CIWEM Executive Director, Nick Reeves, says climate change is not the global problem we all think it is. It will have winners and losers.

Climate change isn't all bad and, who knows, may be a force for good for some parts of the world. It's an inconvenient truth and a fact that is hard to swallow. A global crisis that affected everyone equally would be much easier to deal with. However, climate change that hurts some parts of the world but helps others, opens the way for evermore dangerous political and military conflicts. Climate change will alter the balance of power that will bend the political landscape out of shape. Conflict? We ain't seen nothing yet.

The most recent reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), confirm that large parts of the world are at risk from famine, flood, drought and disease of near-Biblical proportions. The places most likely to be affected are those that are already poor - sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia, for example.

Yet, in northern Europe, agriculture could become more productive and the climate will improve (if hotter summers are your thing). And from a narrow UK perspective, the IPCC report sounds like good news. It has decided against the one climate catastrophe we all feared - the paradoxical threat that global warming was going to make the UK much colder by shutting down the Gulf Stream, the ocean current that gives the UK a much warmer climate than its latitude implies. The latest thinking of IPCC scientists is that this is very unlikely to happen any day soon.

One of the climate change winners will be Russia as the legendary Russian winter becomes much less cold and much more tolerable. As the permafrost retreats in Siberia new mineral resources will be revealed and vast areas of land will become available for settlement, cultivation and for tourism. The Russian Government must be salivating at the prospect and the opportunities this will afford to grow its economy, to be much more self-sufficient and to wield much more political power. With the placing of the Russian flag under the Arctic, the Russian government has signalled its intention and its interest in the vast oil reserves.

In an irony that will infuriate many in the green movement, oil companies are likely to benefit from global warming. The US Geological Survey reckons that 25 percent of the world's known oil and gas reserves are in the Arctic Circle. As the ice melts, so it will become easier to explore and to exploit. Unless there's an outright global ban on fossil fuels (which is even less likely than me partnering Wayne Rooney in attack for the England football team), then oil, as a source of energy, may yet get a reprieve.

A paper published in the respected Environment and Urbanisation Journal makes it clear that three-quarters of the 634 million people deemed to be most at risk from rising sea levels caused by climate change live in Asia. Coastal cities in the developed world, such as New York and Los Angeles, may also be at risk. But wealthy countries are better placed to adapt to the problem. We all know that the Dutch, who have long experience of holding back the sea, are not panicking and will spend many billions more on flood defences.

Of course, it would be misleading to suggest that countries that will 'benefit' from climate change won't suffer indirectly as other parts of the world descend into chaos. The UK is not an island (well, technically it is of course - but you get my drift). Dealing with economic and environmental migrants will only get harder as millions of poor souls leave Africa and the Asian sub-continent for a better life elsewhere.

It's now dawning on the world's politicians that climate change could transform the political landscape and international relations - resulting in new issues, conflicts and tensions,  the most obvious being struggles over refugees and resources. It is being argued robustly that the conflict in Darfur is caused partially by climate change, as settled farmers and nomadic communities fight over failing land and not enough water. Water wars are nothing new and will only escalate as climate change bites. Water shortages are a particular threat and have been a source of conflict in the Middle East and parts of Africa for some time. But as India and China run short of water, their neighbours are worried that struggles may arise over the diversion of rivers and the building of dams. Anyone who doesn't believe that the environment is political is hugely mistaken.

The view of some commentators that the Chinese are blind to the threat of climate change is bunkum. The Chinese Government is concerned that the Yangtze and Yellow Rivers are at their lowest levels for many years, where much of the problem is to do with irrigation and industrial use. But the Chinese believe that climate change is also contributing to water scarcity because of its effects on rainfall and melting glaciers that feed the rivers. To his great credit - and risking criticism from his own allies - the Chinese premier, Wen Jiabao, signalled his concerns about damage to the environment in a recent speech to his country's parliament. He argued the need for sustainable economic growth that does not exacerbate climate change. Yet, he faces a real dilemma.  Terrified of social unrest, the Chinese Government cannot slow the rate of economic growth too much or halt the speed at which coal-fired power stations are being built. And water shortages are already causing unrest in some rural areas.

Climate change will not only provoke conflicts over scarcity. It may also cause struggles over the emergence of new resources, especially the oil and gas that lies underneath the Arctic. Outstanding territorial disputes between the US and Canada, between Russia and Norway, and between Denmark and Russia have taken on a new complexion and urgency in recent years as these countries develop a new interest in hitherto unpromising stretches of ice.

At least territorial disputes and bickering over land are familiar ground for politicians and diplomats. But this is different and the diplomatic world will be dominated by arguments over the environment and international regimes for tackling climate change. Arguments over what to do could turn quickly into the latest bitter struggle between the traditional industrialised countries and the developing world. Which is why, back in April, the UK Government took advantage of its Presidency of the United Nations Security Council and the then Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, forced it to debate climate change.  This was historic and no mean feat as some permanent members of the Council objected. After all, the Security Council usually talks about wars and weapons and certainly not the environment. By the end of the session representatives of 52 countries had turned up to say their piece and agreed that climate change is a clear threat to international security. The significance? Never again will any leader of any democratic country be able to deny human-induced climate change and get elected. So, any successor to President Bush is likely to be much more concerned about global action on climate change. And, in 2009, just as a new eco-savvy President settles in to the White House, China is predicted to surpass the US as the world's leading
source of carbon emissions.

But the Chinese will not be short of allies in any struggle over who bears the cost of climate change. The Russians - with an economy based on fossil fuels, and a society that benefits from a warmer climate - may well stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them. So could India, Brazil and much of the developing world. Climate change represents formidable environmental and scientific challenges. The political consequences may prove just as challenging and as equally dangerous.