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

Abstract

Warning about dire effects of climate change on armed conflict is a recent variation of a scenario that has been promoted by environmental pessimists for over two centuries. The essence is that human activities lead to resource scarcities that in turn will generate famine, pestilence, and war. This essay reviews three stages of the argument: first, the original Malthusian thesis that focused on food production. Second, the broader neoMalthusian concern from the 1970s about limits to growth and developing scarcities in a range of necessities. And recently, the specter of climate change. In each phase, the Malthusians have met firm opposition from environmental optimists, who argue that emerging scarcities can be countered by human ingenuity, technological progress, and national and international economic and political institutions and that environmental change is not in itself a major driver of human violence. In the third phase, the Malthusian case appears to be stronger because human activities have reached a level where they have a truly global impact. Environmental optimists still insist that these problems can be overcome by human ingenuity and that the long-term trend towards less violence in human affairs is unlikely to be reversed by climate change. The stakes seem higher, but the structure of the debate remains largely the same.

First comes the river, then comes the conflict? A qualitative comparative analysis of flood-related political unrest

“…Our results also support voices that reject determinist linkages between climate change and conflict (e.g. Barnett, 2019; Gleditsch, 2021; Selby, 2014). Even with the consideration of high-impact events and local diffuse conflicts that are regarded to be most directly affected by disasters, the onset of unrest strongly depends on a combination of specific contextual factors.…”

Science–policy dimensions of research on climate change and conflict

“…In the climate and conflict context, the complexities have also been taken up through differing epistemological and theoretical approaches applied and adjusted through time (e.g. positivist, interpretivist, feminist, Marxist), as well as pragmatic and political questions about the voices, objects, and interests represented and engaged in the research – or not (Busby, 2018a; Gleditsch, 2021).…”

“…Research on the relationship between climate, conflict, and security has proliferated. This literature has spanned epistemologies and disciplines and evolved through time (Busby, 2018a, 2021; Gleditsch, 2021; von Uexkull & Buhaug, 2021). Across it, a large body of evidence now indicates that climate in both its variability and its change likely matters for violent conflict (Adger et al, 2014; Koubi, 2019; Mach et al, 2019).…”

Decomposition and Decoupling Analysis of CO2 Emissions Based on LMDI and Two-Dimensional Decoupling Model in Gansu Province, China

“…Burning fossil fuels such as coal, gas, and oil have produced more than 80% of the world’s energy and more than 90% of global carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions [ 1 ]. Over 156 years ago, Jevons expressed fears that economic progress in Great Britain would be reversed because the country would run out of coal [ 2 , 3 ]. China also should pay attention to Jevons’ fears.…”