According to a new study published in the communications planet and the environment, countries that contribute the most to global environmental damage are also the least affected, and the least responsible countries face disproportionate threats and increase the risk of conflict.
This paradoxical relationship challenges conventional thinking about environmental sustainability and peace, revealing disturbing global inequality that primarily harms countries in the global southern countries. The results of the study show that as the climate crisis accelerates, the disconnect between those who cause harm and those who suffer harm continues to expand.
“Our study highlights the gaps in the current study and evaluates the link between ecological sustainability and peace,” said Richard (Drew) Marcantonio, assistant professor of environment, peace and global affairs at Notre Dame. “This is crucial to designing evidence-based policies to address global inequality and support human dignity.”
Invert traditional wisdom
This study overturns the previous hypothesis that ecological sustainability is naturally closely related to peace. Instead, after analyzing data from 2010 to 2022, researchers found that the relationship was actually inverse – countries with higher levels of peace often had poorer environmental records.
The study uses comprehensive measures to explain the entire ecological footprint and participate in conflicts outside its borders, suggesting that many wealthy countries score high on the peace index.
How does this paradox exist? Part of the answer lies in how sustainability and peace have traditionally been measured.
Measurement problems
Previous research relies on traditional indicators that tend to overestimate sustainability and peace in wealthy countries. These measures often fail to explain the full environmental impact of consumption patterns and ignore how some peaceful countries can conflict externally by participating in wars elsewhere.
This new study takes more overall measures, including:
- Per capita carbon dioxide emissions
- Total ecological footprint (measures biologically productive land and water used)
- Material Footprint (tracking the overall resource consumption)
- Vulnerability to environmental risks
When these comprehensive indicators are applied, disturbing patterns emerge: countries with minimal emissions and resource consumption are often more susceptible to climate risks and experience higher internal conflict rates.
Environment conflict connection
Marcantonio said the link between environmental risks and conflicts has been established. “Conflicts often lead to environmental deterioration and depletion of resources; environmental risks such as climate change or scarcity can trigger or exacerbate conflict through displacement or creating competition for limited resources,” he explained.
The study found that internal conflicts occur in countries with lower ecological footprints and carbon emissions, and despite their small contribution to the problem, the countries that suffer the most from climate-related harms are usually the same country.
On the contrary, countries with higher consumption rates and emissions are more likely to participate in conflicts outside their borders while experiencing relative peace at home.
The way forward?
Despite these findings, the researchers stress that the inverse relationship between peace and sustainability is not inevitable. In theory, states can achieve environmental sustainability and peace.
“Where our results are most common in assessing peace, our results reaffirm the need to ask and answer questions about how to achieve a better life within the planetary boundaries, or in this case, a comprehensive sustainable peace for all,” Marcantonio said. “And, while our results show that ecological sustainability is not positively associated with peace, this relationship is not necessary. Ecologically sustainable peace is possible.”
The study, along with Sean Field, an assistant professor at the University of Wyoming, points out that there is a need to rethink global approaches to address environmental policy and conflict resolution. It shows that addressing climate justice must be at the heart of these efforts.
Impact on future research and policies
The researchers say these findings indicate several important directions for future work.
“Future research should focus on how to achieve and maintain a comprehensive and sustainable peace for all without potential external conflict risks,” Marcantonio said. “As conflict and environmental risks continue to rise globally, it is crucial to explore and determine how to effectively resolve this paradox.”
As climate change accelerates and resources become scarce in vulnerable areas, understanding these links becomes increasingly urgent. The study highlights the inability to separate environmental policy from the issues of peace, security and global equality.
The study was funded by the Kroc Institute of International and part of the Keough Global Eversect at Notre Dame, where Marcantonio is also affiliated with the University’s environmental change initiative.
If our report has been informed or inspired, please consider donating. No matter how big or small, every contribution allows us to continue to provide accurate, engaging and trustworthy scientific and medical news. Independent news takes time, energy and resources – your support ensures that we can continue to reveal the stories that matter most to you.
Join us to make knowledge accessible and impactful. Thank you for standing with us!
