How To Fight Climate Change Amid Conflict
With environmental breakdown increasingly leading to armed conflicts, the UN must face up to some hard truths.
The idea that some clever people can build a Tower of Babel on the uneven foundations of ancient tribes and nations, different languages, and diverse cultures was always going to be a challenge. Possibly a dangerous one. Nothing has done more to profoundly shatter this idea than the Israeli-Hamas war in Gaza. There’s now a growing sense that a calamity is about to fall upon us all.
This feeling is exacerbated by the collapsing planetary ecosystem. But the two things are not separate. Increasing competition for materials, food and water sources, are already leading to conflict. This exposes a catastrophic loss of nerve amongst those in the aforementioned Tower of Babel, also known as the United Nations. Indeed, as the former UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjöld observed, “The United Nations was not created in order to bring us to heaven, but in order to save us from hell.” But as the prospect of hell draws near, what can be done to bring us back from the brink of environmental and governmental collapse?
The UN was founded in 1945 after the Second World War by 51 countries committed to maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations, and promoting social progress, better living standards, and human rights. Yet despite such lofty goals, the UN’s response to recent and ongoing global crises has been at best anaemic and at worst obstructive, confirming an old English saying, namely, “betwixt two stools, we come to the ground.”
Come down to the ground we most certainly have. The rising cleavages in our political discourse, which in turn are establishing a new multipolar world order, are the clearest indication of this failure. Let us run our collective eye on this dreadful indictment, citing but a few examples, starting with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The General Assembly has passed a number of nonbinding condemnation resolutions; they barely have any teeth worth shouting about. A nation that has invaded another sovereign nation, committing numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity, continues to enjoy all the trappings of membership with a veto to boot. The war shows no sign of ending any time soon.
Next is the much-ignored war in Myanmar. Edith Mirante, author of two books about Myanmar, blogs that: “With a few exceptions (including Al Jazeera and the Guardian), international press coverage of the current war in Myanmar was very sparse and sporadic from 2021 to late 2023. Initially, some stories depicted young people from the cities training in ethnic frontier areas, with an emphasis on their military inexperience and idealism.” Compelling the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Myanmar, Tom Andrews, to conclude in September 2022 that “[m]any in Myanmar have come to the conclusion that the world has forgotten them, or simply doesn’t care. They ask me why [UN] Member States refuse to take measures that are both possible and practical, measures that could save untold numbers of lives.”
Sudan is the third case, and arguably the most tragic. What began as a power struggle between the SAF and the RSF in Sudan has evolved into a civil war involving other militias and rebel organisations, as well as their international supporters. Despite the fact that neither the SAF nor the RSF seem to be able to take back control of the entire country of Sudan, other players have taken advantage of this rivalry to position themselves as local security providers everywhere from Khartoum to Darfur and Kordofan. As of April 2024, an estimated 150,000 individuals might have perished. It is estimated that “ten million people have fled their homes” and that 25 million people, or 54% of the population, are facing severe food shortages and widespread access to medical care.
The above-cited instances are merely the beginning. They highlight the circumscribing power they have over us when it comes to fighting climate change. Indeed, war is a significant contributor to climate change. It is increasingly becoming clear that conflict does create new and significant sources of greenhouse gas emissions. War now comes from the breakdown of environmental governance regimes brought on by conflicts that either create or maintain the conditions necessary for polluting practices to proliferate and impede efforts to resolve them. A portion of the issues related to war persist well beyond the post-conflict phase, when unregulated areas and weak institutions permit the spread of unsustainable activity.
According to the UN’s Environmental Impact of the Conflict in Gaza: Preliminary Assessment of Environmental Impacts report, published on June 18, 2024, the war is exposing the community to rapidly growing soil, water, and air pollution and the risks of irreversible damage to its natural ecosystems. Calling for an immediate ceasefire, Inger Andersen, UNEP Executive Director, said:
“Not only are the people of Gaza dealing with untold suffering from the ongoing war, but the significant and growing environmental damage in Gaza risks locking its people into a painful, long recovery. While many questions remain regarding the exact type and quantity of contaminants affecting the environment in Gaza, people are already living with the consequences of conflict-related damage to environmental management systems and pollution today. Water and sanitation have collapsed. Critical infrastructure continues to be decimated. Coastal areas, soil, and ecosystems have been severely impacted. All of this is deeply harming people’s health, food security, and Gaza’s resilience.”
Yet these self-same conflicts can also motivate us to face the challenges surrounding climate change with renewed resolve. The publication of the Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem and Israel, on June 18, 2024, was a powerful reminder that a patient’s case is indeed sad when their medicines are poisons and physicians are their worst disease. The reality now existing in Palestine should and must concentrate our collective minds on the study of how we can make the United Nations work for us all by re-invigorating the institution and placing it on more even foundations. This is difficult work, but the immense suffering of both Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs should shame us all, compelling us to do better for the sake of our common humanity.
But how are we to achieve this seemingly impossible undertaking? In 2020, I answered a similar question in an essay titled Religion: The True Cost of Relativism to Democracy — Part 2, in which I invoked an ancient law, the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule holds that we must do to others what we would have them do to us. I cited a Biblical text, the often-quoted controversy, in which Jesus teaches us the manner in which we are to live towards our fellow men.
The story of the good Samaritan, the centrepiece of the controversy, as reported in the Gospel according to Luke 10:25–37, is as follows: “[A] lawyer stood up to put [Jesus] to the test, saying, ‘Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’ [Jesus] said to him, ‘What is written in the law? How do you read?’ And [the lawyer] answered, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbour as yourself.’ And [Jesus] said to him, ‘You have answered right; do this, and you will live.’ But [the lawyer], desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, ‘And who is my neighbour?’ Jesus replied, ‘A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. By chance, a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. So likewise, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was; then he saw him, had compassion, and went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; then he set him on his own beast, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ Which of these three, do you think, proved a neighbour to the man who fell among the robbers?’ [The lawyer] said, ‘The one who showed mercy on him.’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Go and do likewise.’”
The duty to do to others as we would wish them to do to us is mutual and reciprocal; the titles of friends, brothers, and neighbours are equally binding on both sides; if one side is bound, the other cannot be loose, as is agreed in all our common contracts. And without prejudice to any race, religion, or tribe. It is thus the duty of every one of us, in our places and according to our ability, to succour, help, and relieve all that are in distress and necessity, whether it be in relation to climate change or armed conflict.
I believe the story of the good Samaritan is a powerful echo of the one important message Dr. Maria Chamberlain, a Jew and the daughter of two Holocaust survivors, wished to share when we conversed together a while ago on my podcast series on genocide. Maria recognised that both the victims and the perpetrators of the Holocaust were ordinary people and rejected the notion of dividing people into simple categories of good and bad. Instead, she believes in recognising the complexity of human nature and understanding that good people are capable of committing bad acts, especially in times of hardship. Maria warns that in the face of future challenges, such as environmental degradation and climate change, humanity may face difficult times that could lead to more conflicts and atrocities.
Despite Dr. Chamberlain’s lack of religious faith, she finds solace in instilling a sense of awe and wonder in the living world. She teaches her children and students to celebrate diversity and treat others with respect and equality. She believes that diversity is what has allowed the human species to adapt and survive throughout history. By promoting empathy, tolerance, and the golden rule of treating others as you would want to be treated, Dr. Chamberlain encourages listeners to learn from the Holocaust and work towards a more inclusive and compassionate world.
That is why the cockles of my heart were warmed when I heard the news that, according to plans drawn up by organisers, this year’s Cop29 UN climate summit will be the first “Cop of Peace,” focusing, as it were, on the prevention of future climate-fueled conflicts and using international cooperation on green issues to help heal existing tensions. Without a doubt, this is a tall order. But if we were to learn the lesson contained in the story of the good Samaritan and apply the same to all our institutions, starting with the United Nations, then it is just possible that we may indeed succeed in grappling with both climate change and armed conflict at the same time. Practising the Golden Rule is by far and away the best and most effective way to strengthen the foundations of the United Nations. By so doing, we are thus better placed to fight both climate change and armed conflict more effectively.
