On March 8, 2022, the price of nickel doubled overnight. Fueled by the war in Ukraine, fears of supply disruptions briefly drove the cost of nickel contracts over $100,000-a-ton. The London Metal Exchange, the main global market for industrial metals, suspended trading for a week, canceling billions of dollars worth of trades.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has shaken the world economy.  The U.S.-led push for sanctions on Russia has surprised analysts with its depth. Germany, for example, is now turning away from four decades of reliance on Russian oil and gas. Given Russia’s status as a global energy colossus, the war has raised particular uncertainty in global energy markets, leading many countries to take steps to ensure adequate supplies.

China’s energy connection to the crisis and, specifically, the war’s effect on China’s decarbonization commitments, have drawn little attention. Unfortunately, the war’s impact on energy markets has accelerated Chinese plans to return to the use of coal for power generation. And the market volatility it has inflamed is partly behind China’s return to investment-and emissions-heavy stimulus. Make no mistake, however, China’s investments in renewables are still enormous and dwarf those of the United States.

The transition to a carbon-neutral economy will bring profound shifts to diverse economic sectors. This transformation will generate increasing demands for land for renewable energy generation and the minerals needed for clean energy technologies.

This article is a collaboration between China Dialogue and the China Environment Forum’s Turning the Tide on Plastic Waste in Asia initiative. Read more plastic pollution articles and webinars from the Wilson Center here.

With sea level rise and ecological collapse threatening its environment and the very existence of its main coastal cities, Southeast Asia is one of the regions most at risk from the impacts of climate change. But while countries around the world step up efforts towards decarbonization and reaching their shared climate goals, carbon remains unchallenged – in the form of plastic – and firmly entrenched in Southeast Asia’s economy. 

The intensifying enmity between the United States and Russia arising from the war in Ukraine may obscure a fundamental and durable milestone in climate science: One of the most significant pieces of evidence substantiating a shared major security concern—anthropogenic climate change—was the result of United States, French, and Russian cooperation. Ice cores drilled at Russia’s Antarctic Vostok Station provided among the most incontrovertible proof linking human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to increasing atmospheric temperatures—over two decades ago.

Speaking at a session at the 2^nd International Conference on Environmental Peacebuilding in February, Guillaume Pierrehumbert, head of the Water and Habitat Unit of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) called for “a comprehensive rethink of collective humanitarian action” to address the unprecedented civilian crises in protracted armed conflicts.

Effective climate action demands urgent transformational change. It is also increasingly clear that responses to climate change—whether focused on curbing emissions or adapting to climate impacts—can profoundly influence and change how people live. It touches upon many aspects of their everyday life, including their livelihoods, where they live, and their roles in the community. These changes also can have substantial effects on the socio-ecological systems in which people live— bringing unintended tensions and drivers of conflict that are referred to broadly as backdraft. 

A new contribution in a continuing series examining “backdraft“—the unintended consequences of climate change responses—and how its effects might be anticipated and minimized to avoid conflict and promote peace.

Climate change is widely recognized as one the greatest threats to peace and security in the 21^st century. The causal pathways that link deteriorating environmental conditions, insecurity, and conflict, while seldom automatic or linear, are, nevertheless, ubiquitous. The adverse impacts of climate change exacerbate other risk factors, especially in already fragile contexts. In turn, these factors magnify pre-existing economic, social, or political drivers of insecurity.