The complex truth behind climate change and global conflict
When we picture a world ravaged by climate change, it's easy to imagine nations battling over dwindling water supplies or invading neighbors for precious arable land. This apocalyptic vision of "environmental wars" has become a common narrative in our climate-anxious era. Yet, decades of research reveal a surprising truth: the direct link between environmental change and interstate warfare is far weaker than conventional wisdom suggests.
Environmental pressures rarely trigger traditional wars between states. Instead, climate acts as a hidden "threat multiplier" in existing conflicts.
In this article, we'll explore why environmental pressures rarely trigger traditional wars between states, how climate instead acts as a hidden "threat multiplier" in existing conflicts, and what this means for our collective future in a warming world.
The idea that environmental scarcity leads to war has deep historical roots. Humans have always competed for life-sustaining resources—from fertile soil and fresh water to precious minerals and energy sources1 . As far back as the 1930s, strategists wrote about the "strategy of raw materials" and nations pursued resource self-sufficiency as a national security imperative1 .
Resource competition has been a driver of conflict throughout human history, making the eco-war hypothesis intuitively appealing.
Environmental warfare—the deliberate destruction or alteration of the environment for military purposes—does exist, but it's different from environmental causes sparking wars2 .
On the surface, the logic seems irrefutable. Since the emergence of human life on Earth, we've been able to take certain environmental conditions for granted—clean air, stable climates, shielding from ultraviolet radiation—all of which are now in jeopardy due to human activities1 . When these essential resources become scarce, wouldn't nations naturally fight to secure them?
Examples include the Gulf War oil spills and Agent Orange herbicide use in Vietnam, where the environment became a weapon rather than a cause of conflict2 .
Despite the intuitive appeal of the eco-war hypothesis, the evidence tells a different story. Security expert Daniel Deudney aptly termed this "The Mirage of Eco-War," noting the surprisingly weak relationship among global environmental change, national security, and interstate violence1 .
Modern societies develop alternatives to scarce resources
Commerce is more efficient than conquest for resource acquisition
Environmental stress influences conflict through multiple indirect steps
Modern societies have developed remarkable abilities to substitute scarce resources with alternatives. As one influential analysis noted, we've entered an "age of substitutability" where scientific and technological progress has loosened "the iron grip of natural scarcity upon human life"1 . When a resource becomes scarce or expensive, market signals trigger innovation and replacement rather than inevitable conflict.
In our globalized world, conquest is often less efficient than commerce. As Richard Rosecrance highlighted in "The Rise of the Trading State," nations increasingly prosper through economic exchange rather than territorial expansion1 . Why fight a costly war for resources when you can trade for them more efficiently?
Environmental stresses typically influence conflict indirectly through multiple intermediate steps—economic shocks, population displacement, institutional weakening—rather than directly causing violence1 . This complexity makes direct causation between environmental change and warfare exceptionally rare.
If environmental changes rarely trigger traditional wars between states, how exactly does climate affect security? The answer lies in climate's role as a "threat multiplier"4 .
Rather than directly causing conflicts, climate change intensifies existing social, economic, and political tensions. The U.S. White House National Security Strategy explicitly acknowledged this in 2015, stating: "Climate change is an urgent and growing threat to our national security, contributing to increased natural disasters, refugee flows, and conflicts over basic resources like food and water"4 .
Research has found that a temperature rise of just 1.8°F is linked to a 4.5 percent increase in the incidence of civil war that year4 .
Terrorist groups like Boko Haram have exploited climate-related resource scarcity to recruit members and strengthen their control4 .
Climate change damages military infrastructure through extreme heat, floods, rising sea levels, and more frequent intense storms4 .
| Region | Climate Impact | Security Consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Lake Chad Basin | Lake shrinkage (90% since 1960s) | Rise of Boko Haram exploiting scarcity4 |
| Darfur, Sudan | Drought & desertification | Conflict escalation (2003-present)4 |
| Syria | Severe multi-year drought | Civil war escalation & recruitment opportunities for militant groups4 |
| Nile River Basin | Water scarcity & changing precipitation patterns | Tensions between Egypt, Ethiopia, Sudan over Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam4 |
To understand how researchers study the climate-conflict relationship, let's examine a typical approach used in this field, drawing from methodologies described in climate-security research.
Researchers begin by mapping locations experiencing both significant environmental stress and political violence. For example, the Lake Chad region—where the lake has shrunk by 90% since the 1960s—has drawn significant research attention due to the rise of Boko Haram in the same area4 .
Scientists then examine whether violence increases following environmental shocks like droughts or floods. One influential study found that for each 1.8°F temperature increase, civil conflict incidence rose by 4.5%4 .
Researchers investigate intermediate factors that translate environmental stress into conflict:
Finally, scientists compare patterns across multiple regions to distinguish consistent relationships from unique local circumstances.
| Environmental Stressor | Common Intermediate Effects | Likely Conflict Outcomes |
|---|---|---|
| Prolonged drought | Crop failure, livestock death, rural unemployment | Recruitment opportunities for armed groups, protests over resource allocation4 |
| Water scarcity | Competition for dwindling supplies, infrastructure strain | Non-state actor control of resources, communal violence, international tensions4 |
| Extreme weather events | Displacement, infrastructure damage, economic shock | Social unrest, criminal opportunism, intergroup tensions4 |
The evidence that environmental change rarely causes direct interstate war offers both reassurance and important policy implications.
The concept of "national security" must expand beyond traditional military concerns to encompass environmental sustainability, resource management, and climate resilience1 . As analyst Norman Myers argued, environmental security deserves equal standing with more conventional security concerns1 .
Rather than preparing for climate wars, nations should focus on environmental peacebuilding—using shared resource management to foster cooperation between potential adversaries4 .
| Research Approach | Primary Function | Key Insight Generated |
|---|---|---|
| Statistical analysis of historical conflicts | Identify correlations between climate variables & conflict outbreaks | Temperature increases correlate with higher civil war incidence4 |
| Case study methodology | Deep examination of specific conflict regions | Reveals how intermediate factors enable climate impacts to cause violence4 |
| Resource tracking | Monitor scarce essential resources (water, fertile land) | Predicts where competition may turn violent4 |
| Policy analysis | Evaluate governance mechanisms for resource disputes | Identifies successful peacebuilding approaches4 |
The "mirage of eco-war" doesn't mean climate change poses no security threats. Rather, it reveals that the dangers are more complex and indirect than typically imagined.
Environmental stresses are far more likely to fuel civil conflicts, terrorism, and criminal violence than traditional wars between states.
This nuanced understanding is ultimately empowering. By recognizing that environmental conflict is not inevitable, we can focus our efforts on building resilient institutions, fostering cooperative resource management, and addressing the underlying social and political conditions that transform environmental stress into violence.
For those interested in exploring this topic through fiction, the 2018 Icelandic film "Woman at War" provides a compelling portrayal of environmental activism that wrestles with many of these complex themes.