As 2026 approaches, the world is faced with growing conflicts that are impacting our planet. The rivalry between the U.S. and China, ongoing wars, and a climate crisis are showing us that we have a serious problem. UN Secretary-General António Guterres warns that these conflicts are dragging humanity towards a “climate hell.” With wars still raging, the urgency of this warning becomes clearer.
From Ukraine to Gaza, conflicts are not only causing human suffering but also damaging the environment. Resources that could help communities adapt to climate change are being redirected to military efforts. To tackle climate change effectively, we need to integrate climate security into discussions about peace and safety.
Take the war in Ukraine as an example. In just the first 18 months of fighting, approximately 77 million metric tons of carbon dioxide were released. Infrastructure damage and military activities continue to add to this tally. Ukrainian officials estimate that environmental harm has cost more than €56 billion. Meanwhile, many European nations are boosting military spending to meet security demands, which shifts focus away from climate initiatives.
The situation in Gaza is similarly dire. Bombardments have wrecked vital water systems, leading to untreated sewage contaminating land and water. In just two months, emissions from military actions surpassed the yearly carbon footprints of several vulnerable nations. Rebuilding will further increase these emissions, spotlighting the irrationality of conflict in our already fragile world.
In South Asia, climate and conflict are also intertwined. A brief conflict between India and Pakistan in May 2025 raised concerns over water management in the Indus River. The Siachen area, a glacier region, is suffering due to military activities, accelerating ice melt and creating further environmental challenges. In a region facing extreme weather events, the need for cooperation has never been greater.
Climate risks know no borders. The Himalayas, often called the “Third Pole,” need a collaborative approach, especially regarding the unresolved Kashmir dispute. An environmental perspective might pave the way for new solutions.
Today’s conflicts must be viewed through the lens of environmental impact. Traditional geopolitics alone isn’t enough; we must incorporate geographic and ecological factors into security discussions. Climate action should be a core element of national and international security policies.
What would this shift look like? First, countries need to view climate initiatives as essential, not just “soft” issues. Major powers must find ways to collaborate on climate efforts, setting aside geopolitical rivalries. Lastly, leaders should communicate that a country’s climate resilience is fundamental to its overall security.
Practical cooperation in South Asia is possible. For instance, transforming the Siachen glacier into a cooperative research site could halt some of the ecological destruction while turning a conflict zone into a space for peace. Additionally, India could focus on collaborative water policies instead of competitive strategies, fostering regional stability over rivalry.
As we step into 2026, we face a “polycrisis” of conflicts and climate stress. But this challenging situation also offers a chance to rethink our approach to security. A sustainable peace cannot exist on a damaged planet. Every conflict today is, at its core, an environmental crisis, with impacts that will linger long after treaties are signed.
To truly protect our people, we must also protect our planet. Moving towards a geo-environment approach isn’t just ideal; it’s essential for our future. Generations to come will judge us not by the boundaries maintained, but by our commitment to a livable Earth.
For more on this topic, consult the United Nations Climate Change report.
Source link
Opinion, Latest
