Could climate change precipitate peace?
| Published date | 01 January 2012 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022343311427342 |
| Date | 01 January 2012 |
| Author | Erik Gartzke |
| Subject Matter | Research Articles |
Could climate change precipitate peace?
Erik Gartzke
University of California, San Diego
Abstract
Growing interest in the social consequences of climate change has fueled speculation that global warming could
lead to an increase in various forms of political violence. This article examines the effects of climate change on
internationalconflictsubsequenttotheonsetofEuropeanindustrialization. Surprisingly, analysis at the system
level suggests that global warming is associated with a reduction in interstate conflict. This naive relationship is
suspect, however, as the increased consumption of carbon-based fuels is itself associated with changing patterns of
politics and prosperity. In particular, economic development has been viewed as a cause of both climate change
and interstate peace. Incorporating measures of development, democracy, cross-border trade, and international
institutions reveals that systemic trends toward peace are actually best accounted for by the increase in average
international income. The results imply that climate change, which poses a number of critical challenges for cit-
izens and policymakers, need not be characterized as fundamentally a security issue, though climate change may
have important security implications on the periphery of world politics. The analysis here also suggests that
efforts to curb climate change should pay particular attention to encouraging clean development among
middle-income states, as these countries are the most conflict prone. Ironically, stagnating economic develop-
ment in middle-income states caused by efforts to combat climate change could actually realize fears of
climate-induced warfare.
Keywords
climate change, democracy, economic development, global warming, intergovernmental organization, international
conflict, militarized interstate dispute
Introduction
An evolving consensus that the earth is becoming
warmer has led to increased interest in the social conse-
quences of climate change. Along with rising sea levels,
varying patterns of precipitation, vegetation, and possi-
ble resource scarcity, perhaps the most incendiary claims
have to do with conflict and political violence. A second
consensus has begun to emerge among policymakers and
opinion leaders that global warming may well result in
increased civil and even interstate warfare, as groups and
nations compete for water, soil, or oil. Authoritative
bodies, leading government officials, and even the
Norwegian Nobel Committee have added their voices
to inchoate concerns that climate change will give rise
to an increase in heated confrontations as communities
compete in a warmer world.
Where the basic science of climate change preceded
policy, this second consensus among politicians and pun-
dits about climate and conflict formed in the absence of
substantial scientific evidence. While anecdote and some
focused statistical research suggests that civil conflict may
have worsened in response to recent climate change in
developing regions (c.f. Homer-Dixon, 1991, 1994;
Burke et al., 2009), these claims have been severely criti-
cized by other studies (Nordås & Gleditsch, 2007;
Buhaug, Gleditsch & Theisen, 2010; Buhaug, 2010).
1
Corresponding author:
egartzke@ucsd.edu
1
Sutton et al. (2010) critiques Burke et al. (2009). Burke et al.
(2010) offers a reply.
Journal of Peace Research
49(1) 177–192
ªThe Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022343311427342
jpr.sagepub.com
p
eace
R
ESEARCH
journal of
In contrast, the few long-term macro statistical studies
actually find that conflict increases in periods of climatic
chill (Zhang et al., 2006, 2007; Tol & Wagner, 2010).
2
Research on the modern era reveals that interstate conflict
has declined in the second half of the 20th century, the
very period during which global warming has begun to
make itself felt (Goldstein, 2011; Hensel, 2002; Levy,
Walker & Edwards, 2001; Luard, 1986, 1988; Mueller,
2009; Pinker, 2011; Sarkees, Wayman & Singer,
2003).
3
While talk of a ‘climatic peace’ is premature,
assertions that global warming is injurious to world peace
must be evaluated in light of countervailing evidence and
contrasting causal claims.
4
To understand why global warming can coincide with
a reduction in interstate conflict, it will be useful to recall
that the contemporary situation differs from earlier erasof
climate change to thedegree that warming is a product of
human activity. Human beings burn fossil fuels that pro-
duce greenhouse gases that lead to global warming. These
same fossil fuels propel economic and political systems
that appear lessinclined to certain formsof violent conflict
(Gartzke & Rohner, 2010, 2011). Industrialization leads
to economic development and democracy, each of which
has been associatedwith peace. Prosperity also encourages
international institutions and stabilizing global and
regional hierarchies. Thus, global warming may coincide
with peace, while not actually inhibiting warfare.
This study explores the relationship between climate
change, liberalprocesses fueled by industrialization (devel-
opment, democracy, international institutions), and inter-
state conflict. Previous studies of liberal peace have not
paid much attention to climate change. Climatic peace
may be yet another benefit purchased by all but accruing
mostly to the developed world. At the same time, there
might be trade-offs to consider in terms of the pace of
development and the environment. The curvilinear rela-
tionship between development and interstate peace
reported here and elsewhere (Boehmer & Sobek, 2005)
suggests important advantages to increasing the pace of
development, rapidly moving states through the ‘danger
zone’ of partial industrialization. If efforts to combat
climate change cause nations to stagnate economically,
then the world may unintentionally realize the worst fears
of pundits and politicians for climate-induced conflict.
While the findings reported below clearly indicate
that the rise in global temperatures has not (yet) led to
increased interstate conflict, there remains room for
debate about whether global warming has other deleter-
ious, or even beneficial, effects. Under some conditions
climate change appears to reduce the frequency of inter-
state disputes, though there is no compelling rationale
for why this should be the case, even as this particular
relationship is not robust with respect to the broadest set
of coincident explanations. It may be too soon to provide
a definitive answer to whether warming increases,
reduces, or has no effect on interstate conflict, though
of course waiting for more data also poses trade-offs.
Conversely, the consequences of global warming may
well differ across countries and regions. Some states may
become more violent under pressure from a warmer pla-
net, even as other states or regions find greater cause for
cooperation. For now, I focus on detailing global pat-
terns of climate change and interstate conflict, a neces-
sary first step.
Conceptualizing climate and conflict
Research on climate change has generated tremendous
interest. Initial debate focused on whether the climate
is changing. Consensus has since evolved that the earth
is getting warmer. Controversy then shifted to whether
human beings are responsible for climate change. The
third, most prolonged stage of the climate-change debate
involves deciding what actions states and other actors
should take to address consequences of global warming.
These numerous and varied effects of climate change
could conceivably be considered separately from their
causes, provided the two are not directly related. We
need not put to rest all controversy about the causes of
global warming to understand a bit about what climate
change will do to the world we all occupy. Yet, to the
degree that climate change is attributable to industrializa-
tion, it may make sense to consider whether these pro-
cesses also interact directly or indirectly with specific
consequences of global warming. To determine whether
a warmer planet will be a more violent one, we need to
ascertain both that: (a) rising temperatures increase con-
flict globally (not just in a few possibly atypical cases),
5
2
A 1974 report from the Central Intelligence Agency warned of the
dangers of a cooler climate, affecting agriculture and political stability
(Central Intelligence Agency, 1974).
3
Battle deaths in war also declined (Lacina, Gleditsch & Russett,
2006; Lacina & Gleditsch, 2005).
4
‘Future global warming is not likely to lead to (civil) war between
(within) European countries’ (Tol & Wagner, 2010: 77). Zhang
and co-authors find similar results for China (2006) and for the world
at large (2007). These findings were widely misrepresented in popular
media as evidence that global warming is associated with increased
violence.
5
General tendencies can fail to characterize phenomena in particular
times or places.
178 journal of PEACE RESEARCH 49(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial