ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY
"Your descendants shall gather your fruit" (Virgil)

    Definitions are a little hard to come by, but the concepts of environmental and ecological security are beginning to catch on.  There have been many criticisms of the concepts, mostly for vagueness and usefulness only to politicians for their own advantage (Barnett 2001; Dalby 2002).  In higher education, one only sees a few courses on the subject, the preferred terminology being "environmental politics" (Switzer 2004) or "global environmental politics" (Chasek et. al. 2006).  Certainly, there are many textbooks and publication to draw upon, and even though the academic field is relatively new, most of the issues or problems are not new, and include study of the following: acid rain, deforestation (also referred to as REDD or reduced emissions from deforestation degradation); desertification; ecoviolence; global warming; overfishing; ozone depletion; pollution; pesticide, species extinction; and water conflicts.  As far as definitions go, the U.N.'s Millennium Project (now called the World Federation of UN Associations) defines ENVIRONMENTAL security as environmental viability for life support, consisting of three sub-elements, as follows:

• preventing or repairing military damage to the environment

• preventing or responding to environmentally caused conflicts

• protecting the environment due to its inherent moral value

    However, the "other" concept,  ECOLOGICAL security (which is more a subset or parent concept, depending upon personal preference) seems to be somewhat different.  Pirages and Cousins (2005) define ecological security as preserving four dynamic equilibriums, as follows:

• between humans living at high consumption levels and the ability of nature to provide resources and services

• between human populations and pathogenic microorganisms

• between human and plant and animal species

• among human populations 

    This lecture is about the first concept of environmental security because that is the one closest to being clearly defined.  It is also consistent with the nature of what we call "threats" in the sense as used by Hough (2004) and Prins (1993) as "threats without enemies."  Environmental security deals with threats which are long-term, creeping emergencies which, as Anthony Downs (1972) has noted, tax our issue-attention span.  Some environmental threats are direct in nature, others are indirect, and all are subject to scientific controversy.  Further, no one nation can "fix" any of these problems because of their global reach.  Hence their central importance to global security studies as well as controversial plans for collective, globally coordinated action.  Trans-boundary problems do not respect frontiers. 

    It is difficult to separate environmental problems from other problems, like development and world health issues.  For example, Smith et. al. (1999) estimate that between 25% and 33% of all deaths in the world are attributable to environmental causes, but making that kind of leap in causation requires looking beyond the more direct effects of poverty and bad medical care.  Likewise, Gore (2006) draws upon WHO (World Health Organization) figures to estimate that by 2030, the number of deaths from global warming will average 300,000 people per year.  It may be worthwhile to note that even though scientific progress has been made determining the genetic causes of diseases, science still has a long way to go toward figuring out elusive environmental causes.  For example, one of the most hotly debated subjects in the scientific community is whether climate change is responsible for global warming, global cooling, and even hurricanes.  Whether unchecked climate change involves a national security threat is likewise controversial, but most admirals and generals would agree that it may act as a "threat multiplier for instability in volatile regions of the world."                 

    Regarding popularity of the new security concepts, only a few nations and agencies have hopped on board.  International organizations like the EU, NATO, OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), and UN have all embraced the notion of ecological security.  The EU (European Union) has long been involved with issues such as acid rain, toxic waste, and carbon dioxide emissions.  Most recently, EU has partnered with groups such as the Institute for Environmental Security to find ways to mainstream ecological security alongside traditional notions of security.  NATO's Security through Science initiative focuses primarily on the study of environmental issues as a possible source of tension between nations.  OECD, which was formed in 1961 and consists of the world's 30 most developed countries, works toward the development of environmental treaties.  The U.N.'s UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme), headquartered in Nairobi, aims to be nothing less than the world's environmental conscience and "voice."  UNEP is perhaps best known for hosting, along with the World Bank, the famous Rio Conference in 1992 (also known as the Earth Summit), which in turn, led to the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.  These two events (Rio and Kyoto) are regarded as high watershed marks in the history of environmentalism.                   

    Military organizations often, but not always, think of environmental security in military terms, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but the reader needs to know that in some circles, environmental security means little more than studying battlefield weather conditions to counteract soldier fatigue or mapping contaminated battlefields for better maneuverability.  Be advised that is minority usage of the term.  In most places, environmental security is thought of more broadly, so broadly in fact that the German government once proposed creating an "Ecological Security Council" within the United Nations (an idea which was also suggested by former Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev).  To a traditional military historian, it is plainly obvious that no environmental issue ever caused a war.  Yet, to international relations specialists like Thomas Homer-Dixon (author's website), evidence is fast accumulating that environmental issues may well represent a challenge (perhaps the most dangerous and intractable challenge) to international security ever seen since the Cold War and GWOT (Global War on Terrorism).  A handful of anecdotal evidence even suggests that environmental degradation can cause terrorism.  For example, Myers (1996) points out that in the battle against Abu Sayeef in the Philippines, the failure of any agency or government to counteract topsoil erosion often helped push citizens toward supporting the guerrilla side.  Making linkages between environmental and military security is a contentious affair, and one prone to controversy.  However, it is necessary to tackle those debates head-on, as the following sections try to do. 

CLIMATE STRESS AND CHANGE

    Putting aside hopes of climatology as a profession, it is difficult if not impossible to ever make valid and reliable predictions about climate change.  The earth's climate is the ultimate system of systems.  There is no baseline composing a stable equilibrium point from which good estimates can be made.  Reliable data on years past (such as the Middle Ages warming period) does not exist.  Even contemporary data is subject to criticism.  It is important to have good historical data because no one event makes up a pattern.  The pattern of earth's evolution seems to have been turbulent, and further turbulence is probably to be expected.  But certainly we can estimate the effects of major catastrophes, and we are only beginning to understand the risk from minor affronts to the earth's delicate and intricate set of interlinkages.  Climate change factors can be natural or man-made.  In the context of climate change, if both natural and man-made factors are considered threats, the direction taken is usually considered part of ecological security.  If human factors alone are considered and quantified (in the sense that 90-95% of threats are likely to have been in part caused by human action), then the direction taken is usually considered environmental security.  It should also be noted that "global warming" is the technical name for human causation, another term being "anthropogenic climate change."  The environmental security threat we'll zero in on first -- ozone depletion -- is one which has somewhat captured the world's attention as a global problem in need of a global response (Benedick 1998; Hoffmann 2005).         

The Ozone Hole Problem

Not only is there a slow, steady decline in the overall ozone layer protecting the earth, but the polar caps have some big "holes" in that layer. At right is a NASA photograph of the ozone hole over the Antarctic, covering the south pole. There have only been a couple of Antarctic ice shelves falling off but they quickly refreeze (unlike Arctic ice cap melting). The Antarctic hole grows largest from September to December. Anomalous holes grow worldwide. All holes let in ultraviolet light (UV) radiation which is linked to skin cancers, crop failures, and the extinction of plankton. In 1987, 43 nations signed the Montreal Protocol, which reduces chlorofluorocarbon emissions which cause ozone depletion as well as play a part in global warming. Whereas the Kyoto Protocol has yet to show much progress toward the greenhouse effect, the ozone treaty (Montreal Protocol) is often hailed as an example of good international progress on a problem without exaggerating it out of proportion.

    Global warming may or may not be unstoppable.  McElroy (2002) estimates that only the "greenhouse effect" can be stabilized by the year 2100.  Global warming is essentially the process of a worsening "greenhouse effect" (an unfortunately misleading term that tries to get at the concept of "earth energy budget" - see JunkScience.com) where industrial emissions, particularly carbon dioxide and methane (but also water vapor and clouds), inhibit the earth-to-space transfer of infrared (IR) energy reflected from the earth's absorption of UV energy.  All planet atmospheres absorb long-wave UV light and return short-wave IR light in return.  The three main consequences of the return being inhibited are: (1) an overall increase in the earth's average temperature -- conservatively estimated at about 1 degree Fahrenheit per century; (2) increasingly hot and drought-filled summers followed by seasons of intense, damaging thunderstorms (more Cat 4 and 5 hurricanes); and (3) polar ice cap melting and rise in global sea levels -- conservatively estimated at about 4 to 6 inches every century (the oceans on average are six inches higher than they were in the 1930s, the hottest decade of the twentieth century).  Other effects include species extinction (279 species are already moving closer to the poles), changes in agricultural yields, and changes in the range of disease vectors (malaria, for example, spreading to higher altitudes).  Natural phenomena such as solar flares, tectonic shifts, and volcano eruptions can also contribute to global warming, but the world's leading scientists (see Wikipedia list of Scientific Opinions) say the problem has very likely been caused by man.  Global warming is tied up with other problems, however, like development, malnutrition, and diseases like malaria (in warmer weather, mosquitoes expand their range).  Burning carbon, particularly coal, in places like China and India, helps lift millions of people out of poverty, but as a society develops and achieves a certain standard of living, something called the Kuznets curve (named after a Nobel prize winning economist) kicks in and people become more sensitive to environmental issues.  Actually, one of the biggest problems in poorer countries is "indoor air pollution" from the burning of biomass (such as wood, waste, and dung) in homes.  It may be that more lives would be saved by directly addressing sanitation and public health issues. 

    The most unstoppable thing may be rising sea level, primarily because the oceans have such great heat storage capacity, technically called ocean thermal lag (Cline 2004).  Both are explained below, but some scientists say certain areas of the world don't have much time to mitigate the risk from rising sea levels.  For example, by 2050, three coastal deltas -- the Nile, the Mekong, and Ganges-Brahmaputra -- will likely be underwater, displacing millions of people.  On the other hand, the so-called "Little Ice Age" only ended Aduring the 1850s, so sure, things will melt as we progress thru the interglacial epoch that geologists call the Holocene period.  The USGS article on Sea Level and Climate explains these periods, pointing out that sea levels during previous interglacial epochs have risen from 9 to 40 feet. 

The Rising Sea Level Problem

At right is Tuvalu, an island nation between Hawaii and Australia, and the fourth smallest nation on earth. Although 10 square miles in length, one could literally throw a rock across its width. Much of the island stands little more than 3 feet above sea level, some say beating out the Maldives (at 4 feet) as the lowest country on Earth. The 11,000 English-speaking Tuvaluans will have to be transplanted in less than 50 years. The rising sea level is taking away their island. Recently, water has bubbled up out of the center rockbed. Similar situations exist in Bangladesh, Cape Hatteras, Chesapeake Bay, the Florida Keys, and Venice. The Tuvalu Islands Home Page says that global warming is like terrorism to them. People have already started fleeing.

    The loss of Arctic ice in recent years is stunning.  Scientists have been keeping satellite measurements since 1977, and the rate of loss has accelerated sharply since 2002.  Normally, Arctic ice usually melts in the summer and freezes again in the winter, but during two years (2005 and 2007), the rate of ice loss was so great and ocean temperatures so high that refreezing did not occur as much as expected.  So much ice melted in 2007 that the Northwest passage across the top of Canada became fully navigable, and the Northeast passage along Russia's Arctic coast almost did too.  If the rate of melting continues, it will soon become commonplace to see a summertime Arctic that is totally free of ice.  Gore (2006) estimates the Arctic could be totally ice-free by 2050.  In recent years, there has been a concern over Greenland ice sheet melting, particularly the massive Petermann glacier which has a giant crack through it.  Greenland's ice sheet lies within the Arctic circle.  If the entire Greenland ice sheet were to melt completely, there would be a rise in global ocean levels by about 24 feet (Houghton et. al. 2001).  This would be enough to put major coastal cities like New York and Los Angeles underwater.  Europe, however, has more to fear, because if Greenland melts down, the Atlantic Gulf Stream might shut down, and this threat is associated with the thermohaline circulation problem.

The Shutdown of Thermohaline Circulation Problem

Other than wind and tide, thermohaline (temperature and salinity) drives ocean currents. The Northern Atlantic plays a key role by being very salty and acting as a "conveyer belt" which pushes cold water down and warm water up. The resultant Gulf Stream is what keeps Europe warm and makes places like Scandinavia and the UK habitable. Melting Arctic ice reduces salinity and shuts down this conveyer belt as well as builds up warm water in the Pacific known as El Niño. Good info at: AMS (American Meteorological Society); NASA Earth Observatory; NOAA (National Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin); and the Potsdam Institute.

 POLLUTION AND PERSISTENT POLLUTANTS

    Controlling pollution has long been promoted by environmentalists, and although there are many types of "pollution" (air, water, soil, radiation, light, thermal, noise, radio, visual, and invasive species), most concern centers around air and water pollution and certain types of pollutants.  Progress has been made on several fronts, like with acid rain and smog, but many other problems remain unresolved.  By definition, anything which "pollutes" has the potential of degrading the natural environment, but anything which constitutes a "pollution threat" is generally considered to have the quality of persistence.  A persistent pollutant is one which has a propensity to travel the globe in a continual process of evaporation and deposition, eventually bio-accumulating in human foodstuffs (Hough 2004).  There are about twelve (12) chemicals (mostly herbicides, pesticides and PCBs) classified as persistent organic pollutants -- the worst pollution threats.

    Agent Orange is perhaps the most well-known of the toxic HERBICIDES.  It was used for five years by the military in Vietnam.  By itself, it is not that dangerous, but when it degrades, it produces dioxins, which are more toxic.  It should be noted that dioxins are easily produced in many ways.  Dioxins are created whenever any organic material is burned in the presence of chlorine, as would happen when treated wood burns, atmospheric conditions affect smokestack discharge, or anytime someone lights a cigarette.  Dioxins are absorbed through the dietary intake of fat, and are stored in fat cells where they almost never metabolize and never get excreted.  In 1994, the EPA declared dioxins a possible carcinogen.  Dioxins exhibit a wide range of toxic effects in humans, the most common being skin and immune system damage.

    Many PESTICIDES are poisonous to humans while at the same time fulfilling their purpose of controlling organisms harmful to humans.  Every use of pesticide carries a risk.  The most well-known pesticide is DDT, which was banned in 1972 mostly when alarm was raised in Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring, which claimed DDT causes cancer, but controversy over this extended until 1987 when the EPA finally classified DDT as a possible carcinogen.  The ban, along with passage of the Endangered Species Act, is credited by some as a major factor in the comeback of the bald eagle in North America.  The rest of the world did not do as well under the ban.  Malaria and typhoid diseases increased in many developing countries which went along with the ban, and the mosquitoes became resistant to DDT in developing countries which defied the ban.  As of 2006, DDT used in developing countries is primarily done inside buildings and through selective spraying; greatly reducing the environmental damage as well as the possibility of mosquito resistance.

    PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) were banned in the U.S. around 1979, but before then were commonly found in transformers, capacitors, and PVC fixtures (and still in some transformers) as a coolant and dielectric fluid.  PCBs do not degrade easily, and become more toxic when oxidized, or exposed to combustion, which unfortunately happens when transformers and capacitors explode, as they tend to do.  PCB dumping in rivers, lakes, landfills, and salvage yards has been a major contributor to the designated EPA Superfund sites in North America.  For example, much of the Great Lakes is contaminated with PCBs, and that's why fishing is prohibited there. PCBs continuously find their way back into the food chain, often via whomever or whatever eats fish.  For instance, whenever large flocks of emaciated seabirds wash up on shores, this is a sign of PCB persistence.  Lakes and rivers with a mandatory catch-and-release policy often have that policy in place to protect humans from PCB contamination.  PCBs exhibit a wide range of toxic effects in humans, the most common being skin and liver damage.  Globally, PCBs were banned in 2001 by the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.  No good cleanup procedures exist although scientific research is being carried out to develop microorganisms which "eat" PCBs.  Containment is the best option at present.

DEFORESTATION AND DESERTIFICATION

    Deforestation is the removal or conversion of forested areas to create areas for agriculture, pasture, housing, logging, or wasteland, and it has been going on at an accelerated pace since the mid-1800s (Williams 2003).  There are two main harmful consequences: (1) the carbon sink effect -- which means that given fewer trees on the planet to absorb carbon dioxide, the highly popular Kyoto-like protocols which allow "carbon credits" to those countries who emit sulfur dioxide but still have trees which absorb carbon dioxide may be counterproductive; and (2) decreased biodiversity -- which threatens the extinction of those species competing for their share of the earth's livable biomass (see Holocene Extinction Event for the name given to the mass extinctions of species going on right now).  Deforestation can occur deliberately or indirectly via the impact of acid rain, but the main cause (besides overpopulation) seems to be the practice of slash-and-burn activity (which is the questionable technique of attempting to release nutrients into marginal soil by burning down all vegetation on the topsoil).  About half the world's rainforests have disappeared, and much of what remains can pretty much only be found in the Amazon (the Brazilian rainforest being called by Al Gore the "lungs of the Earth").

    Some of the most world's most rapidly deforesting areas are key strategic areas.  Take Indonesia, for example, which is the world's most populous Muslim country.  Under President Suharto (1967-1998), about 88% of all timber there was logged illegally with profits winding up in the hands of his family and cronies.  The disenchantment of poor people there to make any living off the remaining land is a major recruitment tool for the terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah.      

    Desertification is the expansion or growth of deserts.  It can be seen in Africa by the spread of the Sahara and Kalahari deserts, and it can also be seen by the encroachment of sand dunes on human habitats.  It has been going on since prehistoric times, but in recent years, given overpopulation and a number of other factors, it has become quite noticeable in places like China, Afghanistan, Latin American, and the Middle East.  It is most noticeable in Africa where 50 million people are displaced by desertification every 10 years (Dabelko 2009).  Sand storms are usually, but not always, associated with desertification, and other causes include salinization, erosion, and drought (Batterbury & Warren 2001).  Once land is lost in this way, it becomes lost forever.  Hough (2004) refers to this problem as the clearest example of the tragedy of the commons; others have referred to it as the way we have outgrown the earth.

INVASIVE SPECIES

    One of the ironies in ecological security is the fact that as some species are disappearing, others are proliferating at uncontrollable rates.  An invasive species can be native or non-indigenous, but in all cases are characterized by widespread dispersion which often have harmful economic effects (primarily on agriculture and timber yields, but also on tourism and recreation).  A typical species of this kind can be plant, animal, or insect.  Many Americans can identify with the well-known phenomena of the Japanese Kudzu plant which has taken over the southeastern part of the United States.  Invasive species compete with native species for resources such as nutrients, light, physical space, water, and food.  Invasive species modify habitats and ecosystems.  Island nations are particularly susceptible, with Australia, Guam, and New Zealand experiencing widespread invasions in recent years.  Perhaps the greatest security threat from this problem (and it should be noted there is no scientific proof of this) is the possibility that recent patterns in the dispersion of invasive species are somehow related to the recent spread of zoonotic diseases -- those that jump from animals to humans, and vice-versa.

MILITARY-STYLE SECURITY IMPLICATIONS

    Although no one has seriously countenanced creating a new "ecocide" crime against humanity under international law, there have been efforts to clarify the meaning of new threat categories like "eco-violence" and "resource wars."  These terms generally reflect a perception that climate problems are already acting as "threat multipliers" in the world's fragile regions that breed extremism and terrorism, and further, that many environmental problems represent a direct threat to international peace and security.  Anger and frustration already exist in many nations affected by sea level rise, crop failure, and water scarcity.  Several nations have already fought minor skirmishes over resource disputes, as follows:

• 1967 Arab-Israeli Six-Day War and the ongoing Jordan River Dispute

• 1969 Football War between El Salvador and Honduras (over land rights)

• 1972 Cod Wars between Iceland and the U.K. (over fishing rights)

• 1989 Senegal River dispute which was part of the Mauritanian crisis (the river dried up)

• 1997 Nile River Dispute between Egypt and Ethiopia (the water evaporates too much)

• 2006 Niger Delta guerrilla conflict (over greenhouse gas emissions)

• 2008 Any of the global oil wars predicted by Klare (2002)

    It is important to note the word "skirmishes" is the most appropriate term for "water wars" since no actual water wars have ever occurred.  From Lomberg (2001: 156):

    "Professor Aaron Wolf has gone through the entire crisis dataset, and of the 412 crises in the period 1918-94, only seven had water as even a partial cause. In three of these, not a single shot was fired, and none was violent enough to qualify as an actual war. Wolf concluded: "As we see, the actual history of armed water conflict is somewhat less dramatic than the water wars literature would lead one to believe . . . As near as we can find, there has never been a single war fought over water. The lack of actual water war examples should be compared to the more than 3,600 treaties concerning international water resources that were registered in the centuries between 805 CE and 1984. With the last hundred years alone, more than 149 treaties have been signed."

    Yet, many scholars have suggested environmental and ecological problems be treated and analyzed as a new kind of global security threat.  Thomas Homer-Dixon (author's website) has already been mentioned, but additionally, there was Ullman (1983), one of the "wideners" mentioned in a previous lecture on securitization.  Wideners such as Mathews (1989) and Rogers (2000) argue that only when nation-states begin to see these kinds of issues as threats to their internal security will anything get done.  On the other hand, Deudney (1990) is typical of the anti-widening movement since he argues that no nation-state is ever going to make an environmental issue its national security problem.  Of course, the most wide of all perspectives are those which argue the risks in this category can bring about the fall of civilization.  All civilizations, no matter how great, eventually fall.  In the end, it may very well be a number of factors which bring about societal collapse, Tainter's (1990) book on the subject listing the following causes of that as:

    1) Depletion or cessation of a vital resource
    2) The establishment of a new resource base
    3) The occurrence of some insurmountable catastrophe
    4) Insufficient response to circumstance
    5) Other complex societies
    6) Intruders
    7) Class conflict, societal contradictions, elite mismanagement or misbehavior
    8) Social dysfunction
    9) Mystical factors
    10) Chance concatenation of events
    11) Economic factors

    It should be apparent that controversy exists with regard to securitization of environmental problems.  There are those who claim that the real threat is to nation-states; and others who claim the environment itself is the real referent object.  The strongest statement of the former approach is that "ecological stress can lead to armed conflict and/or political instability" (Dimitrov 2002: 681), and the strongest statement of the latter approach is that "the primary entity to be protected is no longer the state but the ecological environment" (Dimitrov 2002: 684), or, as Eddy (2004) puts it, "environmental degradation of the global commons."  The nation-state (or conflict) approach would imply that the best thing for nation-states to do is position themselves advantageously for current and future competitive conflicts.  Soroos (1995) predicts that this military-style (or unilateral) attitude is likely to prevail for at least another century or so.  The environment-as-victim approach requires reconceptualizing "harm" to the point where "universal harm" is considered more dangerous than national security harm, almost as if the environment itself were to be considered a person or nation-state which needs securing in its own right.  How to "fix" the problem (treat the symptom or cure the illness) is also an issue which separates the two approaches.                

ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS: THE "FIX"

    Treaties, conventions, and agreements are the most common "fix" to environmental security problems (see Wikipedia List of Environmental Treaties and Conventions).  These are good things in themselves, and some have had a minor impact, but most don't have any teeth in them nor do they really provide any kind of technological guidance.  While there are those who argue that trying to "fix the Earth" is the wrong way to look at it, some recurring ideas have been put forward in the academic field called planetary engineering (some call it geoengineering).

Geoengineering

Geoengineering occurs when the earth's environment is modified on a large scale. The most common idea draws upon the notion of putting huge vertical pipes in the oceans to bring nutrient-rich water up to the surface which, among other benefits, also encourages algae formations which absorb carbon dioxide (see picture for example of such vertical pipes). To date, no large-scale geoengineering projects have been undertaken. Some limited tree planting and cool roof projects have been carried out, however. Cool roof projects involve changing the color of roofing and paving surfaces so that solar radiation is reflected back into space. Larger-scale projects are likely to run up against significant legal challenges.

    An alternative solution is iron fertilization which can do all the things vertical pipes can do plus help assist marine life diversity.  Other possibilities bypass the oceans all together and deal directly with the atmosphere.  An example of this is to put tiny lenses in space to bend sunlight away from the Earth, an outcome which can also be accomplished by injecting sulfur into the stratosphere so less light penetrates, and on a smaller (and less dangerous scale), by painting all rooftops and roads white to counteract global warming.  Felton (2003) recounts the really most dangerous idea as that by an Iowa University professor once had who proposed blowing up the moon.  Apparently, the theory was that by blowing up the moon, the Earth would shift on its axis so that nearly everyone on the planet would welcome constant springlike weather.  This was (and is) bad theory.    

    Those who reject the idea that any "fix" is possible are usually forced into arguing that mitigation or adaptation are the best choices.  Mitigation involves making alternative power sources cost-effective, or making devices that outperform their predecessors by using less energy.  Adaptation strategies are simply those which call for the drafting of emergency response plans for crisis management purposes.  Fink (1986) calls this "rolling with the punches" or being prepared for the inevitable.  Regardless of which arguments one finds more resonance with, it is apparent that inaction and indecision have undesirable consequences.  The field of environmental security needs to mature, and sooner rather than later.

INTERNET RESOURCES
Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth Website
A Syllabus for Environmental Politics
AC/UNU Millenium Project Library Database
Climate Change and National Security (pdf)
Environmental Security Library Database
Journal of Environmental Politics
Journal of Global Environmental Politics
Pacific Institute
Photographic Evidence of Global Warming
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and Kyoto Protocol
Wikipedia Entries for Pollution and Types of Pollution
Woodrow Wilson Center for Environmental Change and Security

PRINTED RESOURCES
Barnett, J. (2001). The meaning of environmental security. London: Zed Books.
Batterbury, S. & Warren, A. (2001). "Desertification." Pp. 3526-3529 in N. Smelser & P. Baltes (eds.) International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences. NY: Elsevier.
Benedick, R. (1998). Ozone diplomacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. NY: Penguin Books.
Chasek, P., Brown, J. & Downie, L. (2006). Global environmental politics. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Cline, W. (2004). "Climate change." Pp. 13-43 in B. Lomborg (ed.), Global crises, global solutions. NY: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Dabelko, G. (2009). "Environment and Energy." Pp. 65-82 in N. Arnas (ed.) Fighting chance: Global trends and shocks in the national security environment. Washington DC: NDU Press.
Dalby, S. (2002). Environmental security. Minneapolis: Univ. of MN Press.
Deqeest, T. & Pirages, D. (2003). Ecological security. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Deudney, D. (1990). "The case against linking environmental degradation and security." Millennium Journal of International Studies 19(3): 460-476.
Dimitrov, R. (2002). "Water, conflict, and security: A conceptual minefield." Society & Natural Resources 15: 677-91.
Downs, A. (1972). "Up and down with ecology: The issue-attention cycle." Public Interest 28: 38-50.
Eddy, E. (2004). "Environmental security: Securing what for whom?" Social Alternatives 23: 23-28.
Felton, B. (2003). What were they thinking: Really bad ideas throughout history. NY: Globe Pequot.
Fink, S. (1986). Crisis management: Planning for the inevitable. NY: Amacom Books.
Gore, A. (2006). An inconvenient truth. Emmaus, PA: Rodale Books.
Greve, M. & Smith, F. (Eds.) (1992). Environmental politics. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Hoffmann, M. (2005). Ozone depletion and climate change. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. 
Hough, P. (2004). Understanding Global Security. NY: Routledge.
Houghton, J., Ding, Y., Griggs, D. & Noguer, M. (2001). Climate change 2001: The scientific basis. NY: Cambridge Univ. Press. 
Kraft, M. & Vig, N. (Eds.) (2000). Environmental policy. Washington DC: CQ Press.
Klare, M. (2002). Resource wars: The new landscape of global conflict. NY: Henry Holt.
Layzer, J. (2002). The environmental case. Washington DC: CQ Press.
Lomberg, B. (2001). The skeptical environmentalist. NY: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Lomberg, B. (Ed.) (2004). Global crises, global solutions. NY: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Lynn-Jones, S. & Miller, S. (Eds.) (1995) Global dangers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mathews, J. (1989). "Redefining security." Foreign Affairs 76(1): 162-177.
McElroy, M. (2002). The atmospheric environment: Effects of human activity. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.
Myers, N. (1996). Ultimate security. Chicago: Island Press.
Pirages, D. & Cousins, K. (Eds.) (2005). From resource scarcity to ecological security. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Prins, G. (1993). Threats without enemies. London: Earthscan Publications.
Rogers, P. (2000). Losing control: Global security in the 21st century. London: Pluto Press.
Smith, R., Corvalan, C. & Kiellstrom, T. (1999). "How much global ill health is attributable to environmental factors?" Journal of Epidemiology 10(5): 573-584.
Soroos, M. (1995). "Environmental security: Choices for the 21st century." National Forum 75: 20-25.
Switzer, J. (2004). Environmental politics, 4e. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Tainter, J. (1990). The collapse of complex societies. NY: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Ullman, R. (1983). "Redefining security." International Security 8(1): 129-153.
Van Brunschot, E. & Kennedy, L. (2008). Risk, balance, and security. Los Angeles: Sage.
Williams, M. (2003). Deforesting the earth. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Last updated: Feb. 17, 2010
Not an official webpage of APSU, copyright restrictions apply, see Megalinks in Criminal Justice
O'Connor, T.  (Date of Last Update at bottom of page). In Part of web cited (Windows name for file at top of browser), MegaLinks in Criminal Justice. Retrieved from http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/rest of URL accessed on today's date.