Science–policy dimensions of research on climate change and conflict

Abstract

A large body of research now indicates that climate likely matters for conflict. This climate–conflict scholarship, however, has involved divergent findings, sometimes strident disagreement, and resulting limits to the usability of the scholarship for policymakers and practitioners. This viewpoint essay draws from recent expert assessments of climate–conflict linkages to position the research field among climate change research and assessment more broadly. We explore potential insights from the climate realm. As is often the case for climate change research, science–society dynamics are inherent in scholarship on climate and conflict. They contribute to contestation about the state of knowledge, the best ways to characterize it, and its implications for societal choices and investments. Our critique is grounded in the literature evaluating policy-relevant climate change assessment across diverse disciplines, from sea-level-rise adaptation science to energy-system modeling. Through comparisons with such fields, this perspective article considers several implications for climate–conflict knowledge production. We examine, in particular, the necessity of integrating diverse lines of evidence to understand the risks of responding to societally relevant uncertainties and priorities, and of encouraging interactions among researchers, practitioners, and policymakers. The experiences of other climate change disciplines can provide inspiration for potential directions for climate, conflict, and security scholarship. They include risk framings in integrating underlying evidence, through to options for supporting the interactions among researchers and societies.

Security implications of climate change: A decade of scientific progress

“…Against the backdrop of the gradual maturing of the research field, additional contributions of this special issue offer new perspectives on the developments of the field at large. Specifically, Mach & Kraan (2021) share insights from other climate change research fields and highlight how climate–conflict research can benefit from interdisciplinary collaboration, integration of diverse methods and lines of evidence, and iterative engagement between scientists, practitioners, and policymakers. Gleditsch (2021) discusses whether the focus and central tenets of research have changed as the literature has evolved from the original thesis of Malthus through the neoMalthusian emphasis on environmental scarcities to the contemporary climate security discourse.…”

This time is different! Or is it? NeoMalthusians and environmental optimists in the age of climate change

“…In this special issue, Mach & Kraan (2021) focus on interactions between science and policy. All the other articles feature emerging or increasing scarcities (mostly within but also between nations) as key mechanisms in translating climate change into violence and armed conflict, frequently through involuntary migration.…”

A Review of Climate Security Discussions in Japan

“…This perspective is particularly useful, partly because ensuring human security is the cornerstone of the Free and Open Indo-Pacific diplomatic strategy. In many cases, opportunities remain for responsiveness to decision-making involving the environment and security interactions more holistically, even if future scenarios on climate politics, socio-economics, and their impact on climate security links are highly uncertain [ 17 , 70 ]. Important in this regard is the systematic review of 1,337 articles conducted by Sharifi et al [ 65 ].…”