In preparing my lectures for this week (in the course POLI 375 Global Environmental Politics), I found myself at a loss. While I am well immersed in the academic literature, reading every issue of the associated journals in the discipline (Global Environmental Politics and International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics), I couldn’t find one single short piece that described to me (and obviously to my students) the state of the research agenda in environmental security.

The work of Simon Dalby, Geoff and Dave Dabelko, Thomas Homer-Dixon and a number of other scholars is focused on environmental security. And while the definitional issue seems to have been left behind in the conversation, I still find that scholars have difficulties in determining what exactly encompasses environmental security.

Recent work by Joshua Busby has focused on demonstrating the linkages between climate change and international security. This link is particularly visible because of the obvious nexus between vulnerability to climate change in nations and bad governance/past conflict. The above mentioned negative conditions have made these countries even more vulnerable. Responding to disasters thus becomes a challenge.

In my primary research field (water), the concept of water security has been at the forefront of academic discussions, but I ponder whether the field of environmental security can afford to continue to focus on “security in resource X or Y” rather than examining the inextricable linkages between environmental degradation and international security/foreign policy.

So I ponder, where is the debate going in the field of global environmental security? Is it going to continue in the two sub-fields (interconnected) of environmental refugees and climate-security? I wrote this blog entry to help set the stage for an online conversation between me, my students in the course, and potentially other research colleagues in the field. Comments, as always, appreciated.

While climate change policy is not one of my strongest and core areas of research, I am familiar with the literature, particularly as it applies to my other pursuits. Integrated assessment (IA, the methodological framework I used when I wrote my PhD dissertation) is a series of heuristics used to integrate knowledge from natural and social sciences in order to inform policy design. IA can be used in a variety of knowledge domains. IA has been extensively used in climate change policy, but in my doctoral research, I applied it to a problem normally situated within the realm of environmental economic geography. While conducting research for my doctorate, I made extensive use of climate change literature.

I preface this post with the disclaimer that climate change and in particular carbon offsetting is not precisely my area of expertise because I am not commenting on the actual content, but I want to comment primarily on the way in which the recent publication by Deborah Carlson and Paul Lingl from the David Suzuki Foundation and Rich Wong from the Pembina Institute “Purchasing Carbon Offsets: A Guide for Canadian Consumers, Businesses, and Organizations” should be used. As the authors of the analysis very aptly indicate:

This guide offers general information for individuals, businesses, and organizations interested in voluntarily using carbon offsets to mitigate their climate impact, and compares specific offset vendors on the basis of criteria established by staff from the David Suzuki Foundation and Pembina Institute. The results presented in this guide are meant only to illustrate the performance of the vendors with respect to these criteria at the time of the survey, and are not intended to replace due diligence on the part of individuals or organizations that wish to purchase offsets.

It’s easy for consumers to go check a scorecard written and endorsed by a prestigious organization (and ENGO). However, it is very important as well for the potential buyer of carbon offsets to do his/her due diligence. I emphasize this aspect because, no matter who conducts the analysis and who writes the guide, scorecard ranking methods may be fraught with elements of subjectivity. The way I see it, the guide is intended to start a process to inform the public on the elements that they might want to consider when buying carbon offsets. It’s NOT intended to replace due diligence.

Scorecards have definite value. Eco-labelling schemes like Ocean Wise and scorecard systems like Sea Choice help consumers make informed choices. But they don’t substitute the need for individuals to research and educate themselves. I think this guide is a good and worthy first step towards comparing how different carbon offsetting systems work.