https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.722
Climate mitigation policies and the potential pathways to conflict: Outlining a research agenda Elisabeth A. Gilmore, Halvard Buhaug Abstract Climate policies will need to incentivize transformative societal changes if they are to achieve emission reductions consistent with 1.5°C temperature targets. To contribute to efforts for aligning climate policy with broader societal goals, specifically those related to sustainable development, we identify the effects of climate mitigation policy on aspects of socioeconomic development that are known determinants of conflict and evaluate the plausibility and importance of potential pathways to armed conflict and political violence. Conditional on preexisting societal tensions and socioeconomic vulnerabilities, we isolate effects on economic performance, income and livelihood, food and energy prices, and land tenure as most likely to increase conflict risks. Climate policy designs may be critical to moderate these risks as different designs can promote more favorable societal outcomes such as equity and inclusion. Coupling research with careful monitoring and evaluation of the intermediate societal effects at early stages of policy implementation will be a critical part of learning and moderating potential conflict risks. Importantly, better characterizing the future conflict risks under climate policy allows for a more comprehensive comparison to the conflict risk if mitigation is not implemented and graver climate damages are experienced. This article is categorized under: - The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Benefits of Mitigation *[...]* 3.5 Climate intervention: Geoengineering and solar radiation management responses Unlike the other mitigation pathways that are more likely to occur in a world that is already more peaceful, geoengineering and other climate interventions are a possible climate mitigation strategy that is potentially decoupled from the economic growth or the degree of cooperation in the international community (Victor et al., 2009 <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.722#wcc722-bib-0164>, 2013 <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.722#wcc722-bib-0165>). As insufficient action will more likely than not result in a heavy economic and societal toll (Moore & Diaz, 2015 <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.722#wcc722-bib-0116>), governments may—for any number of reasons—seek to lessen the damages. Geoengineering and solar radiation management encompass a wide range of technologies that focus on interventions in the climate systems to moderate climate change (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2021 <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.722#wcc722-bib-0122>). One of the most likely strategies—often referred to as solar radiation management (SRM)—is the injection of small reflective particles into the stratosphere to increase the fraction of sunlight reflected back into space to offset the temperature increases from CO2—has been given more substantial consideration as it is theoretically sound (Morgan et al., 2013 <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.722#wcc722-bib-0118>), inexpensive (McClellan et al., 2012 <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.722#wcc722-bib-0110>), and may be needed to offset emissions even under strong mitigation policies (Moreno-Cruz & Keith, 2012 <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.722#wcc722-bib-0117>). These technologies have proven controversial in the policy community as well as with the public (Bellamy et al., 2012 <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.722#wcc722-bib-0016>). The security and conflict implications of different climate intervention strategies have been debated within the context of a country or another actor taking unilateral actions that may be perceived as hostile regardless of the intent (Maas & Scheffran, 2012 <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.722#wcc722-bib-0101>). If climate damages occur earlier than expected, there may be fewer options available to avert these impacts, raising the likelihood of unilateral action (Xu et al., 2018 <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.722#wcc722-bib-0168>). The effects of these technologies are also very uncertain, and deployment of sulfate particulates to provide temporary cooling may have adverse side effects on other sectors, regions, and actors. Some models find that SRM could reduce inter-country income inequality by reducing the worse damages for vulnerable countries (Harding et al., 2020 <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.722#wcc722-bib-0070>). By contrast, public discourse suggests that solar radiation management is perceived as more likely to create a world with an increased probability of geopolitical conflict and even present a challenge to democratic governance (Macnaghten & Szerszynski, 2013 <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.722#wcc722-bib-0104>). As a result, there are now calls for proposals to address these potential tensions in order to establish principles of international law and governance associated with research and deployment through UN General Assembly or Security Council that could be brought to bear in the case of climate emergencies (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2021 <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.722#wcc722-bib-0122>). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKSzgpYL0U4mOWfpFd6LQUN%2Bun%2BOu9M9bMHxm6f5wcCrzzpZBA%40mail.gmail.com.
