In the past decade, the world has experienced several security crises that have required serious and immediate action, from the global pandemic in 2020 to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which reaches its 3rd anniversary this year. While it would be difficult to say that humans are generally less safe than they have been in the past hundreds of years, it seems that the types of security risks a country can face have only increased. One danger that has received less attention is climate change. Climate change is slowly weakening the ability of governments all around the world to ensure state security.
Numerous studies have demonstrated the association between human-caused climate change and the severity of ecological conditions. In a review of over 600 studies, Carbon Brief found that climate change makes 74% of extreme weather events more likely or severe. The studies include investigations of cases like the wildfires in the United States, the drought in South Africa, and the typhoons in Taiwan. Extreme weather events like these can immobilize a country’s security forces by requiring relocation or an overall reduction in effectiveness. For instance, Hurricanes Helene and Milton in the United States required the evacuation not only of residents from their homes but also of military servicemen and equipment from key bases in the Southeast, reducing US military preparedness. In Canada, natural disasters like wildfires and floods have threatened the safety of residents and vital infrastructure, which once again reduced military preparedness by placing a greater demand on emergency services, rescue workers, and the Canadian Armed Forces to help impacted groups. These cases underscore how human-induced climate change can exacerbate natural disasters, undermining defence capabilities.
Furthermore, the intensification of weather can have serious implications for violence. Evidence suggests that changes in the climate can lead to increased risks of intergroup violence. A 1°C increase in temperature has been found to increase intergroup conflict risk by 2.5% to 5%. This correlation is demonstrated across the local, national and global levels. It has been linked, for example, to the War in Darfur because the rapid desertification and drought gradually diminished the availability of natural resources that supported the livelihoods and the peaceful coexistence of the agriculturalists, who are mostly ethno-African and the pastoralists, who are predominantly of Arab ethnicity.
Additionally, experts warn that climate change can contribute to or worsen conflicts between states. Climate change can reduce access to natural resources, creating greater competition between nations. The most recent example is the dispute between Egypt and Ethiopia regarding the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. Almost all of Egypt’s fresh water is taken from the Nile. However, the country fears that the upstream Ethiopian dam could jeopardize its water supply, especially during a drought. While the tensions have remained non-violent, leaders have warned of the potential for military strife. Declining water provisions due to climate change could worsen the issue, increasing the likelihood of a confrontation.
Furthermore, the capacity for climate change to worsen civilians’ access to food, water, and sanitation has been linked to higher rates of insurgency and terrorism. This is because criminal groups can gain control of diminishing resource supplies and leverage them for recruitment and political control. A report by Climate Diplomacy demonstrated this process using the case of Boko Haram. The study found that the extreme poverty and economic precarity, coupled with the drought and environmental deterioration, provided ideal conditions for the Islamic extremist group to thrive and challenge government authority across Lake Chad, spanning countries including Niger, Nigeria, Chad and Cameroon. Additionally, the severe lack of employment opportunities in rural Nigeria made young people vulnerable to recruitment by Boko Haram.
Given the various ways in which climate change threatens to worsen security for countries regardless of their economic status, the most effective response will involve confronting it with the seriousness it demands. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has adopted more than 70 resolutions and presidential statements addressing climate-related peace and security implications. Despite this, several members have firmly opposed adding climate change to the Security Council agenda. For instance, when the UNSC developed a thematic resolution formally recognizing its role in addressing the implications of climate change on global security in December 2021, India voted against it, China abstained, and Russia vetoed it. Prior to the vote, letters to Council members circulated by India, Russia, and China alleged that the scientific evidence equating climate change with security concerns was unclear.
Domestically, several countries have recognized the security implications of climate change. A report by the American Security Project reports approximately 70% of countries explicitly state that climate change is a national security concern. Various states have begun taking policy steps to address the impacts of climate change on security. Germany launched the annual Berlin Climate and Security Conference to address global risks. The Australian Department of Defence initiated the Net Zero Strategy and Future Energy Strategy to take practical action to reduce the impacts of climate change. The Netherlands has taken a holistic approach by integrating climate change into safety and security policy and addressing climate risks and resilience in strategic context analyses, conflict analyses and programming.
Despite the efforts of some countries, meaningful policy implementation to combat climate change has yet to materialize. The majority of states are not on track to meet their climate commitments, with a significant gap between pledged policies and actual execution. For the first time, temperatures exceeded 1.5°C above preindustrial levels for the entire year of 2024. This, coupled with the United States’ recent withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, has left climate diplomats alarmed about the future of the environment.
These failures to implement climate policies have the potential to pose a threat not only to the environment but the safety of government institutions, citizens, and society as a whole. In order to effectively address security risks, governments must integrate climate considerations into both domestic and foreign policy analysis. It is pertinent for them to identify the processes through which climate change impacts their security and seek to get ahead of these risks before they become a reality.
This is an article written by a Staff Writer. Catalyst is a student-led platform that fosters engagement with global issues from a learning perspective. The opinions expressed above do not necessarily reflect the views of the publication.
Edited by Shihun Lee
Theresa Decius-Timothée is in her fourth and final year at McGill University, currently pursuing a B.A. in Honours Political Science and a minor in International Development Studies. She is passionate about international relations, migration, and comparative politics in Canada and the Global South, with a focus on the Caribbean and Latin America.