By 2050, two-thirds of the population will face some form of water stress. As a fundamental part of life, water—or a lack of it—influences other parts of life, including conflict. In fact, as author Marcus King notes in his new book, Weaponizing Water: Water Stress and Islamic Extremist Violence in Africa and the Middle East, there is a “correlation between the spheres of influence of violent extremist organizations (VEOs) and the driest lands or areas of sparse vegetation in some of the most arid regions on earth.”

The amount of critical minerals required to develop low-carbon energy technologies is predicted to be six times higher than what is needed today. Yet meeting this demand is necessary to enable a global transition that will address climate change and  comply with agreements such as the European Green New Deal.

On February 25, Nigeria will begin voting for its new president in one of the most tightly fought elections in decades. And the most likely winner has already set down a marker in his campaign. “You can’t be talking about climate change when people are taking cover from bombs,” observed Nigerian presidential hopeful Peter Obi.

On July 28, 2022 the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) voted—by a count of 161 in favor, with 8 abstentions — that living in a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is a human right. Building on the similar declaration by the UN Human Rights Council in October 2021, the UNGA has now reinforced the notion that the growing assaults on human health through environmental hazards are transgressions against the basic rights and freedoms of people.

When Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022, it was not only a geopolitical and humanitarian disaster. The conflict has detrimentally impacted the environment.

War and environmental damage are inextricably linked, but the invasion of Ukraine has caused further deterioration in pre-existing environmental issues. “Before 2014, Ukraine was already a country which faced environmental challenges,” observed Ian Anthony, Director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Initiative’s European Security Program (SIPRI) at a December 14 webinar titled Beyond War Ecologies: Green Ways forward for Ukraine. “Russia’s first aggression in 2014 exacerbated problems. The second aggression extended some of the problems to other parts of Ukraine and not just to Donbas.”

Water sustains life on our planet. And access to clean and safe water is foundational to society. So why has it only been in recent years that water has risen to the top of discussions of climate and security? Richard W. Spinrad, the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator, says that one of the biggest reasons is the major impact that climate-related changes in precipitation like droughts and extreme rainfall are having across the globe: “We’re starting to see things like we’ve never seen before. The nature of storms is changing: We saw five feet of rain fall in Hurricane Harvey. Five feet.”

The world has plenty of reasons to avoid conflict already. Yet attendees at the recently-concluded COP27 climate conference in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt were presented with another compelling argument: Warfare is bad for global warming. So much so, in fact, that Ukraine’s delegation to the conference organized a special session at the conference of parties on “War Related Emissions,” bringing along a tree trunk bearing scars from Russian shell fragments as tangible evidence.

As climate change is increasingly recognized as a security issue, a parallel understanding is also developing. Traditional categories and approaches may not be the optimal way to address the threats posed by climate impacts.

The nation states and international institutions at the center of security discussions now are shifting their approach. For instance, the U.S. has affirmed and moved to institutionalize its commitment to address the national security implications of climate change under the Biden Administration. In doing so, it is joining an increasing number of other nation-states (the UK, France, Sweden, Germany and New Zealand) that have also developed institutional arrangements and plans for their national response to climate insecurity.