems and higher political priorities -- Afghanistan, a growing cyber threat, organized crime gang activity, the Olympics, the G8, the G20.

I am encouraged that pockets of public servants are getting together to talk about the security consequences of climate change. And I know that serious work is under way on specific aspects of this issue, particularly with respect to the Arctic. But I am discouraged that only a few senior officials are engaged, and that the issue still has no public visibility.

Sixth reason - this is not a typical security issue

For example, it demands a different analytical approach - one less dependent on classified information from clandestine sources and investigations than on extensive mining of open sources and leveraging of outside expertise.

Seventh -- it is too easy to dismiss climate change as a problem for tomorrow, not today

Especially in minority government situations, decision makers are firmly focused on the near term, the tactical, and initiatives which generate immediate results. In this scenario, it is tempting to minimize the security implications of climate change as a down-the-road issue for someone else

But the impacts are already evident in every region of Canada. And, regardless of success or failure in Copenhagen, the world's climate will continue to change for decades, even centuries.

Eighth and finally, it's not just about the Arctic

Mention the security implications of climate change to Canadians, and many will think first or only about the Arctic. There is no doubt that climate change will increase security concerns in northern Canada - from smuggling to oil spills. A number of eminent Canadian scholars, along with a few journalists and many government officials, are tracking these concerns closely.

But it's not just about the Arctic. All regions of the country will feel the security implications of temperature, precipitation, weather and sea level changes.


WHY IS CLIMATE CHANGE A LEGITIMATE SECURITY ISSUE?

Canada spans seven climate zones - from temperate to arctic - as well as 40 degrees latitude. Given our huge land mass and unique footprint, we will experience a broad range of climate change impacts - much broader than in most European countries, for example. And, because climate change does not respect borders, we will also be affected what happens in the rest of the world.

As a result, I believe that Canada must do more to identify, assess and understand the impacts on three inter-related fronts: public safety, national security and international security.

Public Safety

Starting with public safety, here is a sampling from the region-by-region assessments in the Natural Resources Canada report:

• Atlantic Canada can expect more intense storm events, rising sea level, higher storm surges, coastal erosion and flooding.

• Quebec will see increased shoreline erosion in areas where social and economic activity is concentrated.

• In Ontario, water shortages are projected to become more frequent in the heavily populated southern regions.

• On the Prairies, water scarcity will be the most serious climate risk.

• In British Columbia, water shortages and competition among water users will increase, with implications for transborder agreements. At the same time, forests will be vulnerable to pest infestations and fire, and many areas will experience more frequent and sustained drought.

• In Northern and Arctic Canada, increased navigability of Arctic waters, expansion of land-based transportation networks, and access to new oil and gas sources may generate tensions on many fronts.

The report contains many more projections along these lines and, if you look at them through a security -- not an economic or environmental lens -- here are some of the questions which come to mind.

• Will current contingency plans, response and recovery arrangements be adequate to deal with more frequent and serious natural disasters?

• Are critical facilities and systems (for example, nuclear power plants, hydroelectric dams, military installations and transportation networks) vulnerable under any of the scenarios projected by scientists? If so, are relocation and redundancy plans in place?

• Will public health, medical, food inspection, disease monitoring, and border services be able to deal with the arrival of pests and diseases currently thought to be rare in or exotic to Canada, as well as with more illness and death due to extreme temperatures, increased smog and wildfires?

• Will social unrest increase and, if so, will Canada's police forces be able to cope?

National Security

Turning to national security:

Climate change activists participate regularly - usually peacefully - in protests at major events and around specific projects. But some security experts expect that inaction or slow action on climate change could fuel a transition from non-violent to radical protest movements, direct action, even eco-terrorism.

Other security analysts see a possible causal connection between climate change and international terrorism. They caution that extremists could exploit climate change inequities to further their causes, and they point out that weak states rank high not only in terms of vulnerability to climate change, but also as breeding grounds for terrorist movements. Tom Fingar, the former chair of the National Intelligence Council told a Congressional committee in 2008: "Logic suggests the conditions exacerbated (by climate change) would increase the pool of potential recruits for terrorism." If these assessments are correct, Canada could experience a spillover effect in the form of an escalating terrorist threat to Canadian interests.

Some of Canada's largest diaspora communities are linked to regions expected to be among the most devastated by climate change. A significant flow of climate migrants to Canada could generate social or economic tensions, especially if the country is already experiencing climate-related or other serious challenges.

Finally, rising sea levels and melting ice caps in the Arctic raise the possibility of territorial disputes between major powers over the legal status of the Northwest Passage, independence and sovereignty, or oil and mineral access rights.

International Security

Moving on to international security, any of the following scenarios could draw in Canada:

• Scarce supplies of water, food and other resources could ignite or intensify conflict between or within states.

• Coastal flooding, natural disasters and other phenomena could trigger population displacement internally or internationally.

• Weather-related disasters are projected to increase in number and intensity, and could destroy critical infrastructure, trigger public health emergencies, and destabilize already-fragile states.

• Temperature increases could accelerate the spread of human and animal diseases.

• Energy concerns could spark a nuclear power renaissance, generating concerns about the adequacy of international nuclear safeguards and control mechanisms.

Taken together, these scenarios prompt questions about:

• the coping capacity of international security institutions,

• the preparedness of humanitarian mechanisms,

• the protection of a new category of "refugee", and

• the responses of countries such as Canada to catastrophic situations around the world at a time when specialized resources may be stretched as a result of climate change-induced situations at home.

Do I think that Canada's security arrangements and responses are adequate to handle whatever happens, and therefore it is okay to wait and see? No.

Climate change-induced events will not be "security as usual". Several characteristics will impose a new order of demands, expectations and stresses.

First, the frequency, severity, and duration of climate change events will be unprecedented. Unlike Canada's experience to date with situations such as the 1998 ice storm, future events will not be abrupt, of short duration, or restricted to small geographic regions. Nor will they be once-in-a-lifetime events.

Second, the concurrence and pervasiveness of climate change events will exacerbate their impact. Even developed states will struggle to cope as multiple events occur simultaneously - at home and around the world - compounding crises and straining the resilience and capacity of governments, communities and individuals.

Third, many Canadian climate change scenarios would likely overwhelm provincial and municipal capacities, and would be bumped up to the federal level, where concerns about capabilities and readiness persist.


RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION

Let me finish by offering some ideas about what needs to be done.

First, we need to accept climate change as a mainstream security concern

No more time should be wasted arguing over whether climate change fits within Canada's definition of a potential security risk. Climate change must move from the periphery of Canada's security agenda, and senior officials must give priority to understanding how it could affect Canada's security interests. They must assign talented, full-time staff to this task.

Second, we need to start now

So far in Canada, busy security officials have been able to ignore or delay paying attention to the climate change-security linkage. Particularly in a minority government situation, it is unlikely that this issue will appear on the priority lists of Ministers who are preoccupied with near-term matters. So the onus is on the permanent, non-partisan public service in Ottawa - and on the media, think tanks, and academic specialists -- to start raising the profile of this issue now, and to convince elected officials that it is in the national interest to do so.

Third, someone needs to lead

Two organizations have mandates appropriate to this task.

The Privy Council Office sits at the centre of government and has the influence and expertise necessary to break down institutional silos and focus attention on whole-of-government priorities, whereas Public Safety Canada has a broad mandate and a labyrinth of partnerships from coast to coast in the intelligence, policing, emergency management and critical infrastructure sectors.

But maybe this is an issue which calls for a new kind of horizontal leadership.

Fourth, Canada should take a holistic, not piecemeal, approach

Many other countries are paying much more attention to climate change-security linkages than Canada, but:

• They focus almost exclusively on what will happen outside their countries

• They accord scant attention to public safety or homeland security impacts at the national level.

• They pay almost no attention to how climate change could exacerbate high-priority national security threats such as extremism, terrorism, smuggling and other dimensions of organized crime.

Canada has a strong cadre of climate scientists and security analysts, and the added advantage of a small, centralized, fairly cohesive security community. Accordingly, we are well-positioned to address the climate change-security nexus in an integrated and holistic way.

Fifth, establish a robust dialogue among scientists and security experts and put them to work assessing the risks

To the extent that discussions take place in Canada around this issue, they are anecdotal and vague. And I confess that I am guilty of this. More serious and systematic assessment is long overdue. In my view, this is the most pressing requirement. Here again, Canada has a comparative advantage. Risk management is well understood and practiced widely within the federal government.

Scientists and security experts should examine credible scenarios and determine the highest risks based on an analysis of likelihood, vulnerabilities and consequences. Scenarios could include:

• sea level rise in areas where critical infrastructure is located,

• rising numbers of search and rescue situations in Arctic Canada,

• increases in reports of diseases and pests affecting human and animal health,

• escalation in extremism globally, partially in reaction to frustration with government/multilateral action on climate change,

• a dramatic rise in arrivals of climate migrants (possibly including large numbers from Asia, Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America), and

• climate-triggered instability in specific countries of strategic importance to Canada.

Sixth, embed climate change considerations in security policy making, intelligence assessments, and in public safety, national security and international security strategies

Seventh, engage internationally

Canada should join other nations in assessing countries most at risk, and how their vulnerabilities could affect regional and global stability

Canada should help vulnerable states enhance their mitigation and adaptation capabilities, and

Canada should work multilaterally on contentious issues, including the legal status of displaced "climate migrants".


CONCLUSION

Let me end by confessing that I remain puzzled by the invisibility of security in the public, academic and political debate around climate change in Canada.

As I mentioned at last month's CASIS conference, I was somewhat comforted to learn that Paul Krugman is similarly puzzled. Writing about climate change, Krugman said he feels that we're hurtling toward catastrophe but nobody wants to hear about it or do anything to prevent it. The Nobel Prize-winning economist recently cited the boiled frog theory in his New York Times column. A frog, placed in a pot of cold water that is gradually heated, never realizes the danger it's in and is boiled alive. Krugman used the hypothetical boiled frog as a metaphor for a very real problem - the difficulty of responding to disasters that creep up on you a bit at a time.

Climate change is a creeping threat, not an attention-getting crisis. And yet it deserves attention, certainly much more attention that it is receiving today in Canada.

As the new NATO Secretary General put it last month: "We may not know the precise effects or the definite dates of how climate change will affect security, but we already know enough to start taking action."

Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to your comments and questions.

Casis/Acers