The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 6^th Assessment Report (AR6) from Working Group II (WG2): Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability presents the stark implications of climate change. At today’s warming level of 1.1°C, a wide range of impacts to people and nature are attributed to human-caused climate change, including hindering progress on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), damaging infrastructure and economic activities, harming human health and causing excess deaths, and increasing humanitarian needs. Some impacts, like those on sensitive ecosystems, are already irreversible. The more vulnerable are hit harder, due to pre-existing structural conditions that increase their exposure and sensitivity to hazards.

Here, we draw out the key points from AR6 WG2 about reducing risks related to climate security. The report finds that climate change is deepening existing conflicts by undermining adaptive capacity and increasing vulnerability. Moderating these impacts requires reducing the human consequences of conflict through investments in human development and livelihood security. Over the longer-term, higher global warming levels will increase conflict risk through severe impacts on known conflict drivers, namely food and livelihood insecurity. However even at 2℃, through sustained societal development to reduce the drivers of conflict and a heightened commitment from the Security Council to support peace, the world could experience lower levels of violence than today.

A changing climate is prolonging and increasing the severity of existing conflicts

AR6 concludes that while the impacts from climate extremes and extreme weather events are not directly causing new conflicts, they are having clear effects on the length, severity, and frequency of ongoing violent conflicts. Overall, these effects are still small compared to non-climatic drivers of conflict—socioeconomic and political conditions are still dominating the onset and dynamics of violent conflict. In the large statistical studies on conflict, this means that we identify a small, but persistent, signal of climate’s influence. However, in fragile contexts, and especially where livelihoods are highly dependent on climate sensitive activities (e.g., rain-fed agriculture and livestock breeding), the report finds a stronger link between changing environmental conditions and conflict because it is harder for individuals and households to manage and adapt due to a lack of financial resources, gaps in governance, and pre-existing vulnerabilities.

Future risks to peace depend on the relative effects of climate change and socioeconomic conditions

As global temperatures continue to rise and especially if they exceed the thresholds of 1.5°C and 2°C in the Paris Agreement, risks for ecosystems and people become more severe. This will place even more pressure on the factors that increase vulnerability and deepen conflict risk, although the extent to which this will manifest in more violence and instability will still depend on how societies develop and adapt. All things equal, a world with a global warming level of 4°C would be more violent than a world at 2°C. However, if non-climatic drivers of conflict—namely, economic underperformance and weak governance—are less prevalent, and overall vulnerability is reduced, even a warmer world could be less violent than today.

Socioeconomic and political factors will likely remain the dominant drivers of new violent conflict in the coming decades. However, people experiencing conflict are substantially more vulnerable to climate change and by entrenching vulnerabilities, climate change can compound the effects of violent conflict. Emerging evidence suggests that these dynamics can feed a vicious cycle of violence, vulnerability, and sensitivity to the damages from climate impacts. While most of these violent conflicts will remain within countries, countries that share borders with countries in conflict also face elevated conflict risks. If conflicts become more intense and longer, regional risks could escalate.

Socioeconomic development—investments in education, gender equity, and inclusive institutions—that is sustained over decades can help minimize the risks for violent conflict. While not necessarily climate focused, by increasing the overall coping capacity of communities, these types of investments are in fact helping to build climate resilience and reduce climate insecurity for those most affected by climate change.

Looking beyond the securitization of climate change

Any climate security agenda should also move beyond securitizing climate change towards aligning security policies with actions that reduce risks to peace. Preventing violent conflicts should remain our top priority. As recent events in Ukraine drive home, violent conflicts are among the most immediate causes of human suffering. Lives are lost and basic human needs are not met.

The destruction of economies and livelihoods, damaged infrastructure, weakening of institutions and governance, and involuntary displacement can lead to long-term losses that can take generations to recover from. Localized conflicts can also have regional and global impacts. Arrested food production in Ukraine and geopolitical tensions with Russia interrupting supply chains creates the potential for social unrest in import-dependent countries as food, fuel, and transportation costs rise.

The IPCC report is clear: ambitious mitigation action is central to keeping all risks manageable. These actions must also be structured such that new conflict risks are not introduced, especially through land-based mitigation efforts in areas with insecure land tenure. There is also emerging evidence that new conflict risks could be introduced through novel and scaled-up mitigation actions that could put pressure on, or require additional resources, like critical minerals for batteries.

Regardless of the ambition of mitigation efforts, in the near-term, global temperatures will continue to rise and actions from actors at all levels are urgently needed to help communities adapt. The need is even greater in areas affected by conflict. Development and conflict-sensitive adaptation can address underlying vulnerabilities and reduce the impacts of climate change. For example, the importance of women as peacemakers and their role in environmental stewardship can be harnessed through development and adaptation efforts, especially for climate sensitive livelihoods, to meaningfully reduce risks to peace.

Even with climate action, there will be residual risks with implications for violent conflict. The IPCC report highlights the importance of early warning systems and the capacity to use, interpret and act on information, with a pressing need to better understand how interventions may affect conflict risks. Key opportunities also exist to improve the integration of existing resolutions, such as the UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on the participation of women in peace and security efforts, with related efforts to foster climate, conflict, and security. Finally, as the wide range of climate impacts can create conditions that obstruct lasting peace, the UN Security Council will continue to play its critical role in supporting and maintaining peace and security.