A collective response to climate change is crucial to maintaining global stability. But heightened geopolitical tensions and ongoing wars (in Ukraine, Gaza, and many other parts of the world) are complicating international efforts to close climate financing gaps and address other shared problems.
UPPSALA – The worsening climate crisis continues to wreak havoc worldwide, with extreme weather events jeopardizing global peace and stability. A recent NATO report projected that climate change will significantly affect the alliance’s military assets and operations in the Arctic, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Meanwhile, other studies have warned that deteriorating living conditions and climate-related shifts in mobility and migration patterns could trigger new conflicts or escalate existing ones.
As extreme heat waves and devastating floods become the new normal in many parts of the world, the growing frequency and intensity of climate disasters places a heavy burden on countries and regions already grappling with violent conflicts and political instability. This, in turn, can impede these countries’ efforts to combat climate change.
During the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) in Dubai, 93 countries and 42 international organizations supported the Declaration on Climate, Relief, Recovery, and Peace, which aims to address the double burden of climate change and armed conflict. This initiative marks an important first step toward advancing conflict-sensitive climate action in countries and communities that have been historically overlooked by international agreements. But while the effort holds great promise, it remains to be seen how it will benefit conflict-affected communities.
Violent conflicts and wars are not only hindering progress toward climate action, but also contributing to carbon emissions and environmental degradation by causing wildfires, damaging energy infrastructure, and increasing fossil-fuel consumption. For example, Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine led to airspace restrictions that forced the rerouting of commercial flights, increasing global greenhouse-gas emissions by an estimated 24 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e), roughly the annual carbon emissions of Kenya.
Similarly, in addition to its devastating human toll, the war between Israel and Hamas has had severe environmental consequences – including 39 million tons of debris, most of it generated by Israeli airstrikes – that pose significant health risks to the affected population.
While the liberal international order has its flaws, multilateral cooperation remains essential for promoting collective solutions to global challenges like the climate crisis. But the wars in Ukraine and Gaza undermine multilateralism and escalate geopolitical tensions, thereby weakening international laws, agreements, and institutions designed to maintain global security and peace.
Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.
Subscribe Now
In an increasingly divided world, seeking transformative and collective solutions to the climate crisis is fraught with difficulties. Climate negotiations are currently shaped by the deepening rift between the Global North and South, as well as by various economic and political conflicts. Heightened geopolitical tensions could further complicate international negotiations and impede climate action, including the efforts to expand renewable-energy capacity, which are rapidly evolving into a competition for critical minerals.
The longer it takes to establish a new international climate-financing agreement and devise viable implementation mechanisms, the greater the resulting cost of climate change will be. Delayed climate action could destroy lives and livelihoods, fueling socioeconomic instability and putting the world’s most vulnerable regions at even greater risk.
Those hit hardest include subsistence farmers, pastoralist communities, indigenous peoples, migrant workers, and residents of informal urban neighborhoods. Most of these vulnerable and marginalized populations are concentrated in ecologically and politically fragile regions. Consequently, frontline countries and communities are underrepresented in climate negotiations, potentially perpetuating and exacerbating their vulnerabilities.
Meanwhile, local and indigenous knowledge is increasingly recognized as vital to climate mitigation and adaptation efforts. But although the success of climate action undoubtedly hinges on the meaningful engagement and participation of local and indigenous communities, the uneven distribution of resources and responsibilities undermines these efforts. Worse, frontline communities often lack the necessary resources to tap knowledge systems and access government schemes that could help them benefit from climate action.
This is especially true for conflict-affected communities. People living in conflict zones face various threats to their physical and environmental safety and often struggle to meet their basic survival needs, leaving them little time and capacity to build long-term climate resilience. Putting the responsibility for climate action on local communities in these areas is both unreasonable and unjust. Emphasizing locally led climate action without implementing robust measures to force emitters to pay for loss and damage can increase the burden on frontline populations, making it harder to ensure that compensation reaches the communities that need it most.
Breaking the vicious cycle of environmental crises and social vulnerability requires transformative policy changes at the international, national, and local levels. But without a viable global agreement on financing and rigorous tracking mechanisms designed to ensure that countries meet crucial climate targets, the ambitious goals set by national governments might never be achieved.
The lack of political leadership and incentives is particularly concerning. Amid escalating geopolitical tensions, and with dozens of countries holding elections this year, politicians and voters have not treated climate financing as a top priority. Former US President Donald Trump’s potential victory in November’s presidential election is already casting a shadow on the prospect of global climate action.
With the window of opportunity to tackle the climate crisis closing fast, world leaders must realize that armed conflicts and climate change are inextricably linked. By advancing solutions to both issues, they could help make the planet more secure for everyone.
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
Although policies based on mainstream neoclassical economics, famously enshrined in the Washington Consensus, have clearly failed, economic theory has remained in a state of paralyzed confusion. What has been missing is a full shift to modern modes of thought informed by contemporary science.
offers a new conceptual framework based on twenty-first-century science and simple observation.
UPPSALA – The worsening climate crisis continues to wreak havoc worldwide, with extreme weather events jeopardizing global peace and stability. A recent NATO report projected that climate change will significantly affect the alliance’s military assets and operations in the Arctic, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Meanwhile, other studies have warned that deteriorating living conditions and climate-related shifts in mobility and migration patterns could trigger new conflicts or escalate existing ones.
As extreme heat waves and devastating floods become the new normal in many parts of the world, the growing frequency and intensity of climate disasters places a heavy burden on countries and regions already grappling with violent conflicts and political instability. This, in turn, can impede these countries’ efforts to combat climate change.
During the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) in Dubai, 93 countries and 42 international organizations supported the Declaration on Climate, Relief, Recovery, and Peace, which aims to address the double burden of climate change and armed conflict. This initiative marks an important first step toward advancing conflict-sensitive climate action in countries and communities that have been historically overlooked by international agreements. But while the effort holds great promise, it remains to be seen how it will benefit conflict-affected communities.
Violent conflicts and wars are not only hindering progress toward climate action, but also contributing to carbon emissions and environmental degradation by causing wildfires, damaging energy infrastructure, and increasing fossil-fuel consumption. For example, Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine led to airspace restrictions that forced the rerouting of commercial flights, increasing global greenhouse-gas emissions by an estimated 24 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e), roughly the annual carbon emissions of Kenya.
Similarly, in addition to its devastating human toll, the war between Israel and Hamas has had severe environmental consequences – including 39 million tons of debris, most of it generated by Israeli airstrikes – that pose significant health risks to the affected population.
While the liberal international order has its flaws, multilateral cooperation remains essential for promoting collective solutions to global challenges like the climate crisis. But the wars in Ukraine and Gaza undermine multilateralism and escalate geopolitical tensions, thereby weakening international laws, agreements, and institutions designed to maintain global security and peace.
Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital
Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.
Subscribe Now
In an increasingly divided world, seeking transformative and collective solutions to the climate crisis is fraught with difficulties. Climate negotiations are currently shaped by the deepening rift between the Global North and South, as well as by various economic and political conflicts. Heightened geopolitical tensions could further complicate international negotiations and impede climate action, including the efforts to expand renewable-energy capacity, which are rapidly evolving into a competition for critical minerals.
The longer it takes to establish a new international climate-financing agreement and devise viable implementation mechanisms, the greater the resulting cost of climate change will be. Delayed climate action could destroy lives and livelihoods, fueling socioeconomic instability and putting the world’s most vulnerable regions at even greater risk.
Those hit hardest include subsistence farmers, pastoralist communities, indigenous peoples, migrant workers, and residents of informal urban neighborhoods. Most of these vulnerable and marginalized populations are concentrated in ecologically and politically fragile regions. Consequently, frontline countries and communities are underrepresented in climate negotiations, potentially perpetuating and exacerbating their vulnerabilities.
Meanwhile, local and indigenous knowledge is increasingly recognized as vital to climate mitigation and adaptation efforts. But although the success of climate action undoubtedly hinges on the meaningful engagement and participation of local and indigenous communities, the uneven distribution of resources and responsibilities undermines these efforts. Worse, frontline communities often lack the necessary resources to tap knowledge systems and access government schemes that could help them benefit from climate action.
This is especially true for conflict-affected communities. People living in conflict zones face various threats to their physical and environmental safety and often struggle to meet their basic survival needs, leaving them little time and capacity to build long-term climate resilience. Putting the responsibility for climate action on local communities in these areas is both unreasonable and unjust. Emphasizing locally led climate action without implementing robust measures to force emitters to pay for loss and damage can increase the burden on frontline populations, making it harder to ensure that compensation reaches the communities that need it most.
Breaking the vicious cycle of environmental crises and social vulnerability requires transformative policy changes at the international, national, and local levels. But without a viable global agreement on financing and rigorous tracking mechanisms designed to ensure that countries meet crucial climate targets, the ambitious goals set by national governments might never be achieved.
The lack of political leadership and incentives is particularly concerning. Amid escalating geopolitical tensions, and with dozens of countries holding elections this year, politicians and voters have not treated climate financing as a top priority. Former US President Donald Trump’s potential victory in November’s presidential election is already casting a shadow on the prospect of global climate action.
With the window of opportunity to tackle the climate crisis closing fast, world leaders must realize that armed conflicts and climate change are inextricably linked. By advancing solutions to both issues, they could help make the planet more secure for everyone.