Conflict, climate justice and climate change

In this article, Culture for Climate Scotland’s Director, Ben Twist, details our organisational thinking on the intersections of war and conflict, climate justice and climate change. Reflecting and bringing together internal discussions, we hope this piece of writing proves useful in establishing some of these connections, while acknowledging we cannot encompass such complex issues entirely within one article, and that current events are always evolving.

While the Israeli/US war against Iran is dominating the headlines, other wars are continuing. The Israeli government – with US support – is escalating its genocidal violence against the Palestinians, despite a supposed ceasefire: it is strengthening its occupation of a large proportion of Gaza¹ and is increasing illegal settlements in the West Bank. Although a ceasefire between the governments of Lebanon and Israel has been announced, Israeli forces are occupying a large swathe of southern Lebanon. In Sudan, the United Nations has reported evidence of atrocities on both sides which point to genocide in the civil war there, where the paramilitary Rapid Support Force has significant backing from the United Arab Emirates and the government forces have support from Egypt. The International Court of Justice is hearing a case arguing that the Myanmar military junta’s persecution of its Rohingya minority population is genocidal. The war in the Democratic Republic of Congo is causing a huge humanitarian crisis. The Russian invasion of Ukraine rages on. Meanwhile there are undoubtedly other, smaller conflicts, which are rarely mentioned in the news.

As an organisation working to increase climate justice we refuse complicity in these wars of oppression. There are clear connections between conflict and the work of Culture for Climate Scotland: wars exacerbate climate injustice, and climate change is an indirect driver of conflict. Climate change impacts amplify issues such as poverty, political instability, resource shortages and ethnic exclusion, which can lead to the outbreak of war. Armed conflict intensifies the political exclusion of certain groups, slows both climate change mitigation efforts and adaptation in the short and longer term, and hinders emergency support.²

Wars are more direct drivers of climate change too. Owing to US lobbying in 1998³, the greenhouse gas emissions from military sources are exempt from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, but in 2022 they were estimated to be responsible for 5.5% of global emissions – a total which is likely to be higher now, following increased military spending since then. If the global military were a country, only India, the US and China would have higher emissions. The reconstruction following any conflict – for example as a result of Israel’s policy of demolishing whole neighbourhoods in Gaza and Lebanon – will add to that total⁴.

Some of these wars are about resource extraction – gold and minerals in Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo, oil, gas and their derivatives in the Middle East, agricultural produce and minerals in Ukraine. The US president has been clear that his actions in Venezuela and Iran are all about oil. Although the US/Israeli war on Iran may speed up the adoption of renewables in response to recognition of the fragility of the supply of fossil fuels, this is no justification for the lives being lost and the damage done. Meanwhile, in the short term, it is leading to increased reliance on coal for energy generation, particularly in some Asian countries, and providing encouragement for those arguing for increased exploitation of the North Sea.

Taking a more historical view, European colonialism and imperialism – which were methods of resource extraction – have left legacies in political institutions and economic structures that ‘help to explain contemporary patterns of civil violence’⁵. The current Israeli government’s approach to Gaza and Palestine, and Russia’s war on Ukraine, can be seen as new instances of the same. Amitav Ghosh’s excellent book The Nutmeg’s Curse⁶ outlines the connection between historic colonialism, ongoing militarism and the economic structures which drive the climate crisis:

‘The job of the world’s dominant military establishments is precisely to defend the most important drivers of climate change – the carbon economy and the systems of extraction, production, and consumption that it supports. Nor can these establishments be expected to address the unseen drivers of the planetary crisis, such as inequities of class, race, and geopolitical power: their very mission is to preserve the hierarchies that favor the status quo.’ (p126)

A more sustainable approach to ‘security’ would recognise the existential threat that climate change poses to humanity, and that militarism increases this threat while diverting funds, energy and brains away from the solutions.

Culture for Climate Scotland must make our own contribution to the fight for climate justice. We do so following the lead of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement and the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI), inspired by the international cultural boycott of apartheid South Africa. We have not partnered and will not do so with the governments of Israel, the UAE, the US, Russia and others, or companies or organisations associated with those countries that are implicated in these wars. It is difficult to escape using the products of US-based companies such as Microsoft, which are accused of complicity in Israel’s genocide, but where we can we have shifted to other suppliers. We bank with Triodos and Nationwide, purchased computers from Acer rather than HP, which has strong connections to the Israeli government, military and police, and shifted events planned in a Leonardo hotel, owned by an Israeli billionaire with close links to the Israeli government, online or to another venue.

The recent spate of anti-Semitic attacks in the UK, alongside other hate crimes, strengthens the need to make our position clear: in line with BDS and PACBI guidelines, our commitments are based on:

• Targeting complicity, not identity: We oppose governments, institutions, corporations and projects that enable or whitewash oppression – not individuals.
• Gradualness: We recognise that systemic change requires incremental steps.
• Sustainability: Each action should be durable and build towards wider transformation.
• Context-sensitivity: We adapt our approach to balance ethics, effectiveness, and the material realities of artists and workers.

¹Seham Tantesh and Julian Borger, ‘Gaza’s Yellow Line Creeps Forward as Israeli Forces Expand Zone of Control’, The Guardian, April 22, 2026
²Tobias Ide et al, ‘Multi-Method Evidence for When and How Climate-Related Disasters Contribute to Armed Conflict Risk’, Global Environmental Change 62, 2020
³Neta C. Crawford, ‘Pentagon Fuel Use, Climate Change, and the Costs of War‘ (opens PDF), revised November 13, 2019, (Providence, RI: Costs of War Project, 2019)
⁴Nina Lakhani, ‘Carbon Footprint of Israel’s War on Gaza Exceeds That of Many Entire Countries’, The Guardian, May 30, 2025
⁵Christopher Kollmeyer, ‘Colonial legacy and contemporary civil violence’, Social Forces, Vol 104, Issue 2, December 2025
⁶Amitav Ghosh, ‘The Nutmeg’s Curse: Parables for a Planet in Crisis‘ (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2021)

Header image: Kresopix on Canva