The contentious and ambiguous entanglement that military forces have with their natural environment inevitably sparkles public interest and academic research. So how does the existing scholarly work inform our assessment of this convergence?

When Russia launched its brutal invasion of Ukraine on February 22, 2024, Western nations supported Ukraine with military and financial aid. But over two years, the cost of the war has been devastating—not only in terms of lives lost, and injuries sustained, but also in the number of buildings destroyed. According to some estimates, more than 150K structures have been damaged in the conflict.

Future projections of social disturbance due to climate change and ecological pressures provide little optimism for peace in conflict-affected areas over the coming decades. Yet, can we identify current hotspots and future areas of conflict risk? The fourth Ecological Threat Report (ETR), produced by the Institute for Economics & Peace, attempts to do so by taking on the monumental task of evaluating the relationship between ecological threats and peace.

The new report documents a world of growing ecological threats and declining social resilience in the states and territories most vulnerable to a changing climate. And by assessing ecological threats, societal resilience, and levels of peacefulness at the state, territorial, subnational, and city levels, the report also finds a strong correlation between ecological threats and levels of peacefulness.

I flew into Tel Aviv last Friday afternoon, primed for a week of meetings with Israeli and Palestinian environmentalists and officials. By sounding out these men and women in Jerusalem, the West Bank, and other parts of the region, I hoped to expand on past explorations of their transboundary cooperation, widely recognized as a model for environmental peacebuilding. Through an articulation of the successes that they––and their Jordanian peers–have had in bolstering water access, renewable energy, and environmental protection across their shared natural landscape, I was looking forward to telling a positive environmental conflict story—particularly one in a place that is often bereft of good news.

In 2021, US Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III referred to climate change as an “existential threat”—a term traditionally reserved for nuclear weapons. Yet two years and several strategic plans later, tangible progress to mitigate and prepare for this threat remains elusive, especially on the international scale where the greatest impacts could be realized.