(This article was published on December 17, 2007)

ScienceDaily (Dec. 17, 2007) — Climate advocate Al Gore accepted the Nobel Peace Prize this December 10th. New Norwegian research suggests, however, that there is no connection between environmental crises and armed conflict.

"Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states."

A broader concept of peace

This is an excerpt from the Nobel Committee's explanation for the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, shared equally by the former US Vice President Al Gore Jr. and the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

The Nobel Committee interprets "working for peace" as including saving the Earth's environment. Researchers, advocacy groups, politicians and the media have all highlighted local resource crises as the reason for a host of armed conflicts around the globe. The premise underlying the Nobel Committee's expanded definition of peace is that there is a causal connection between natural resource shortages and violent conflict.

But is that true? Not according to a new study from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU).

Surprising results

A series of case studies in recent years from areas stricken by conflict has helped develop a theoretical basis for the claim that natural resource scarcity leads to armed conflict. Darfur, Sudan, is a recent example of this presumed causal connection, with Rwanda, Haiti and Somalia as other examples.

Helga Malmin Binningsbø, Indra de Soysa and Nils Petter Gleditsch, from NTNU's Department of Sociology and Political Science, looked at the environmental pressures in 150 countries in the period from 1961 to 1999. By using an internationally recognized technique for measuring a country's environmental sustainability -"The Ecological Footprint" - the researchers were able to compare these numbers with statistics on armed conflict during the same period.

Their conclusion may seem paradoxical---lands where resources are heavily exploited show a clear connection to a lack of armed conflict. Or alternatively, nations troubled by war during the research period had lower exploitation rates of their natural resources. The findings give researchers solid empirical support for stating that environmental scarcity is not the reason behind violent conflict.

--A higher Ecological Footprint is negatively correlated with conflict onset, controlling for income effects and other factors, the researchers say in their article, published in the peer-reviewed journal Population and Environment.

-- Of course people fight over resources, that's not our argument. We believe, rather, that we have a strong scientific case against the Neomalthusian model, says Binningsbø.

For the full article, please visit: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071216133126.htm