The writer is executive director of the Berghof Foundation and author of ‘The Burning Question: Climate and Conflict’
Climate change exacerbates conflict, something that will only increase as temperatures continue to rise. But our responses to climate change, via the energy transition, can also generate conflict, and in ways we haven’t yet begun to address.
Such violence as was seen during the gilets jaunes protests in France in 2018 was mild. But the drive to net zero, the green transition and climate change are now weaponised as a ‘wedge issue’ in culture wars by conservative and far-right parties opposed to greener policies. Radicalism on both sides may deepen and even turn violent.
Whatever happens in western Europe and North America will almost certainly be dwarfed by outcomes in countries like Iraq, Libya and Nigeria. Already deeply affected by climate change and conflict, their economies are dominated by fossil fuels (over 89 per cent of exports in all three) that are contributing to the environmental crisis, as well as to domestic corruption and violence.
The countries hit hardest by the energy transition will be those whose budgets currently rely on oil revenues to provide basic services, jobs, subsidies and security for their populations. The fracturing of that social contract and the consequent deprivation will probably result in rebellion, intercommunal conflict and accelerated recruitment into extremist armed groups such as Boko Haram, al-Qaeda and Islamic State — as well as violent repression by governments in response.
The transition from fossil fuels is expected to cause conflict in other ways. There is growing evidence that regions mining and exporting minerals that are essential for renewable technologies will face the same “resource curse” that many oil producers are used to.
The Democratic Republic of Congo, which has experienced waves of violence for decades, has 70 per cent of the world’s reserves of cobalt and the seventh largest reserves of copper — both essential for batteries. Armed groups fight over control of the mines and use the revenues to prolong conflict, while the mining is often carried out under brutal conditions. As demand from the green transition raises their value over the long term, so will incentives increase to fight over control of these “conflict renewables”.
Many other countries fear they will also suffer higher levels of conflict as the energy transition gathers pace. What might be done to head off this under-appreciated threat?
First, there needs to be a more rigorous assessment of conflict risks when investing in renewable and rechargeable energy. “Sustainability” needs to apply not just to the production or storage of energy, but also to the rights of the affected communities. Companies and governments both have a role to play here in ensuring their supply chains do not foster abuses and conflict.
For countries reliant on oil, diversification of their economies and revenue base is essential. The Gulf’s richer states use their sovereign funds for this purpose, but less fortunate countries also need investment. Renewable energies can reduce the centralisation, monopoly and weaponisation associated with fossil fuels, as seen in Russia. Solar, wind and hydropower can be generated in almost every country in ways that are decentralised, small-scale and relatively cheap, which make them less useful for belligerents.
In Somalia and Mali, UN peace missions have invested in off-grid solar power to reduce dependence on diesel generators, emissions and the ability of armed groups to manipulate control of fuel supplies. Such initiatives can also create economic and peacebuilding opportunities for local communities. As a report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies suggests, bridging renewable technologies and peacebuilding may unlock “an under-appreciated tool for limiting conflict and maintaining peaceful societies”.
While the vast scale of the green transition presents varied challenges to different countries, all face increased risks of conflict. Developed economies need to show voters more convincingly the benefits of climate action, such as improved healthcare and infrastructure, to combat the narrative that net zero is “elitist” and “woke”. Oil-dependent states have to diversify their economies urgently with help from outside actors. And countries in neither of those categories but undergoing civil conflict need help in maximising the potential of renewables to contribute to peacebuilding.
It is imperative to avoid tackling climate change in ways that unwittingly increase risks of violent conflict. But that’s where we are headed unless every aspect of the transition is guided by more conflict-sensitive approaches.