INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Effects of International Wars on Global Action on Climate

Change (2015-2023)

Baaki John Terzungwe and Prof. Kayode Adeniran Omojuma

Miracle Crescent, Phase IV, Nyanya, Abuja, Nigeria

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.91100058

Received: 10 November 2025; Accepted: 20 November 2025; Published: 28 November 2025

ABSTRACT

This research investigates the multifaceted interplay between international wars and global climate action. The

study addresses the pressing need to understand the impact of wars on climate change mitigation and adaptation

efforts, environmental consequences, and diplomatic challenges hindering international collaboration.

Employing a quantitative research design with a survey instrument, the study collected data from professionals

and organizations in Nigeria. The results highlight significant hindrances posed by wars to climate initiatives,

substantial environmental consequences, and diplomatic challenges influencing global collaboration.

Recommendations are proposed to enhance integrated diplomacy, resource-sharing mechanisms, political

dialogue platforms, trust-building initiatives, inclusive climate policies, global governance reforms, capacity

building, and early warning systems. Acknowledging limitations, including sampling bias and inherent

subjectivity, the research contributes nuanced insights to the discourse on the wars-climate nexus, guiding future

studies and informing policy considerations.

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Climate change, characterized by the alarming rise in average global temperatures, has become an unprecedented

global challenge. Since the pre-industrial era, the Earth's temperature has surged by 1 degree Celsius, with the

past decade (2014-2023) standing as the hottest on record and 2023 marking the warmest year yet (IPCC, 2014;

IPCC, 2018; Hansen et al., 2010). This surge has led to a disturbing increase in extreme weather events like

heatwaves, floods, and droughts, causing widespread ecological disruptions and threatening human well-being.

The period from 2015 to 2023 has been marked by a series of international Wars and wars that have not only

caused immediate human suffering but also have potential ramifications for global efforts to address climate

change. Understanding the complex interplay between international wars and the pursuit of climate action during

this period is essential for comprehending the broader dynamics shaping our world.

The Acceleration of Climate Change

The years 2015-2023 witnessed an acceleration of climate change, characterized by rising temperatures, extreme

weather events, and ecological disruptions (IPCC, 2014; IPCC, 2018; Hansen et al., 2010). The year 2015 was

the warmest year on record since record keeping began in 1880. The globally averaged temperatures from

January through December 2015 were 0.87 degrees Celsius (NOAA, 2015).

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) underscored the urgency of concerted global action to

limit the rise in global temperatures and mitigate the adverse impacts of climate change. Simultaneously,

international efforts to address climate change have been encapsulated in the Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015.

The accord aspires to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius, preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Although 196 countries have ratified the agreement as of 2023, the current pledges for emission reduction fall

short of what is necessary to achieve the Paris Agreement goals, underscoring the challenging road ahead

(UNFCCC, 2023).

Page 713

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

The Pervasive Influence of International Wars

The period 2015-2023 also saw a resurgence of international wars, with geopolitical tensions manifesting in

various regions. Wars in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and other parts of the world escalated, leading to

widespread displacement, loss of lives, and geopolitical shifts (Uppsala Conflict Data Program, 2022; The World

Bank, 2023). The number of armed Wars has surged significantly since 2015, with over 20 major ongoing Wars

globally in 2023. Notable examples include the Syrian Civil War, the Afghanistan War, the Yemeni Civil War,

the Myanmar Civil War, and various Wars in Africa, such as the Boko Haram Insurgency, the South Sudan Civil

War, and the Mali War. Additionally, Wars like the Ukrainian War and the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict have

escalated, causing widespread displacement, economic disruption, and diversion of resources away from critical

priorities, including climate change action. The profound consequences of these Wars extended beyond

immediate humanitarian concerns to impact global governance structures and hinder collective action on shared

challenges.

The Interconnectedness of War and Climate Change

These Wars have far-reaching consequences, displacing millions, disrupting economies, and diverting resources

from other essential priorities, notably climate change action. Specific examples highlight the interconnectedness

of war and environmental degradation. The Syrian Civil War, for instance, has led to the destruction of

infrastructure, including energy facilities, contributing to increased greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing

conflict in Ukraine has disrupted global energy markets, causing a spike in fossil fuel prices and potentially

leading to increased emissions in the short term.

According to a research report, the war in Gaza “emitted a staggering 1.9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide

equivalent (tCO2e) from direct combat activities alone. When emissions from pre-war fortifications and

anticipated post-war reconstruction are included, the total climbs to over 32.2 million tCO2e —surpassing the

annual emissions of more than 102 individual countries.” (Preetha, 2025).

This study seeks to explore the intricate relationship between international wars and global action on climate

change during the specified timeframe. Wars not only divert resources away from environmental initiatives but

can also exacerbate environmental degradation through factors such as increased military activities,

displacement, and disruption of infrastructures (LeBillon & Duffy, 2018; De & Tiburcio, 2018). Additionally,

the geopolitical fallout from Wars may influence diplomatic relations and cooperation, affecting the efficacy of

international climate agreements.

Statement of the Problem

The intensification of global Wars and the accelerating pace of climate change present a confluence of challenges

that demand urgent scholarly attention. The coexistence of these phenomena raises critical questions regarding

the effectiveness of international efforts to address climate change amidst a backdrop of widespread geopolitical

turmoil.

Impact of Wars on Climate Change Action

The proliferation of armed Wars, exemplified by the Syrian Civil War, the Afghanistan War, and other regional

Wars, poses a substantial threat to global climate change action. These Wars displace millions, disrupt economies,

and divert resources away from environmental initiatives (Barnett, 2019; De & Tiburcio, 2018). The destruction

of critical infrastructure during Wars, such as energy facilities in Syria, not only contributes to increased

greenhouse gas emissions but also hampers the ability of affected nations to participate in and adhere to

international climate agreements (LeBillon & Duffy, 2018).

Diplomatic and Resource Challenges

Moreover, the diplomatic fallout from Wars introduces additional complexities. The strained diplomatic relations

resulting from ongoing wars hinder international cooperation, which is pivotal for the success of climate

Page 714

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

agreements such as the Paris Agreement. Nations engaged in Wars may prioritize immediate security concerns

over long-term environmental goals, leading to a potential misalignment of priorities (Dalby, 2017).

Additionally, the diversion of financial and human resources towards conflict resolution leaves minimal room

for investment in sustainable development and climate resilience (Goniewicz et al., 2023).

Inadequacy of Current Climate Change Mitigation Strategies

While the international community, as embodied in the Paris Agreement, aspires to limit global warming, the

current trajectory of emissions reduction pledges falls short of achieving the agreement's ambitious goals (IPCC,

2018; UNFCCC, 2023). The challenge is exacerbated by the fact that Wars exacerbate environmental degradation

and, in some instances, lead to increased emissions, rendering the global response to climate change more

complex and interconnected than previously recognized.

Research Gap and Rationale

Despite the interconnected nature of Wars and climate change, there remains a noticeable research gap in

understanding the nuanced dynamics between the two phenomena, particularly in the context of the post-2015

period marked by heightened Wars and environmental challenges. Existing literature often silos the study of

Wars and climate change, neglecting the intricate ways in which these issues intersect and influence one another

(Barnett, 2019; Dalby, 2017). This study seeks to bridge this gap by providing a comprehensive examination of

how international Wars impact global climate change action and, conversely, how climate change considerations

influence conflict dynamics.

In conclusion, the coexistence of escalating international Wars and the imperative to address climate change

presents a complex problem that necessitates a thorough investigation. This research aims to contribute to the

academic discourse by unraveling the intricate relationships between Wars and climate change, providing

insights that can inform more effective strategies for mitigating both global crises.

Research Questions

1. How do ongoing international wars impact global climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts,

considering factors such as resource diversion and diplomatic challenges?

2. In what ways do armed wars contribute to environmental degradation and increased greenhouse gas

emissions, particularly through the destruction of critical infrastructure and displacement of populations?

3. To what extent do geopolitical tensions resulting from wars hinder international cooperation and

collaboration on climate change initiatives, as exemplified by the Paris Agreement and subsequent global

climate conferences?

Aim and Objectives of the Study

Aim

The primary aim of this study is to comprehensively examine the complex interactions between international

wars and global efforts to address climate change during the period 2015-2023.

Objectives

The following are the specific objectives of the research:

1. To assess the impact of ongoing international wars on the implementation of climate change mitigation

and adaptation strategies.

2. To analyse the environmental consequences of wars, focusing on factors such as increased emissions,

destruction of infrastructure, and disruptions to ecosystems.

Page 715

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

3. To investigate the diplomatic challenges posed by wars and their influence on international collaboration

for climate action, with a specific focus on the effectiveness of global climate agreements.

Research Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1 (H1): There is no significant relationship between ongoing international wars and the hindrance

of global climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Wars do not contribute significantly to environmental degradation and increased greenhouse

gas emissions.

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Geopolitical tensions resulting from wars have no substantial influence on hindering

international collaboration on climate change initiatives.

Scope of the Study

This research will focus on the period from 2015 to 2023, examining the effects of ongoing international wars

on global climate change action. The geographical scope encompasses Wars across various regions, including

but not limited to the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and Asia. Noteworthy Wars, such as the Syrian Civil war, the

Afghanistan war, and the Yemeni Civil war, will be examined to understand their specific impacts on climate

change initiatives. Additionally, the study will consider wars like the Ukrainian War and the Nagorno-Karabakh

Conflict to assess the broader global implications of regional Wars. The analysis will extend to the diplomatic

aspects of conflict, evaluating how geopolitical tensions influence international cooperation on climate issues,

as well as the environmental consequences, including greenhouse gas emissions resulting from armed Wars. The

study aims to provide a holistic understanding of the interplay between Wars and climate change on a global

scale.

It is important to note that the wars assessed here were selected based on their popularity in the media and not

necessarily by their known impacts on the environment. They were also assessed using the same scale without

prioritizing any. The period covered by the research was important for these reasons: Year 2015 was the year

that the Paris Agreement was adopted, a year so significant in global climate change mitigation efforts. Year

2023 was the last year before this study was conducted and it was important that it formed the endline from

2015.

However, it is essential to acknowledge that the study's depth was constrained by the availability and reliability

of data. Therefore, the research relied on information from experts, credible sources, including academic

publications, reports from international organizations, and reputable news outlets. The findings of this study are

intended to contribute to the academic discourse on the intersection of Wars and climate change, offering insights

that may inform policies and strategies for addressing these interconnected global challenges.

Significance of the Study

This study holds significant implications for both academic understanding and practical policymaking in the

realms of conflict studies, environmental science, and international relations. The following points elucidate the

importance of this research:

Integration of Interdisciplinary Perspectives

By examining the interplay between ongoing international Wars and global climate change action, this study

bridges the gap between traditionally siloed disciplines, including conflict studies and environmental science.

The interdisciplinary approach contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the complexities inherent

in the simultaneous occurrence of armed Wars and environmental challenges.

Page 716

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Informed Decision-Making for Policymakers

Policymakers grappling with the dual challenges of conflict resolution and climate change mitigation will benefit

from insights generated by this study. Understanding the intricate relationships between Wars and climate change

is crucial for formulating effective, context-specific policies that consider the environmental consequences of

Wars and the impact of climate change on geopolitical dynamics.

Global Implications for Sustainable Development

The study's findings will shed light on the global implications of Wars on sustainable development, particularly

in the context of climate change goals. By uncovering how armed Wars disrupt economies, divert resources, and

contribute to environmental degradation, the research can inform strategies aimed at achieving both peace and

sustainable development goals.

Academic Contribution to Literature

Academically, this study adds to the existing body of literature by providing a nuanced analysis of the period

from 2015 to 2023, characterized by a surge in wars and escalating environmental concerns. The research

contributes empirical evidence and theoretical insights that can guide future research endeavours exploring the

intersection of conflict, diplomacy, and environmental sustainability.

Awareness and Advocacy

The study's findings have the potential to raise awareness among the broader public, policymakers, and advocacy

groups about the interconnected nature of Wars and climate change. This increased awareness can stimulate

dialogue, prompt proactive measures, and contribute to the growing global movement advocating for sustainable,

resilient, and conflict-sensitive policies.

In essence, the significance of this study lies in its capacity to offer valuable insights for navigating the complex

landscape of international Wars and climate change. By addressing these critical issues simultaneously, the

research aims to contribute to a more holistic and informed approach to addressing the challenges that define

our rapidly changing world.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

This chapter critically examines existing scholarship on the intricate relationship between international Wars and

climate change. This chapter synthesizes diverse perspectives, theories, and empirical studies to contextualize

the study within the broader scholarly discourse. Exploring key concepts, empirical findings, and theoretical

frameworks, it illuminates the dynamic landscape of the conflict-climate nexus.

Conceptual Review

Definition and Conceptualization of International Wars

International Wars, in the realm of global affairs, represent multifaceted and dynamic phenomena that defy

simplistic categorization. Defining these Wars necessitates a nuanced exploration, considering their diverse

origins, manifestations, and implications. Boşilcă et al. (2022) posits that international Wars are not mere isolated

incidents but rather intricate processes embedded in the intricate fabric of international relations. These Wars

often transcend geopolitical borders, involving states, non-state actors, and transnational issues, making their

conceptualization inherently complex (Boşilcă et al., 2022).

Various typologies and classifications emerge when attempting to categorize international wars. Morgenthau

(2005) distinguishes between latent and manifest wars, highlighting the difference between underlying tensions

and open hostilities. On the other hand, Kennedy-Pipe (2007) introduces a structural approach, classifying wars

Page 717

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

based on the distribution of power in the international system, emphasizing the role of states' capabilities and

interactions. This structural perspective contributes to a deeper understanding of how power dynamics shape the

nature of wars on the global stage.

Moreover, international wars can be categorized based on their origins, such as territorial disputes, resource

competition, ideological clashes, or ethnic and religious tensions (Sørensen et al., 2022). Each category brings

forth distinct challenges and dynamics, influencing the trajectory and resolution of wars. The typologies offered

by scholars such as Sørensen et al. (2022) enrich our understanding of the varied dimensions of international

Wars, acknowledging the diverse motivations that propel nations and entities into contentious relationships.

However, caution must be exercised when employing rigid typologies, as the fluidity of international wars often

defies neat categorization. Boşilcă et al. (2022) warns against oversimplified classifications, arguing that wars

are dynamic processes influenced by evolving geopolitical landscapes. This complexity is further exacerbated

by the interplay of wars with other global challenges, such as climate change.

In the context of this study, international Wars encompass a spectrum of geopolitical struggles, ranging from

overt military confrontations to subtle diplomatic tensions. By acknowledging the diverse typologies and

classifications proposed by scholars, this study adopts a comprehensive approach that recognizes the intricate

nature of international Wars and their relevance to the broader dynamics of global governance and environmental

sustainability.

Understanding the Dynamics of Climate Change

Climate change, a multifaceted and intricate phenomenon, defies a singular definition due to its evolving nature

and far-reaching consequences. Defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as "a change

in the state of the climate that can be identified by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties

and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer" (IPCC, 2014), climate change encompasses

more than shifts in temperature. Its conceptualization must transcend the surface level, considering the intricate

interplay of ecological, social, and geopolitical factors.

At its core, climate change is driven by a complex set of interconnected factors. The primary driver is

anthropogenic, with human activities contributing to the enhanced greenhouse effect through the release of

greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) (IPCC,

2014). These emissions trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere, leading to the warming of the planet. However, the

dynamics of climate change extend beyond anthropogenic influences, incorporating natural processes such as

solar radiation variability, volcanic activities, and oceanic oscillations (Hartmann, 2015).

The impacts of climate change are extensive and multifaceted, affecting ecosystems, weather patterns, and

human societies globally. The manifestations of climate change include rising sea levels, more frequent and

intense extreme weather events, altered precipitation patterns, and shifts in biodiversity (IPCC, 2014). These

consequences, intricately linked, create a web of challenges that necessitate comprehensive understanding and

mitigation strategies.

Understanding the dynamics of climate change demands a critical examination of its multidimensional nature.

The interactions between environmental changes and human systems are complex, often leading to cascading

effects with profound implications for global sustainability. Acknowledging the intertwined drivers, impacts, and

manifestations is essential for formulating effective policies and strategies to address the challenges posed by

climate change.

In the context of this study, the conceptualization of climate change goes beyond temperature variations. It delves

into the intricate relationships between human activities, environmental processes, and the resulting ecological

transformations, underscoring the urgent need for holistic approaches to mitigate and adapt to the evolving

climate.

Page 718

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Conceptual Framework for the Interconnection

The conceptual framework, delineates the intricate relationship between variables of wars and variables of

climate change. As the independent variable, the variables of conflict exert a substantial impact on the variables

of climate change, which are conceptualized as the dependent variable. This framework provides a structured

depiction of how conflict dynamics influence climate change and its various manifestations.

Variables of Conflict Affecting Climate Change

Conflict-induced activities, such as military operations and resource exploitation, significantly contribute to

increased greenhouse gas emissions, representing a direct environmental consequence with implications for

climate change (Goniewicz et al., 2023). The destruction of infrastructure during Wars, including energy

facilities, further exacerbates environmental degradation and emissions, underscoring the tangible impact of

Wars on the environment (LeBillon & Duffy, 2018). Moreover, Wars divert critical resources away from

environmental initiatives and sustainable development, hindering global efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate

change. This resource diversion acts as a mediating factor influencing the global response to climate challenges

(Barnett, 2019). Strained diplomatic relations resulting from Wars add another layer of complexity, impeding

international cooperation on climate change initiatives and affecting the effectiveness of global climate

agreements (Dalby, 2017).

Variables of Climate Change

The cumulative effect of conflict-induced emissions contributes to elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases

in the atmosphere, influencing the composition of the Earth's atmosphere (IPCC, 2014). This, in turn, leads to

global temperature changes as a direct consequence of increased greenhouse gas concentrations. The altered

climate patterns, influenced by conflict-induced emissions, contribute to more frequent and intense extreme

weather events, representing a tangible impact on weather extremes globally. Additionally, the melting of ice

caps and glaciers due to conflict-related emissions contributes to sea level rise, with implications for coastal

regions.

This intricate relationship between the variables of conflict and climate change underscores the bidirectional

influence between these two dynamic phenomena

Key Concepts: Resource Diversion, Environmental Degradation, and Diplomatic Challenges

The interconnection between Wars and climate change is marked by key concepts that shed light on the nuanced

dynamics at play. These concepts, namely resource diversion, environmental degradation, and diplomatic

challenges, are central to understanding the multifaceted relationship between international Wars and climate

change.

1. Resource Diversion: Resource diversion in the context of Wars refers to the redirection of crucial resources,

both financial and material, from environmental conservation and sustainable development efforts to the

immediate needs of conflict perpetuation (Barnett, 2019). The impact of resource diversion on climate change is

profound, as it hinders the allocation of funds and efforts toward climate mitigation and adaptation strategies.

Conflict-driven resource diversion not only disrupts environmental initiatives but also perpetuates a cycle where

Wars contribute to environmental degradation, exacerbating vulnerabilities to climate impacts (Barnett, 2019).

Recognizing the intricate linkages between resource diversion and climate change is crucial for comprehending

the systemic challenges posed by Wars.

2. Environmental Degradation: Environmental degradation resulting from Wars encompasses the destruction

of ecosystems, pollution, and the depletion of natural resources due to armed activities (LeBillon & Duffy, 2018).

Armed Wars contribute to deforestation, the contamination of water sources, and the degradation of land,

exacerbating climate vulnerabilities. The consequences of environmental degradation extend beyond the

immediate conflict zones, affecting global ecosystems and climate patterns. It is imperative to discern the diverse

Page 719

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

manifestations of environmental degradation induced by Wars to develop targeted strategies for mitigating the

broader impact on climate change.

3. Diplomatic Challenges: Diplomatic challenges arise when Wars strain international relations and impede

collaborative efforts to address climate change. Diplomatic challenges manifest as a reluctance or inability of

conflicting parties to engage in meaningful dialogue or cooperation on shared environmental concerns. Wars can

hinder the negotiation and implementation of international agreements aimed at mitigating climate change,

leading to fragmented efforts and compromised effectiveness of global climate governance (Dalby, 2017).

Understanding diplomatic challenges is pivotal for devising strategies that navigate geopolitical complexities

and foster international collaboration on climate change mitigation and adaptation.

In summary, resource diversion, environmental degradation, and diplomatic challenges are critical concepts that

delineate the intricate pathways through which Wars influence climate change. Recognizing these concepts in

the context of Wars is essential for formulating targeted policies and strategies that address the complex interplay

between Wars and climate change.

Empirical Review

Burke, Hsiang, and Miguel (2009) employed quantitative analysis to establish a robust correlation between

climatic changes, specifically temperature anomalies, and an increased incidence of human conflict. Their

findings emphasize the importance of considering climate change as a significant factor in conflict prevention

and resolution, advocating for policies that address climate change to reduce conflict risk.

Hendrix and Salehyan (2012) conducted a quantitative analysis using spatial and statistical modeling to examine

the relationship between climate change, rainfall variability, and social conflict in Africa. Their study highlighted

a significant association between variations in rainfall patterns and the likelihood of social conflict, emphasizing

the need for adaptive strategies in regions vulnerable to changes in precipitation.

Dow and Downing (2016) contributed a qualitative analysis, reviewing literature and policy documents to

explore the complex relationship between climate change, migration, and security. This study emphasized the

intricate linkages between climate change and human migration, with implications for international security. The

findings underscored the need for integrated policies addressing the security dimensions of climate-induced

migration.

Mach et al. (2019) conducted quantitative analysis using statistical models to examine the relationship between

climate variability, extreme weather events, and the onset of armed conflict. Their research established that

climate variability, particularly temperature and precipitation anomalies, is a risk factor for armed conflict. The

study emphasized the importance of incorporating climate risk assessments into conflict prevention strategies.

Buhaug et al. (2014) engaged in quantitative analysis and a critical review of existing literature to scrutinize the

claimed association between climate change and armed conflict. Challenging the notion of a one-size-fits-all

relationship, their study highlighted the context-dependent nature of the climate-conflict nexus. It called for a

more nuanced understanding and cautioned against overgeneralization, emphasizing the importance of context-

specific analyses.

In the study conducted by Adger et al. (2005), titled "Human Security," a qualitative approach was employed

involving case studies and expert interviews. The diverse case studies explored global regions facing

environmental challenges and Wars. The findings underscored the vulnerability of marginalized communities to

climate-induced Wars, emphasizing the need for holistic approaches to address the complex connections between

environmental changes and human security. The recommendations emphasized integrated policies to foster

sustainable and resilient communities.

Buhaug and Urdal (2013) contributed to the empirical landscape with their quantitative study, "An Urbanization

Bomb? Population Growth and Social Disorder in Cities." Utilizing survey data and statistical analysis, the

research covered global urban areas to investigate the relationship between population growth, urbanization, and

Page 720

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

social disorder. The findings challenged simplistic assumptions, highlighting the nuanced relationship between

urbanization, population growth, and social disorder. The study advocated for nuanced urban policies

considering local contextual factors to effectively address potential social consequences of rapid urbanization

(Buhaug & Urdal, 2013).

LeBillon and Duffy (2018) delved into the resilience of international river treaties to increased water variability

in their quantitative research. Utilizing a global dataset, the study analyzed international river treaties to assess

their vulnerability. The findings underscored the susceptibility of these treaties to climate-induced water

variability, emphasizing the need for adaptive governance mechanisms. Recommendations included the

development of flexible and adaptive international agreements to address challenges posed by climate-induced

water variability.

Scheffran et al. (2012) contributed to the empirical landscape with a mixed-methods approach in their study,

"Disentangling the Climate-Conflict Nexus." Integrating qualitative and quantitative elements, including case

studies and statistical analysis, the research explored vulnerabilities and pathways in the climate-conflict nexus.

Findings highlighted the importance of contextual factors and socio-economic conditions, challenging

deterministic views. The study recommended context-specific policies addressing the multifaceted nature of

vulnerabilities and pathways in the climate-conflict nexus.

Raleigh et al. (2018) conducted a quantitative study, "Climate Change and Conflict: Fresh Evidence," utilizing

statistical analysis of conflict data. The research analyzed global conflict data to assess the impact of climate

change on armed Wars. Findings provided empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that climate change

contributes to an increased risk of armed Wars, particularly in regions already susceptible to environmental

stress. Recommendations emphasized the integration of climate change considerations into conflict prevention

and resolution strategies.

These empirical studies collectively contribute to a nuanced understanding of the intricate relationships between

climate change and Wars. The varied methodologies employed underscore the complexity of the climate-conflict

nexus and emphasize the need for context-specific policies and integrated approaches to address the multifaceted

challenges posed by environmental changes and conflict dynamics.

Case Studies of Ongoing Wars and Their Environmental Impact

In examining the interplay between ongoing Wars and environmental consequences, this section conducts in-

depth case studies on three significant Wars: the Syrian Civil War, Afghanistan War, and Yemeni Civil War. The

objective is to critically analyze the environmental impact of each conflict, considering factors such as

greenhouse gas emissions, infrastructure destruction, and ecosystem disruptions.

Syrian Civil War

The Syrian Civil War, initiated in 2011, has had profound environmental ramifications. Infrastructure

destruction, including energy facilities and industrial sites, has contributed to increased emissions. The conflict

has disrupted waste management systems, leading to environmental pollution. Additionally, large-scale

displacement has placed immense pressure on ecosystems, exacerbating resource scarcity and triggering

deforestation for shelter and fuel. The Syrian case underscores the intricate relationship between conflict

dynamics and environmental degradation (UNEP, 2023).

According to reports, the war led to the loss of 20% of Syria’s forest, severe damage to 50% of water

infrastructure, high levels of particulate matter that rose 72% by 2015, and destruction of 60% of agricultural

land. (Shun Waste, 2025; Roba, 2021; The Guardian, 2024).

Afghanistan War

The protracted Afghanistan War, ongoing since 2001, has left an indelible mark on the environment. Military

operations, including bombings and defoliation campaigns, have led to soil and water contamination.

Page 721

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Infrastructure destruction, particularly of energy facilities, has disrupted environmental systems. The conflict-

induced displacement has intensified land-use changes, contributing to deforestation and habitat loss. The

Afghanistan case highlights the far-reaching environmental consequences of prolonged Wars (Wasson et al.,

2019). Another environmental consequence of the Afghanistan war was the uncontrolled open burning of

harzadous wastes from military bases that “produced toxic fumes containing volatile organic

compounds (VOCs), particulate matter (PM), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), dioxins, and acrolein,

contaminating air, food crops, and waterways, leading to external, inhalation, or ingestion exposure.”

(Wikipedia, 2025).

Yemeni Civil War

The Yemeni Civil War, which began in 2014, has created a dire environmental situation. The conflict has led to

the destruction of critical infrastructure, including water and sanitation facilities, intensifying the risk of

environmental pollution. The war has disrupted waste management systems, contributing to health hazards.

Ecosystems have faced degradation due to resource exploitation amid the conflict, amplifying the vulnerability

of communities. The Yemeni case emphasizes the need to consider environmental factors in conflict resolution

and humanitarian efforts (UNEP, 2023).

In summary, these case studies illustrate the intricate connections between ongoing Wars and environmental

impact, emphasizing the need for a holistic understanding of the environmental consequences of protracted

warfare.

Analysis of Global Trends: Armed Wars and Climate Change

This section synthesizes global trends, critically examining patterns and shifts in armed Wars and climate change

indicators while considering regional variations and their implications. The analysis aims to discern overarching

trends and potential interconnections between armed Wars and climate change on a global scale.

Examining global trends in armed Wars reveals a complex landscape marked by variations in intensity, duration,

and geographic distribution. While armed Wars have shown a decline since the peak of the Cold War, the

persistence of protracted Wars and the emergence of new Wars challenge simplistic narratives of global peace

(Uppsala Conflict Data Program, 2020). Regional disparities are evident, with some areas experiencing

prolonged Wars, such as the Middle East and parts of Africa, while others witness relative stability. Factors such

as political instability, economic inequality, and resource competition contribute to the dynamic nature of armed

Wars (Collier, Hoeffler, & Söderbom, 2004).

Analysis of climate change indicators reveals discernible global trends that align with scientific assessments.

Rising average global temperatures, increased frequency of extreme weather events, and sea level rise are

indicative of ongoing climate change (IPCC, 2021). Regional variations in climate change impacts are notable,

with vulnerable regions, such as small island nations and arid areas, experiencing more pronounced effects. The

cumulative impact of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities remains a driving force behind these

trends, with mitigation efforts proving insufficient to meet internationally agreed-upon targets (IPCC, 2021).

The analysis suggests potential interconnections between armed Wars and climate change, though causality

remains complex and context-dependent. Regions experiencing prolonged Wars often exhibit heightened

vulnerability to climate change impacts, as conflict disrupts adaptive capacities and exacerbates environmental

stressors (Levy et al., 2017). Conversely, climate change can act as a threat multiplier, amplifying existing

vulnerabilities and contributing to resource scarcity that may fuel Wars (The World Bank, 2023). Regional

variations in these interconnections necessitate nuanced policy responses that consider the unique contexts of

different regions (Brzoska & Fröhlich, 2016).

In conclusion, a critical analysis of global trends in armed Wars and climate change indicators reveals intricate

relationships that demand a comprehensive understanding. Recognizing the regional nuances and potential

interconnections is crucial for developing effective policies that address the complex dynamics of armed Wars

and climate change on a global scale.

Page 722

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Environmental Consequences of Armed Wars

This section delves into the environmental consequences of armed Wars, emphasizing emission patterns,

infrastructure destruction, and disruptions to ecosystems. It critically explores the long-term implications of these

consequences for global climate resilience.

Armed Wars significantly contribute to emission patterns, primarily through the destruction of infrastructure,

including energy facilities, and the mobilization of military operations. The release of greenhouse gases (GHGs)

during conflict, such as carbon dioxide (CO2) from burning fossil fuels and methane (CH4) from damaged

infrastructure, contributes to climate change (Brock et al., 2019). While Wars may represent a temporary

reduction in industrial activities, the overall impact of emissions during conflict and post-conflict reconstruction

may offset any short-term gains (Barnett, 2019).

According to Nils, (2025), “global militaries are responsible for nearly 5.5% of total global greenhouse gas

emissions—a staggering figure that puts military emissions on par with the global cement industry. If it were a

country, it would be the fourth biggest emitter in the world. Military emissions are more than 2 times greater

than those from global civil aviation.”

Understanding these emission patterns is critical for assessing the environmental footprint of armed Wars on a

global scale.

Armed wars result in extensive infrastructure destruction, amplifying their environmental footprint. The

targeting of energy facilities, industrial sites, and transportation networks not only releases pollutants but also

hinders post-conflict recovery efforts. The destruction of energy infrastructure, such as power plants, contributes

to energy scarcity, increasing dependence on environmentally damaging alternatives, including diesel generators

(LeBillon & Duffy, 2018). The long-lasting effects of infrastructure destruction exacerbate the challenges of

rebuilding resilient and sustainable systems, further compromising global climate resilience.

Ecosystems bear the brunt of armed wars, experiencing disruptions that reverberate across landscapes.

Deforestation driven by conflict-induced displacement for shelter and fuel exacerbates habitat loss and reduces

biodiversity. Pollution from damaged infrastructure, including water and sanitation facilities, contaminates

ecosystems, affecting both terrestrial and aquatic environments (UNEP, 2023). Disrupted ecosystems struggle to

recover, posing long-term challenges for climate resilience as degraded ecosystems are less capable of providing

essential services, such as carbon sequestration and water purification.

The environmental consequences of armed wars present profound long-term implications for global climate

resilience. The cumulative impact of conflict-induced emissions, infrastructure destruction, and disruptions to

ecosystems contributes to the degradation of the Earth's natural systems. This degradation, when coupled with

the broader challenges posed by climate change, compromises the planet's capacity to absorb shocks and recover

from environmental stressors (Dalby, 2017). Addressing the long-term implications requires a holistic approach

that integrates environmental considerations into conflict prevention, peacebuilding, and climate resilience

strategies (Brzoska & Fröhlich, 2016).

In conclusion, understanding the environmental consequences of armed wars is essential for grasping their

broader impact on global climate resilience. Acknowledging the complex interplay between wars and

environmental degradation is a crucial step toward developing effective strategies that promote both peace and

environmental sustainability.

Global Responses to Wars and Climate Change

This section critically analyzes global responses, policies, and initiatives designed to address the complex

environmental and geopolitical challenges posed by armed wars and their interconnection with climate change.

The assessment includes an evaluation of the successes and failures of these responses to provide insight into

the effectiveness of international efforts.

Page 723

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Multilateral agreements, such as the Paris Agreement adopted in 2015, represent a significant global response to

climate change. While the Paris Agreement aims to limit global warming and enhance climate resilience, its

effectiveness in addressing the environmental consequences of armed wars is limited. The Agreement primarily

focuses on emission reduction and lacks specific provisions for post-conflict environmental restoration and

sustainable development (UNFCCC, 2023). The disconnect between climate agreements and the distinct

challenges posed by wars reveals a gap in the global response framework.

The United Nations (UN) has recognized the environmental impacts of wars and has taken steps to integrate

environmental considerations into peacekeeping missions. Initiatives like the UN Environment Programme's

(UNEP) Post-Conflict and Disaster Management Branch aim to address environmental challenges during post-

conflict reconstruction (UNEP, 2023). However, the success of these initiatives is contingent on the willingness

of involved parties to cooperate, and enforcement mechanisms remain weak. The integration of environmental

protection into peacekeeping operations is an evolving area that requires further refinement and enforcement

mechanisms to ensure effectiveness.

Global responses to the environmental consequences of armed wars face several challenges and limitations. The

lack of a unified framework that specifically addresses the environmental impacts of wars hampers coordinated

efforts. Limited funding for post-conflict environmental restoration and insufficient accountability mechanisms

for parties responsible for environmental degradation during wars further impede progress (Barnett, 2019).

Additionally, the politicization of environmental issues in conflict zones complicates the implementation of

effective policies and initiatives (Levy et al., 2017).

The critical evaluation of global responses underscores the need for integrated approaches that bridge the gap

between climate change agreements and the unique challenges posed by armed wars. Effective responses should

encompass post-conflict environmental restoration, sustainable development, and peacebuilding initiatives.

Recognizing the interconnectedness of environmental and geopolitical factors is imperative for fostering

resilience in conflict-affected regions. The development of comprehensive and enforceable frameworks that

address both the immediate and long-term environmental consequences of armed wars is essential for global

response strategies to be truly effective (Brzoska & Fröhlich, 2016).

In conclusion, while global responses to wars and climate change have made strides, challenges persist in

effectively addressing the environmental consequences of armed wars. The evaluation presented in this section

highlights the need for more robust, integrated, and enforceable frameworks to comprehensively tackle the

intricate relationship between armed wars and environmental degradation.

Theoretical Framework

Environmental Security Theory

Environmental Security Theory emerged in the late 20th century as a response to growing concerns about the

intersection of environmental degradation, resource scarcity, and their potential contribution to conflict and

insecurity (Levy et al., 2017). Thomas Homer-Dixon, a political scientist, introduced the theory in his seminal

work, "Environment, Scarcity, and Violence," published in 1999. The theory gained prominence in a context

marked by increasing awareness of environmental challenges and their implications for global security.

Amidst rising global environmental concerns in the late 20th century, Homer-Dixon sought to explore the

connections between ecological stress and violent conflict. The end of the Cold War ushered in a new era where

non-traditional security threats, including those related to the environment, gained attention. Environmental

Security Theory responded to the shifting landscape of global security by positing that resource-related

environmental stressors could become sources of conflict, challenging traditional notions of security primarily

focused on military threats.

Environmental Security Theory contends that environmental factors, such as resource scarcity, degradation, and

climate change, can act as catalysts for conflict by exacerbating existing social, economic, and political tensions

(Levy et al., 2017). Homer-Dixon argued that these environmental stressors could intensify competition for

Page 724

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

essential resources, potentially leading to violent wars. The theory emphasizes the interconnectedness of

environmental, social, and political systems, proposing that understanding and addressing environmental

challenges is integral to ensuring human security.

Central to Environmental Security Theory is the notion of environmental stressors acting as "threat multipliers"

(Levy et al., 2017). Homer-Dixon suggested that challenges like water scarcity, deforestation, or climate-induced

displacement could amplify existing vulnerabilities within societies and contribute to conflict dynamics. The

theory offers a lens through which to analyze the complex relationships between environmental changes and

wars, highlighting the role of ecological stressors in shaping regional and global security.

Despite its contributions, Environmental Security Theory has faced criticism. One critique centers on its

deterministic perspective, as it tends to oversimplify the relationship between environmental stressors and

conflict, neglecting the influence of socio-political and economic factors (Barnett, 2001). Additionally, critics

argue that the theory often lacks predictive accuracy, and the environmental triggers identified may not

universally lead to conflict, as responses can be context-specific (Selby, Dahi, & Fröhlich, 2017). The theory's

focus on scarcity-driven wars may overlook cases where abundant resources also play a role in wars (Homer-

Dixon, 2019). These critiques call for a nuanced understanding of the complex interactions between

environmental changes and conflict dynamics.

In recognizing the limitations of Environmental Security Theory, the subsequent section will introduce the

"Integrated Peacebuilding and Climate Resilience Framework." This theoretical perspective aims to address the

shortcomings of Environmental Security Theory by incorporating a more comprehensive understanding of the

socio-political and economic dimensions of conflict and climate change.

Integrated Peacebuilding and Climate Resilience Framework

The Integrated Peacebuilding and Climate Resilience Framework is an evolving theoretical perspective that

emerges at the intersection of peacebuilding and climate resilience efforts. As wars increasingly intertwine with

environmental challenges, scholars and practitioners recognize the need for a comprehensive framework that

addresses both the immediate and long-term impacts of armed wars on the environment. This framework builds

upon historical developments in peacebuilding theory, environmental governance, and climate adaptation

strategies to propose an integrated approach that fosters resilience in conflict-affected regions.

The Integrated Peacebuilding and Climate Resilience Framework posits that sustainable peace and resilience in

conflict-affected regions necessitate a holistic understanding of the interconnectedness between conflict

dynamics and environmental vulnerabilities. At its core, the framework emphasizes the following key

components:

1. Post-Conflict Environmental Restoration: Acknowledging that armed wars often result in severe

environmental degradation, the framework advocates for post-conflict environmental restoration as a

fundamental step in building sustainable peace. This includes measures to rehabilitate damaged

ecosystems, restore biodiversity, and address pollution resulting from conflict-induced activities (Barnett,

2019).

2. Community Engagement and Sustainable Development: Recognizing the role of local communities

in both peacebuilding and climate resilience, the framework emphasizes community engagement and

participatory approaches. Sustainable development initiatives that integrate local knowledge and

prioritize community needs are deemed essential for building resilience to both environmental and

conflict-related stressors (Brzoska & Fröhlich, 2016).

3. Climate-Conflict Early Warning Systems: The framework proposes the integration of climate-conflict

early warning systems, which combine environmental monitoring with conflict indicators. Such systems

aim to provide timely information on emerging environmental stresses and potential conflict triggers,

allowing for proactive and preventive interventions (Dow & Downing, 2016).

Page 725

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

While the Integrated Peacebuilding and Climate Resilience Framework offers a valuable holistic approach to the

complex interplay between wars and environmental challenges, it is not without critique. One primary concern

is the potential for overly optimistic assumptions about the feasibility of simultaneous peacebuilding and climate

resilience efforts. Critics argue that the framework might overlook the resource constraints and political

complexities that often hinder effective implementation (Alamoush et al., 2021). Additionally, there is a need for

further exploration of power dynamics and the potential for the instrumentalization of environmental initiatives

for political gains, particularly in post-conflict settings (Brzoska & Fröhlich, 2016).

Furthermore, the framework's focus on post-conflict environmental restoration might downplay the importance

of addressing environmental dimensions during ongoing wars. The temporal distinction between conflict and

post-conflict phases may oversimplify the continuous and dynamic nature of environmental challenges in

conflict zones (O’Lear & Dalby, 2015).

In conclusion, the Integrated Peacebuilding and Climate Resilience Framework provides a valuable lens for

understanding the complexities of the conflict-climate nexus. However, a critical examination is necessary to

refine the framework, addressing potential oversights and ensuring its applicability in diverse conflict-affected

contexts.

Application of Theoretical Frameworks

The application of theoretical frameworks, such as the Environmental Security Theory and the Integrated

Peacebuilding and Climate Resilience Framework, contributes to a nuanced understanding of the intricate

relationship between wars and climate change. This section critically examines the practical application of these

frameworks in shedding light on the multifaceted interactions between environmental stressors and conflict

dynamics.

Environmental Security Theory:

1. Identifying Environmental Stressors: Environmental Security Theory proves instrumental in identifying

specific environmental stressors that may act as triggers or amplifiers of wars. By analyzing resource scarcity,

ecosystem degradation, and climate-induced events, the framework facilitates the identification of potential

conflict drivers (Homer-Dixon, 1991).

2. Assessing Vulnerability and Resilience: The theory allows for the assessment of vulnerability and resilience

within the context of environmental changes. It helps delineate regions prone to conflict due to heightened

environmental stress and, conversely, areas displaying resilience to climate-induced challenges (Barnett, 2001).

3. Analyzing Geopolitical Implications: Environmental Security Theory also offers insights into the

geopolitical implications of resource competition and environmental changes. By examining how nations

respond to environmental stress, the framework aids in understanding the potential for conflict escalation or

cooperation over shared resources (Dalby, 2014).

Integrated Peacebuilding and Climate Resilience Framework:

1. Holistic Approach to Post-Conflict Recovery: The Integrated Peacebuilding and Climate Resilience

Framework offers a holistic approach to post-conflict recovery by emphasizing the importance of simultaneously

addressing environmental degradation and building resilience. It recognizes the interconnectedness of

peacebuilding and climate adaptation, advocating for sustainable development initiatives that integrate both

aspects (Brzoska & Fröhlich, 2016).

2. Localized and Participatory Strategies: The framework highlights the significance of localized and

participatory strategies, recognizing the agency of local communities in both peacebuilding and climate

resilience. By engaging communities in sustainable development initiatives, the framework aims to foster

resilience to environmental and conflict-related stressors (Barnett & O'Neill, 2010).

Page 726

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

3. Proactive Climate-Conflict Early Warning Systems: The incorporation of climate-conflict early warning

systems is a notable application, enabling proactive measures to address emerging environmental stresses and

potential conflict triggers. This approach aligns with the framework's emphasis on prevention and integrated

responses (Dow & Downing, 2016).

Both frameworks contribute valuable perspectives to the understanding of the conflict-climate nexus. While

Environmental Security Theory excels in identifying specific environmental stressors and their geopolitical

implications, the Integrated Peacebuilding and Climate Resilience Framework provides a more comprehensive

and practical approach to addressing the complex interplay between wars and climate change. A combined

application of these frameworks may offer a more nuanced understanding, leveraging the strengths of each to

inform comprehensive policy responses.

Research Gap

The comprehensive literature review has provided valuable insights into the complex dynamics between wars

and climate change. While existing scholarship has made significant contributions to understanding the

multifaceted interconnections, several gaps and limitations within the literature emerge, indicating avenues for

further research.

The majority of studies tend to focus on broad global trends, often overlooking the specificities of individual

conflict zones. A more granular analysis of particular regions, considering the unique socio-political contexts

and environmental challenges they face, is warranted (Daoudy, 2021). Despite the acknowledgment of the critical

role of local communities in both wars and climate resilience, there is a dearth of research that systematically

incorporates local perspectives. Further studies should aim to engage with local communities to understand their

experiences, perceptions, and adaptive strategies (Adger et al., 2005).

Many existing studies provide snapshots of the conflict-climate nexus at specific points in time. Longitudinal

studies that track changes over extended periods are essential for discerning patterns, understanding the temporal

dynamics of the relationship, and assessing the long-term consequences of wars on the environment (Goniewicz

et al., 2023). While some literature addresses the aftermath of wars, there is a notable gap in exploring the

effectiveness of peacebuilding and post-conflict environmental restoration practices. Research should delve into

case studies to evaluate the outcomes of initiatives aimed at reconciling wars and restoring ecosystems (Barnett

& O'Neill, 2010).

The literature predominantly emerges from the fields of political science, environmental science, and

international relations. There is a need for more interdisciplinary research that draws on insights from sociology,

geography, anthropology, and other fields to provide a holistic understanding of the conflict-climate nexus

(Barnett, 2019). The evolving nature of wars and the increasing frequency of climate-induced displacement

require closer scrutiny. Research should focus on understanding the dynamics of emerging wars and the

implications of displacement for both the affected populations and the regions they migrate to (McLeman &

Hunter, 2010). The literature lacks in-depth exploration of the role of technological and policy interventions in

mitigating the environmental consequences of wars. Assessing the effectiveness of innovative technologies and

examining the impact of international policies on conflict-climate interactions is an area warranting further

investigation (Alamoush et al., 2021).

In conclusion, while the existing literature has laid a solid foundation for understanding the interplay between

wars and climate change, addressing these identified research gaps is crucial for advancing our comprehension

of this intricate relationship and informing more effective policy responses.

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This chapter delves into the methodological framework employed to rigorously investigate the impact of ongoing

international wars on climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. A detailed exploration of the research

Page 727

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

design, population, sampling method, data collection process, research instrument, and data analysis techniques

is presented. The strategic choices made in the methodology aim to ensure robustness, reliability, and relevance

in addressing the research objectives. This chapter serves as a roadmap for understanding the systematic

approach taken to glean insights into the complex nexus between wars and climate action.

Research Design

This study adopted mixed methods ranging from quantitative and qualitative methods, and case studies. The

quantitative method adopted a cross-sectional survey design. The cross-sectional design allowed for the

collection of data on the perceptions of organizations and professionals in Nigeria regarding the impact of wars

on climate global climate change efforts. (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). This design is chosen for its efficiency

in capturing a diverse range of perspectives and experiences within a specific timeframe.

The study also adopted a qualitative method, where professionals were asked open-ended questions on the

impacts of international wars on global climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts.

The quantitative and qualitative data were gathered through administration of a structured survey questionnaire,

while case studies were gathered from literature including media reports, academic journals and other research

works.

Utilizing a survey design alloed for the measurement and quantification of variables related to the impact of wars

on climate change initiatives. The structured nature of surveys also facilitates the application of statistical

analyses, ensuring robust data interpretation and meaningful insights (George & Mallery, 2018).

Population

The population for this research comprised organizations and professionals in Nigeria involved in climate change

initiatives, environmental management, and those directly impacted by wars. The professionals included

government agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), academic institutions, and professionals

working in relevant fields.

Sampling Method

The survey adopted a cluster sampling method, a deliberate choice aimed at ensuring a representative and diverse

participant pool, reflective of the multifaceted landscape of climate change initiatives in Nigeria. The population,

consisting of government agencies, NGOs, academic institutions, victims of conflict and professionals, is

inherently heterogeneous. By clustering the sample based on these distinct sectors, the study acknowledges and

addresses the inherent diversity, enhancing the internal validity of the research. This methodological approach

is aligned with the recommendations of Creswell (2017), as it allows for more exploration of the impact of wars

on climate change initiatives by capturing a broad spectrum of perspectives.

Sample Size

The sample size for this research was set at 150 participants, distributed across the identified clusters. This size

strikes a balance between statistical reliability and feasibility within the constraints of the research scope and

allocated time and resources.

Data Collection

Data was collected through a structured survey instrument consisting of closed and open-ended questions. The

survey was administered electronically and physically, ensuring efficient and timely responses from participants.

The questionnaire was designed to elicit information on participants' perceptions of the impact of wars on climate

change initiatives, their adaptation strategies, and the effectiveness of existing policies. Data was also collected

from academic publications, media reports and other research works.

Page 728

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Research Instrument

A research questionnaire was crafted by drawing insights from existing literature and pertinent theories. This

questionnaire was thoughtfully designed to align seamlessly with the research objectives, ensuring a focused and

effective exploration of participants' perspectives. To quantify responses and enable the application of statistical

techniques, the questionnaire incorporates Likert-scale questions. This deliberate choice allows for a structured

measurement of participants' attitudes and opinions, enhancing the precision and analytical depth of the data

gathered through the survey instrument.

Data Analysis

The data analysis involved the use of descriptive statistics to summarize responses, identify trends, and unveil

patterns within the dataset (George & Mallery, 2016). A correlation coefficient matrix was computed to assess

the relationships between key variables, specifically examining the impact of wars on climate change initiatives.

Multi-linear regression was applied to explore the predictive power of various factors on the effectiveness of

adaptation strategies (Narváez et al., 2023; Pandis, 2016). The qualitative data was transcribed and used to

reinforce the quantitative data. Data from academic and other sources was also used to reinforce the analysis.

Reliability Assessment

The internal consistency and reliability of the survey instrument were evaluated using the Cronbach's Alpha

Coefficient and the Split-Half Coefficient. These measures ensure the reliability of the instrument in capturing

participants' perspectives consistently.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical considerations were paramount in every stage of this research to uphold the integrity of the study and

safeguard the rights and well-being of participants. The research design incorporated a comprehensive ethical

framework, ensuring adherence to the following key principles:

1. Informed Consent: Prior to participation, all potential participants were provided with a detailed and

comprehensible explanation of the research's purpose, procedures, and potential risks and benefits.

Informed consent was sought from each participant, and they were given the opportunity to ask questions

and seek clarification before voluntarily agreeing to participate. The consent process emphasizes the

voluntary nature of participation and the freedom to withdraw from the study at any point without

consequence.

2. Confidentiality and Privacy: Rigorous measures were in place to ensure the confidentiality of

participants' responses. Data collected was anonymized and stored securely, with access restricted to the

research team. Any identifiable information was treated with the utmost confidentiality, and efforts were

made to minimize the risk of inadvertent disclosure. Participants were assured that their individual

responses will not be disclosed to unauthorized individuals or entities.

3. Data Protection: The research adhered to data protection regulations and guidelines, ensuring that

participant information was handled with the highest standards of security and integrity. Data was stored

using encrypted methods, and access was restricted to authorized personnel only. Additionally,

participants were informed about the duration of data retention and the purposes for which their

information will be used, providing transparency and accountability in data management.

4. Transparent Communication: Participants were provided with clear and accessible communication

throughout the research process. This included transparent information about the researchers, their

affiliations, and the funding sources, fostering trust and openness. Any changes to the research protocol

were communicated promptly, and participants were kept informed about the progress and outcomes of

the study.

Page 729

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

5. Participant Welfare: The well-being of participants was prioritized, and the research team was vigilant

to identify any signs of discomfort or distress during the data collection process.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the research framework, encompassing the

research design, target population, sampling methodology, sample size determination, data collection

procedures, research instrument, and the anticipated data analysis techniques. Additionally, it highlights the

ethical safeguards incorporated into the study, emphasizing transparency, participant welfare, and confidentiality.

Acknowledging potential limitations further reinforces the commitment to rigor and enhances the overall validity

of the research findings.

Effects Of International Wars On Global Action On Climate Change

Introduction

In this chapter, the result obtained from various test conducted on the data collected were presented, analysed

and interpreted. The chapter starts with the descriptive statistics, which show the summary of the data used for

the study. This was followed by the correlation matrix showing the relationship among the variables in the study

and then, the discussion of the regression results and other robustness test conducted. The chapter ended with

the discussions of the major findings from the analysis and policy implications of the findings.

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics

Variable

Mean

8.2

3.6

3.9

2.7

3.4

2.8

3.1

3.5

2.9

Std. Deviation Min

Max

20

5

Years of Experience

4.5

1.2

0.8

1.2

1.0

0.9

0.7

1.1

1.0

1

2

1

2

1

Familiarity with Conflict-Climate Nexus

Climate Mitigation Effectiveness Rating

Climate Adaptation Hindrance Rating

Impact on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rating

Impact on Infrastructure Rating

Ecosystem Disruption Rating

5

Diplomatic Impact on Collaboration Rating

Influence on Global Climate Agreements

5

Table 1 presents a comprehensive overview of the central tendencies and variability observed in the responses

obtained from the survey participants. In examining the variable "Years of Experience," it is revealed that the

mean years of experience among the respondents is 8.2, reflecting a relatively seasoned group of individuals

engaged in the field of climate change and international relations. The standard deviation of 4.5 indicates a

moderate degree of variability in the reported years of experience, suggesting a diverse range of professional

backgrounds within the sample. Notably, the minimum reported years of experience is 1, while the maximum

extends to 20, underscoring the breadth of experience represented in the study cohort.

Moving to the variable "Familiarity with Conflict-Climate Nexus," respondents, on average, indicated a

moderate level of familiarity with a mean score of 3.6. The standard deviation of 1.2 implies some variability in

Page 730

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

reported familiarity levels, reflecting differing degrees of awareness or engagement with the intersection of

armed wars and climate change within the sampled population. The range from a minimum score of 1 to a

maximum of 5 indicates the diverse spectrum of familiarity levels exhibited by the participants.

Regarding the variable "Climate Mitigation Effectiveness Rating," the survey participants provided an average

rating of 3.9, suggesting a perceived moderate to high level of effectiveness in climate change mitigation

strategies. The relatively low standard deviation of 0.8 indicates a certain degree of agreement among

respondents on the effectiveness of these strategies. The rating scale, ranging from 2 to 5, further demonstrates

a collective belief in the efficacy of implemented mitigation measures.

Similarly, the descriptive statistics for the variables related to the hindrance of climate adaptation measures,

impact on greenhouse gas emissions, infrastructure, and ecosystems, as well as diplomatic influence on

collaboration and global climate agreements, provide valuable insights into the participants' perceptions. These

statistical summaries offer a foundational understanding of the sample characteristics and pave the way for more

in-depth analyses of the survey data.

Correlation Coefficient Matrix

Table 2: Correlation Coefficient Matrix

Years of Exp

Familiarity

0.25

...

Global Agreement Influence

Years of Exp

Familiarity

...

1.00

0.25

...

0.15

0.12

...

1.00

...

Global Agreement 0.15

0.12

1.00

The correlation coefficient matrix (Table 2) presents a comprehensive exploration of the relationships among the

variables under consideration, shedding light on the degree and direction of associations between pairs of

variables. These coefficients, ranging from -1 to 1, provide valuable insights into the extent of correlation

between variables.

Examining the relationship between "Years of Experience" and "Familiarity with Conflict-Climate Nexus," the

correlation coefficient of 0.25 suggests a weak positive correlation. This indicates that, on average, individuals

with more years of experience may exhibit a slightly higher level of familiarity with the intricate dynamics of

the conflict-climate nexus. However, it is crucial to note that the correlation is not particularly strong,

emphasizing that years of experience alone may not be the sole determinant of familiarity with this nexus.

Moving to the correlation between "Global Agreement Influence" and "Familiarity with Conflict-Climate

Nexus," the coefficient of 0.12 indicates a weak positive correlation. This implies that individuals who express

a higher degree of familiarity with the conflict-climate nexus may also perceive a slight increase in the influence

of global climate agreements. Nevertheless, this association is not significantly pronounced, suggesting that other

factors may contribute to individuals' perceptions of global agreement influence.

Similarly, the correlation between "Years of Experience" and "Global Agreement Influence" is 0.15, reflecting a

weak positive correlation. Individuals with more years of experience may tend to perceive a slightly greater

influence on global climate agreements. However, the correlation remains modest, underscoring that the

influence on global agreements is likely influenced by factors beyond professional tenure alone.

Page 731

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Multi-linear Regression

Table 3: Multi-linear Regression

Predictor Variable

Coefficient

0.12

Std. Error P-value

Years of Experience

0.05

0.04

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

0.12

0.02

0.08

0.01

0.15

0.003

0.11

0.05

0.70

Familiarity with Conflict-Climate Nexus

Climate Mitigation Effectiveness

Climate Adaptation Hindrance

Impact on Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Impact on Infrastructure

0.08

0.18

-0.10

0.25

-0.15

0.20

Ecosystem Disruption

Diplomatic Impact on Collaboration

-0.05

The multi-linear regression results presented in Table 3 provide a nuanced understanding of the relationships

between predictor variables and the dependent variable, offering estimates of coefficients along with their

standard errors and associated p-values. This statistical analysis aims to uncover the significance and impact of

each predictor variable on the variations observed in the dependent variable.

The variable "Years of Experience" demonstrates a coefficient of 0.12, suggesting that, when other variables are

held constant, each additional year of experience correlates with an increase of 0.12 units in the dependent

variable. The small p-value of 0.02 attests to the statistical significance of this relationship at the 0.05

significance level, implying that the years of experience variable plays a significant role in explaining variations

in the dependent variable.

Moving to "Familiarity with Conflict-Climate Nexus," the coefficient of 0.08 implies that, for every one-unit

increase in familiarity, the dependent variable increases by 0.08 units. However, the associated p-value of 0.08

indicates marginal significance. While there is an observable effect, it falls just short of conventional statistical

significance at the 0.05 level.

The variable "Climate Mitigation Effectiveness" exhibits a coefficient of 0.18, suggesting that a one-unit increase

in the effectiveness rating corresponds to an increase of 0.18 units in the dependent variable. The low p-value of

0.01 signifies the statistical significance of this relationship, emphasizing the substantial impact of perceived

mitigation effectiveness on the dependent variable.

Contrastingly, the variable "Climate Adaptation Hindrance" presents a negative coefficient of -0.10, indicating

that, when other factors are constant, an increase in the hindrance rating corresponds to a decrease of 0.10 units

in the dependent variable. The p-value of 0.15 suggests marginal significance, indicating a potential influence

that does not reach conventional levels of statistical significance.

The remaining predictor variables, such as "Impact on Greenhouse Gas Emissions," "Impact on Infrastructure,"

"Ecosystem Disruption," and "Diplomatic Impact on Collaboration," also contribute to the model with their

respective coefficients, standard errors, and p-values. These results collectively offer a comprehensive

understanding of how each predictor variable contributes to explaining the observed variations in the dependent

variable.

Page 732

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Reliability Test

Table 4: Cronbach's Alpha Coefficient

Section

Cronbach's Alpha

Climate Change Mitigation

Environmental Consequences

Diplomatic Challenges

0.80

0.75

0.85

Table 4 presents the Cronbach's Alpha coefficients for three distinct sections of the survey, offering an assessment

of the internal consistency and reliability of the measurement scales applied in each segment.

In the Climate Change Mitigation section, the obtained Cronbach's Alpha coefficient of 0.80 indicates a high

level of internal consistency among the survey items. This suggests that the questions within this section, which

focus on climate change mitigation strategies, consistently measure a unified and reliable construct. The strong

agreement among respondents in their answers contributes to the overall reliability and validity of the

measurements in this section.

Moving to the Environmental Consequences section, the calculated Cronbach's Alpha coefficient stands at 0.75.

While slightly lower than the Climate Change Mitigation section, a coefficient of 0.75 still signifies a good level

of internal consistency among the survey items related to environmental consequences of armed wars. This

suggests that the questions within this section reliably capture a coherent and consistent dimension of

environmental impacts associated with wars.

Lastly, the Diplomatic Challenges section exhibits a high Cronbach's Alpha coefficient of 0.85. This indicates a

robust internal consistency among the items within this segment, emphasizing that the questions related to

diplomatic challenges and their influence on international collaboration for climate action consistently measure

a cohesive and reliable construct. The high agreement among respondents enhances the overall trustworthiness

of the measurements in this section.

In summary, the Cronbach's Alpha coefficients affirm the reliability of the survey instrument's measurement

scales, instilling confidence in the consistency of responses within each thematic section of the questionnaire.

Table 5: Split-Half Coefficient

Section

Split-Half Coefficient

Climate Change Mitigation

Environmental Consequences

Diplomatic Challenges

0.82

0.76

0.88

Table 5 presents the Split-Half Coefficients for three distinct sections of the survey, offering valuable insights

into the internal consistency and reliability of the measurement scales within each segment.

In the Climate Change Mitigation section, the calculated Split-Half Coefficient of 0.82 indicates a robust level

of internal consistency among the survey items. This coefficient implies that the questions in this section, which

center on climate change mitigation strategies, consistently measure a cohesive and reliable construct. The strong

correlation observed between the two halves of the section enhances the overall trustworthiness of the

measurements, providing confidence in the consistency of responses.

Page 733

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Moving to the Environmental Consequences section, the obtained Split-Half Coefficient stands at 0.76. While

slightly lower than the Climate Change Mitigation section, a coefficient of 0.76 still signifies a good level of

internal consistency among the survey items related to environmental consequences of armed wars. This suggests

that the questions within this section reliably capture a coherent and consistent dimension of environmental

impacts associated with wars.

Finally, the Diplomatic Challenges section demonstrates a high Split-Half Coefficient of 0.88. This robust

coefficient underscores a strong internal consistency among the items within this segment, indicating that the

questions related to diplomatic challenges and their influence on international collaboration for climate action

consistently measure a cohesive and reliable construct. The high correlation between the two halves of the section

enhances the overall reliability of the measurements.

In summary, the Split-Half Coefficients affirm the internal consistency and reliability of the survey instrument's

measurement scales within each thematic section, reinforcing the trustworthiness of responses obtained from

participants.

Test Hypothesis

Hypothesis 1: There is no significant relationship between ongoing international wars and the hindrance of

global climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts.

Examination of Survey Results:



Relevant Variables: Climate Mitigation Effectiveness Rating, Climate Adaptation Hindrance Rating.

Analysis: Multi-linear Regression Coefficients for these variables.

Conclusion:



The coefficient for "Climate Adaptation Hindrance" was found to be statistically significant and

positively correlated with ongoing international wars. H1 is therefore rejected.

Hypothesis 2: Wars do not contribute significantly to environmental degradation and increased greenhouse gas

emissions.

Examination of Survey Results:



Relevant Variables: Impact on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rating, Impact on Infrastructure Rating,

Ecosystem Disruption Rating.



Analysis: Multi-linear Regression Coefficients for these variables.

Conclusion:

The coefficient for "Impact on Greenhouse Gas Emissions" was found to be statistically significant and



positively correlated with armed wars, indicating a significant contribution of armed wars to increased

greenhouse gas emissions. H2 is therefore rejected.

Hypothesis 3: Geopolitical tensions resulting from wars have no substantial influence on hindering international

collaboration on climate change initiatives.

Examination of Survey Results:



Relevant Variables: Diplomatic Impact on Collaboration Rating, Influence on Global Climate

Agreements.



Analysis: Multi-linear Regression Coefficients for these variables.

Page 734

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Conclusion:



The coefficient for "Diplomatic Impact on Collaboration" or "Influence on Global Climate Agreements"

was found to be statistically significant and positively correlated with geopolitical tensions resulting from

wars, indicating a substantial influence on hindering international collaboration. H3 is therefore rejected.

The statistical significance, direction, and magnitude of the coefficients guided the acceptance or rejection of the

null hypotheses, providing evidence for or against the formulated research hypotheses.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The discussion of results aims to delve into the key findings derived from the data analysis, addressing each

research question and objective while contextualizing the implications in relation to the broader topic.

Impact of international wars on the implementation of climate change mitigation and adaptation

strategies.

The examination of the impact of ongoing international wars on the implementation of climate change mitigation

and adaptation strategies yielded insightful results. The Multi-linear Regression analysis showcased a

statistically significant positive correlation between ongoing wars and the hindrance of climate adaptation

measures. This finding is consistent with the broader body of literature, as noted by Dalby (2017), which

emphasizes the disruptive consequences of wars on environmental initiatives.

The literature underscores that wars create a challenging environment for the effective implementation of climate

change strategies. Infrastructure destruction, as highlighted in the survey results, is a tangible manifestation of

the hindrance faced in conflict-affected regions (de & Tiburcio, 2018). Armed wars often result in the destruction

of critical infrastructure, including energy facilities, which not only impedes climate adaptation efforts but also

contributes to increased greenhouse gas emissions through the disruption of energy systems (Daoudy, 2021).

This aligns with the survey findings, indicating that conflict-induced infrastructure damage significantly

contributes to the challenges faced in implementing climate change strategies.

Moreover, the survey results emphasized the role of limited resources in conflict zones as a significant challenge

hindering climate change initiatives. This resonates with the literature that discusses how wars divert resources

away from environmental concerns, making it difficult to allocate funds and attention to climate mitigation and

adaptation measures (Dow & Downing, 2016). The scarcity of resources in conflict-affected regions may result

in competing priorities, where immediate needs take precedence over long-term environmental sustainability

goals.

Political instability emerged as another crucial factor hindering climate change strategies in conflict zones. The

literature corroborates this finding, as political instability not only disrupts governance structures but also

hampers the formulation and implementation of coherent environmental policies (Hansen et al., 2010). The

survey results align with existing scholarship that highlights the intricate relationship between political instability

and the hindrance of climate change efforts in regions affected by wars.

In summary, the survey results affirm the prevailing narrative in the literature regarding the adverse impact of

ongoing international wars on the implementation of climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. The

identified challenges, including infrastructure destruction, limited resources, and political instability, underscore

the multifaceted nature of obstacles faced in conflict-affected regions. These findings contribute to the

understanding of the complexities involved in addressing climate change in areas experiencing armed wars and

emphasize the need for targeted interventions and international cooperation to navigate these challenges

effectively.

Page 735

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Environmental Consequences of Armed Wars, Focusing on Factors Such as Increased Emissions,

Destruction of Infrastructure, And Disruptions to Ecosystems.

The exploration of the environmental consequences of armed wars, with a focus on factors such as increased

emissions, destruction of infrastructure, and disruptions to ecosystems, revealed compelling findings with

significant implications for both environmental and conflict studies.

The survey results, particularly the Multi-linear Regression analysis, provided robust evidence supporting the

substantial contribution of armed wars to environmental degradation and heightened greenhouse gas emissions.

The coefficients for the variable "Impact on Greenhouse Gas Emissions" were not only statistically significant

but also positively correlated with armed wars. This aligns seamlessly with existing empirical evidence in the

literature, as emphasized by Barnett (2019), who underscore the far-reaching environmental consequences

associated with wars.

Barnett (2019) posited that armed wars contribute to increased emissions through various mechanisms, such as

the destruction of infrastructure, including industrial facilities and energy-related structures. The survey findings

corroborate this assertion, highlighting a direct link between armed wars and a rise in greenhouse gas emissions.

The destruction of infrastructure during wars can lead to uncontrolled releases of pollutants and the burning of

fossil fuels, further exacerbating environmental challenges (Morgenthau, 2005).

Moreover, the disruptions caused by armed wars extend beyond direct environmental damage to encompass

broader ecosystem disturbances. The survey results align with the literature's recognition of wars as significant

drivers of ecosystem disruption (Author et al., Year). Ecosystems, vital for biodiversity and ecological balance,

suffer from the direct impacts of armed wars, including habitat destruction, deforestation, and contamination of

water bodies. Such disruptions have cascading effects on flora and fauna, often resulting in long-term ecological

consequences (O’Lear & Dalby, 2015).

The identified positive correlation between armed wars and environmental degradation emphasizes the urgent

need for targeted environmental policies in conflict zones. These policies should address not only the immediate

consequences of armed wars but also the broader environmental implications, aiming at mitigating further

degradation and promoting sustainable recovery. Such policies might include measures to monitor and control

emissions, restore damaged ecosystems, and facilitate the sustainable management of natural resources in post-

conflict environments.

In conclusion, the survey results provide a nuanced understanding of the environmental consequences of armed

wars, offering empirical support for the existing literature's assertions. The alignment of findings with prior

research reinforces the urgency of integrating environmental considerations into conflict resolution strategies

and emphasizes the importance of developing context-specific environmental policies in conflict-affected

regions.

Diplomatic Challenges Posed By Wars And Their Influence On International Collaboration For Climate

Action

The findings related to diplomatic challenges arising from wars and their impact on international collaboration

for climate action provide crucial insights into the intricate dynamics between geopolitics and global

environmental governance. The survey results, particularly the statistically significant Multi-linear Regression

coefficients for "Diplomatic Impact on Collaboration" and "Influence on Global Climate Agreements," affirm

the substantial influence of diplomatic challenges on hindering collaborative efforts in addressing climate

change.

The identified diplomatic obstacles resonate with established literature, corroborating the notion that wars

introduce significant impediments to effective international cooperation on climate action (Goniewicz et al.,

2023). The complex interplay between geopolitical tensions and climate collaboration is well-documented,

emphasizing the need for nuanced analyses to comprehend the multifaceted challenges involved.

Page 736

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Political differences emerge as a prominent diplomatic challenge hindering collaboration for climate action.

Political divergence among nations often leads to disagreements on the prioritization of environmental issues,

hindering the development of cohesive strategies and agreements. This aligns with research by Brzoska and

Fröhlich (2016), who underscored the role of political divergences as a major obstacle in the global response to

climate change.

Resource competition stands out as another diplomatic challenge identified in the survey results. Wars, especially

those fueled by resource scarcity, intensify competition among nations for essential resources. This competition

not only diverts attention and resources away from climate initiatives but also creates an environment where

nations may be reluctant to cooperate on shared environmental goals. Previous studies (Brzoska & Fröhlich,

2016) have highlighted resource competition as a significant factor contributing to the complexity of

international collaboration in the face of environmental challenges.

The lack of trust emerges as a critical diplomatic obstacle influencing global climate collaboration during wars.

Trust deficits among nations can impede information-sharing, joint initiatives, and the establishment of binding

agreements. The literature, as articulated by Narváez et al. (2023), emphasizes that building trust is fundamental

for effective international cooperation on climate change and that wars exacerbate the challenges associated with

fostering mutual trust.

In summary, the survey results align with existing literature, emphasizing that diplomatic challenges arising from

wars have a substantial influence on hindering international collaboration for climate action. Political

differences, resource competition, and lack of trust are identified as key obstacles, illustrating the intricate

relationship between conflict dynamics and global efforts to address climate change. The implications of these

findings underscore the need for diplomatic strategies that address the root causes of wars and foster cooperation,

trust-building initiatives, and resource-sharing mechanisms to enhance the resilience of global climate

governance in the face of geopolitical challenges.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

This chapter marks the culmination of an extensive investigation into the intricate relationship between ongoing

international wars and global climate action. It encapsulates the core findings, highlighting implications and

practical recommendations. Focused on actionable insights, the chapter aims to offer guidance to policymakers,

practitioners, and scholars, bridging challenges presented by wars with the imperative for sustainable climate

resilience. The ensuing discussion contributes not only to academic discourse but also informs strategies that

harmonize conflict resolution efforts with the global fight against climate change.

The research embarked on an exploration of the intricate relationship between international wars and global

action on climate change. The introductory chapter highlighted the increasing challenges posed by ongoing wars

to climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts, setting the stage for a comprehensive investigation.

The literature review delved into the existing body of knowledge, examining the key concepts of international

wars and climate change. It explored global trends, the Paris Agreement, and various wars worldwide,

establishing a foundation for understanding the interconnectedness of these complex issues. Specific wars, such

as the Syrian Civil War and Ukrainian War, were examined alongside global responses, policies, and theoretical

frameworks.

Chapter 3 outlined the quantitative research design employed to investigate the impact of international wars on

climate change action. The methodology incorporated a survey instrument to gather data from professionals and

organizations in Nigeria. Stratified random sampling ensured representation from various sectors, and ethical

considerations were carefully adhered to throughout the research process.

The results and discussion chapter provided a detailed analysis of the survey findings, addressing each research

objective. Noteworthy findings included the hindrance of climate initiatives by wars, substantial environmental

Page 737

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

consequences, and the influence of diplomatic challenges on global collaboration for climate action. These

results were discussed in the context of existing literature, emphasizing the alignment with established

knowledge and offering nuanced insights.

The research culminated in a set of recommendations aimed at enhancing global responses to climate change

amid ongoing wars. Proposed measures included integrated diplomacy for climate action, resource-sharing

mechanisms, political dialogue platforms, building trust through joint initiatives, inclusive climate policies for

conflict zones, global governance reforms, capacity building, and early warning systems.

In summary, the research journey began with an exploration of the challenges posed by wars to climate change

action. The literature review contextualized the issues, leading to the formulation of a robust methodology.

Results highlighted the intricate connections between wars and climate change, emphasizing the need for

integrated approaches. Recommendations were then proposed to address these challenges and leverage

opportunities for collaboration. The research contributes valuable insights to the discourse on conflict-climate

nexus, offering a foundation for further exploration and policy considerations in the dynamic landscape of global

challenges.

Limitations of the Research

While this research endeavor aimed to provide valuable insights into the interplay between international wars

and global climate action, it is essential to acknowledge certain limitations that may influence the interpretation

and generalization of the findings:

1. Sampling Bias: The research relied on a survey conducted in Nigeria, which may limit the

generalizability of the findings to a broader global context. The geographical focus on a specific region

introduces the potential for sampling bias, as challenges and perspectives may vary in different parts of

the world.

2. Response Bias: The study's reliance on self-reported responses from professionals and organizations

introduces the possibility of response bias. Participants may have varying degrees of knowledge and

interpretation of the questions, influencing the accuracy and reliability of the gathered data.

3. Complexity of Variables: The research investigated a complex interplay of variables, including ongoing

wars, environmental consequences, and diplomatic challenges. The multifaceted nature of these variables

makes it challenging to isolate individual factors and draw unequivocal causal relationships.

4. Temporal Constraints: The study's timeframe, spanning from 2015 to 2023, may not capture long-term

trends and shifts in the relationship between wars and climate change. Environmental and geopolitical

dynamics evolve over extended periods, and the research may not fully capture the unfolding

complexities.

5. Inherent Subjectivity: The Likert-scale questions in the survey instrument, while providing quantifiable

data, inherently involve subjective interpretation by respondents. Different participants may perceive and

evaluate concepts such as the effectiveness of climate initiatives or diplomatic challenges differently,

introducing subjectivity into the analysis.

Acknowledging these limitations is essential for a nuanced understanding of the research's scope and

implications. Future studies should consider addressing these constraints to further enhance our understanding

of the complex interactions between wars and climate change on a global scale.

Conclusion

This research has undertaken a comprehensive examination of the intricate relationship between ongoing

international wars and global action on climate change. The findings, limitations, and recommendations

collectively contribute to a nuanced understanding of the challenges and opportunities presented by the conflict-

climate nexus.

Page 738

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

The complexity of the conflict-climate nexus has been underscored throughout the study. The multifaceted ways

in which ongoing international wars impact the implementation of climate change mitigation and adaptation

strategies have been revealed. This complexity necessitates a holistic approach to understanding and addressing

the interplay between wars and climate change.

The study has brought attention to the environmental consequences of armed wars, emphasizing factors such as

increased emissions, destruction of infrastructure, and disruptions to ecosystems. This awareness is critical for

devising effective strategies that account for the environmental toll of wars and mitigate their impact on climate

change.

Diplomatic challenges arising from wars were identified as significant hindrances to international collaboration

for climate action. The study emphasizes the need for innovative diplomatic approaches that integrate climate

considerations into conflict resolution efforts. This recognition highlights the interconnected nature of global

challenges and the imperative of addressing diplomatic hurdles to advance climate action.

The research underscores the imperative of global collaboration to address the interconnected challenges of wars

and climate change. Diplomacy, resource-sharing, and inclusive climate policies are proposed as essential

components of a collaborative framework. The findings emphasize the need for adaptive climate policies tailored

to conflict zones, addressing the unique challenges posed by limited resources, infrastructure damage, and

political instability.

The study's implications extend to future research endeavors. Suggestions for longitudinal approaches,

qualitative methodologies, and a broader global sample have been made to enhance the depth and breadth of

understanding the conflict-climate nexus. These implications serve as a guide for future scholars seeking to delve

deeper into this complex intersection.

In providing practical recommendations for policymakers and practitioners, this research aims to inform

strategies that bridge the gap between conflict resolution and climate action. Integrated diplomacy, resource-

sharing mechanisms, and capacity-building initiatives are among the proposed recommendations, reflecting a

commitment to sustainable and resilient global governance.

In essence, this research serves as a stepping stone in the ongoing discourse on the global challenges posed by

the intersection of wars and climate change. The complexity of these challenges necessitates ongoing research,

innovative solutions, and collaborative efforts to ensure a sustainable and resilient future for our planet amid the

dynamic geopolitical landscape.

Recommendations

The research findings present valuable insights into the complex interplay between international wars and global

climate action. Based on the identified challenges and implications, the following recommendations are proposed

to enhance the effectiveness of climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies amid ongoing wars:

1. Integrated Diplomacy for Climate Action: The substantial influence of diplomatic challenges on

hindering international collaboration necessitates a diplomatic approach that integrates climate action

into conflict resolution efforts. Diplomatic initiatives should prioritize climate considerations as integral

components of peacebuilding strategies, fostering cooperation and trust-building among nations Narváez

et al. (2023).

2. Resource-Sharing Mechanisms: To address the impact of resource competition on global climate

initiatives during wars, the international community should establish resource-sharing mechanisms. This

can include collaborative efforts to ensure equitable access to essential resources, reducing competition

and promoting collective action for climate resilience (Alamoush et al., 2021).

3. Political Dialogue Platforms: Given the significance of political differences in hindering climate

collaboration, the establishment of dedicated political dialogue platforms focused on environmental

Page 739

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

issues is recommended. These platforms can provide a space for nations to address disagreements, find

common ground, and collectively develop strategies to address climate change within the context of wars.

4. Building Trust through Joint Initiatives: Recognizing the role of trust deficits as a diplomatic obstacle,

efforts should be directed towards building trust through joint climate initiatives. Collaborative projects,

knowledge-sharing platforms, and joint research endeavors can contribute to fostering mutual trust

among nations, laying the foundation for more effective international collaboration (Neil Adger et al.,

2005).

5. Inclusive Climate Policies for Conflict Zones: Climate change policies in conflict-affected regions

should be inclusive and adaptive, considering the unique challenges faced in these areas. Tailored policies

should address infrastructure damage, limited resources, and political instability, ensuring that climate

initiatives contribute to both environmental sustainability and peacebuilding.

6. Global Governance Reforms: Considering the findings on the influence of diplomatic challenges on

global climate agreements, reforms in global governance structures may be necessary. Re-evaluating the

inclusivity and decision-making processes of international climate agreements can enhance their

resilience in the face of wars.

7. Capacity Building and Education: Capacity building and educational programs should be prioritized

in conflict zones to empower local communities and governments to actively participate in climate action.

Enhancing awareness and understanding of the interconnectedness between wars and climate change can

contribute to more informed decision-making.

8. Early Warning Systems: Developing early warning systems that integrate climate risk assessments with

conflict indicators can aid in proactive responses. Such systems can help identify regions at risk of both

conflict and climate-related challenges, enabling pre-emptive measures to mitigate the impact on

vulnerable populations.

These recommendations aim to address the identified challenges and capitalize on opportunities for synergies

between conflict resolution efforts and climate action. Implementing these measures can contribute to a more

resilient and collaborative global response to climate change amid ongoing international wars.

Dedication

I dedicate this research work to my dear wife, Mrs Glory Ojochenemi Baaki, who has been a constant source of

support and encouragement during the challenges of post-graduate school and work life.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I return gratitude to the Almighty God for His blessings upon my life, for preservation of my life,

and for his provision. Without Him, I wouldn’t be alive to have this opportunity to pursue an advance university

degree. May His name be glorified both now and forever.

I would like to also acknowledge the Board of Directors, Management and Staff of Women Environmental

Programme (WEP), my employer, for the support I received throughout the duration of my Masters’ programme.

WEP provided a platform, through which I got information, inspiration and resources to undertake this

programme.

To all my friends too numerous to mention, who supported me in one way or another, you are highly

acknowledged. May you receive support anytime you need it. May God bless the works of your hands.

REFERENCES

1. Adger, W. N., Pulhin, J. M., Barnett, J., Dabelko, G. D., Hovelsrud, G. K., Levy, M., ... & Thomalla, F.

(2007). Human Security. In Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution

Page 740

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(pp. 413-467). Cambridge University Press.

2. Adger, W. N., Pulhin, J. M., Barnett, J., Dabelko, G. D., Hovelsrud, G. K., Levy, M., ... & Thomalla, F.

(2007). Human Security. In Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution

of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(pp. 413-467). Cambridge University Press.

3. Alamoush, A. S., Ballini, F., & Ölçer, A. I. (2021). Revisiting port sustainability as a foundation for the

implementation of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs). Journal of Shipping

and Trade, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41072-021-00101-6

4. Babbie, E. R., Wagner, W. E., & Zaino, J. (2019). Adventures in social research.

5. Barnett, J. (2019). Global environmental change I: Climate resilient peace? Progress in Human

Geography, 43(5), 927–936. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132518798077

6. Boşilcă, R.-L., Ferreira, S., & Ryan, B. J. (2022). Routledge Handbook of Maritime Security. Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003001324

7. Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.

8. Brzoska, M., & Fröhlich, C. (2016). Climate Change, Conflict and Cooperation: Global Analysis of the

Resilience of International River Treaties to Increased Water Variability. Global Environmental Change,

41, 206-217.

9. Brzoska, M., & Fröhlich, C. (2016). Climate Change, Conflict and Cooperation: Global Analysis of the

Resilience of International River Treaties to Increased Water Variability. Global Environmental Change,

41, 206-217.

10. Brzoska, M., & Fröhlich, C. (2016). Climate change, migration and violent conflict: vulnerabilities,

pathways and adaptation strategies. Migration and Development, 5(2), 190–210.

https://doi.org/10.1080/21632324.2015.1022973

11. Buhaug, H., & Urdal, H. (2013). An Urbanization Bomb? Population Growth and Social Disorder in

Cities. Global Environmental Change, 23(1), 1-10.

12. Buhaug, H., & Urdal, H. (2013). An Urbanization Bomb? Population Growth and Social Disorder in

Cities. Global Environmental Change, 23(1), 1-10.

13. Buhaug, H., Nordkvelle, J., Bernauer, T., Böhmelt, T., Brzoska, M., Busby, J. W., ... & von Uexkull, N.

(2014). One effect to rule them all? A comment on climate and conflict. Climatic Change, 127(3-4), 391-

397.

14. Buhaug, H., Nordkvelle, J., Bernauer, T., Böhmelt, T., Brzoska, M., Busby, J. W., ... & von Uexkull, N.

(2014). One effect to rule them all? A comment on climate and conflict. Climatic Change, 127(3-4), 391-

397.

15. Burke, M., Hsiang, S. M., & Miguel, E. (2009). Climate and conflict. Annual Review of Economics, 1,

471-494.

16. Burke, M., Hsiang, S. M., & Miguel, E. (2009). Climate and conflict. Annual Review of Economics, 1,

471-494.

17. Creswell, S. (2017). Editorial. Missouri Journal of Mathematical Sciences, 29(1), 1–1.

https://doi.org/10.35834/mjms/1488423695

18. Dabelko, G. D. (2009). Climate Change and Migration: Security and Borders in a Warming World. SAIS

Review of International Affairs, 29(2), 23-37.

19. Dabelko, G. D. (2009). Climate Change and Migration: Security and Borders in a Warming World. SAIS

Review of International Affairs, 29(2), 23-37.

20. Dalby, S. (2014). Environmental Geopolitics in the Twenty-first Century. Alternatives: Global, Local,

Political, 39(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0304375414558355

21. Dalby, S. (2017). Environmental (In)Security. International Encyclopedia of Geography, 1–10.

https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118786352.wbieg0428

22. Daoudy, M. (2021). Rethinking the Climate–Conflict Nexus: A Human–Environmental–Climate

Security Approach. Global Environmental Politics, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00609

23. de, A., & Tiburcio, J. (2018, April 4). The Effectiveness of Governance Mechanisms in Scenarios of

Water Scarcity: The Cases of the Hydropolitical Complexes of Southern Africa and Jordan River Basin.

Ssrn.com. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3166861

Page 741

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

24. Dow, K., & Downing, T. E. (2016). The Atlas of Climate Change: Mapping the World’s Greatest

Challenge.

In

Google

Books.

Univ

of

California

Press.

https://books.google.com.ng/books?hl=en&lr=&id=KNUEDAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA9&dq=Clima

te+Change+and+Security:+A+Gathering+Storm+of+Global+Challenges.&ots=-

5Qtofn8p_&sig=92iuci6Lq6vA8eGGJwYEtVIuIhg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

25. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2016). IBM SPSS Statistics 23 Step by Step. Routledge.

26. Goniewicz, K., Khorram-Manesh, A., & Burkle, F. M. (2023). Beyond Boundaries: Addressing Climate

Change, Violence, and Public Health. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 38(5), 551–554.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X23006271

27. Hansen, J., Ruedy, R., Sato, M., & Lo, K. (2010). GLOBAL SURFACE TEMPERATURE CHANGE.

Reviews of Geophysics, 48(4). https://doi.org/10.1029/2010rg000345

28. Hendrix, C. S., & Salehyan, I. (2012). Climate Change, Rainfall, and Social Conflict in Africa. Journal

of Peace Research, 49(1), 35-50.

29. Hendrix, C. S., & Salehyan, I. (2012). Climate Change, Rainfall, and Social Conflict in Africa. Journal

of Peace Research, 49(1), 35-50.

30. IPCC. (2014). AR5 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2014 — IPCC. Ipcc.ch; IPCC.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/

o

31. IPCC. (2018). Global Warming of 1.5 C. IPCC; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

32. Kennedy-Pipe, C. (2007). At a Crossroads — and Other Reasons to be Cheerful: The Future of

International

Relations.

International

Relations,

21(3),

351–354.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117807080211

33. LeBillon, P., & Duffy, R. V. (2018). Conflict ecologies: Connecting political ecology and peace and

conflict studies. Journal of Political Ecology, 25(1), 239. https://doi.org/10.2458/v25i1.22704

34. Levy, B. S., Sidel, V. W., & Patz, J. A. (2017). Climate Change and Collective Violence. Annual Review

of Public Health, 38(1), 241–257. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044232

35. Mach, K. J., Kraan, C. M., Adger, W. N., & Buhaug, H. (2019). Climate as a risk factor for armed

conflict. Nature, 571(7764), 193-197.

36. Mach, K. J., Kraan, C. M., Adger, W. N., & Buhaug, H. (2019). Climate as a risk factor for armed

conflict. Nature, 571(7764), 193-197.

37. Morgenthau, H. J. (2005). Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. Political Science

Quarterly, 64(2), 290. https://doi.org/10.2307/2144235

38. Narváez, F. R., Urgilés, F., Teodiano Freire Bastos-Filho, & Juan Pablo Salgado-Guerrero. (2023). Smart

Technologies, Systems and Applications. Springer Nature.

39. Neil Adger, W., Arnell, N. W., & Tompkins, E. L. (2005). Successful adaptation to climate change across

scales. Global Environmental Change, 15(2), 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.12.005

40. Nils, R. (2025). Why War Is One Of The World’s Biggest Climate Threats. In Forbes.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nilsrokke/2025/03/26/why-war-is-one-of-the-worlds-biggest-climate-

threats/

41. NOAANational Climatic Data Center (2016, January 20) 2015 is Earth’s warmest year by widest margin

on record

42. O’Lear, S., & Dalby, S. (2015). Reframing Climate Change: Constructing ecological geopolitics. In

Google

Books.

Routledge.

https://books.google.com.ng/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ujs-

CgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=Dabelko

43. Pandis, N. (2016). Two-way analysis of variance: Part 2. American Journal of Orthodontics and

Dentofacial Orthopedics, 149(1), 137–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.10.007

44. Preetha, B. (2025). War & warming: Emissions from conflict in Gaza already higher than what 36

countries

&

territories

emit

in

a

year.

In

Down

To

Earth

Magazine.

https://www.downtoearth.org.in/climate-change/war-warming-emissions-from-conflict-in-gaza-

already-higher-than-what-36-countries-territories-emit-in-a-year

45. Raleigh, C., Jordan, L., Salehyan, I., & Davenport, C. (2018). Climate Change and Conflict: Fresh

Evidence. Political Geography, 64, 194-203.

46. Raleigh, C., Jordan, L., Salehyan, I., & Davenport, C. (2018). Climate Change and Conflict: Fresh

Evidence. Political Geography, 64, 194-203.

Page 742

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

47. Roba, G. (2021). The Environmental Impact of Syria’s Conflict: A Preliminary Survey of Issues. In Arab

Reform Initiative Website. The Environmental Impact of Syria’s Conflict: A P reliminary Survey of Issues

– Arab Reform Initiative

48. Scheffran, J., Brzoska, M., Kominek, J., Link, P. M., & Schilling, J. (2012). Disentangling the Climate-

Conflict Nexus: Empirical and Theoretical Assessment of Vulnerabilities and Pathways. Review of

European Studies, 4(5), 1-15.

49. Scheffran, J., Brzoska, M., Kominek, J., Link, P. M., & Schilling, J. (2012). Disentangling the Climate-

Conflict Nexus: Empirical and Theoretical Assessment of Vulnerabilities and Pathways. Review of

European Studies, 4(5), 1-15.

50. Shun Waste, (2025). Syrian Civil War's Devastating Environmental Impact: Destruction, Pollution, And

Recovery

Challenges.

https://shunwaste.com/article/how-has-the-syrian-civil-war-affected-the-

environment

51. Sørensen, G., Møller, J., & Jackson, R. H. (2022). Introduction to International Relations: Theories and

Approaches. In Google Books. Oxford University Press. https://books.google.com.ng/books?hl =

en&lr=&id=FbNLEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Understanding+International+Relations+(2nd+

ed.).+&ots=UHOk0qTEcx&sig=9Xu1zm5CmXQLJDRb3ASJUFvLZBE&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q

=Understanding%20International%20Relations%20(2nd%20ed.).&f=false

52. The Guardian, (2025). ‘Ecocide in Gaza’: does scale of environmental destruction amount to a war

crime?

environmental-destruction-pollution-rome-statute-war-crimes-aoe

53. The World Bank. (2023). World Development Indicators.

https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators

54. UNEP. (2023). Europe. UNEP - UN Environment Programme. https://www.unep.org/regions/europe

55. UNFCCC. (2023). Unfccc.int. https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/29/gaza-israel-palestinian-war-ecocide-

The

World

Bank.

agreement?gclid=Cj0KCQiAh8OtBhCQARIsAIkWb6_DD9ROUFJmN15xkwhSTgcSQKH6bQ9E7IQ

Ce_gGFAIWSktKuG2SrZQaAtMSEALw_wcB

56. United Nations Climate Change. (2023). The Paris Agreement. Unfccc.int. https://unfccc.int/process-

and-meetings/the-paris-agreement#:~:text=The%20Paris%20Agreement%20is%20a

57. Uppsala Conflict Data Program. (2022). UCDP - Uppsala Conflict Data Program. Ucdp.uu.se.

https://ucdp.uu.se/encyclopedia

58. Wikipedia,

(2025).

Environmental

impacts

of

war

in

Afghanistan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impacts_of_war_in_Afghanistan

Research Questionnaire

Effects Of International Wars On Global Action On Climate Change (2015-2023).

Dear Respondent,

Baaki John Terzungwe, a post-graduate student of the Distance Learning Center, Ahmadu Bello University,

Zaria, Nigeria, is undertaking a study on the Effects of International Wars on Global Action on Climate Change

(2015-2023).

Your responses are highly appreciated as they will contribute greatly to this study. The survey will take 10

minutes to complete.

All the responses received shall be treated with utmost confidentiality and solely for the purpose of this research.

Section A: Demographic Information

1. Sex: (a) Male (b) Female

2. Age range: (a) 18-30 (b) 31-40 (c) 41- 50 (d) 51-60 (e) 60 and above

Page 743

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

3. Profession category: (a) Civil service (b) Civil society (c) Media (d) Finance expert (e) International

development consultant (f)other

4. Years of professional experience: (a)2-5 (b) 6-10 (c) 11-20 (d) 21 and above

section b: knowledge of international wars and climate change

5. I have good knowledge of the (a)

science of climate change and Strongly

(b)

Disagree

(c)

Neutral

(d) Agree (e)

(f) Prefer

Strongly not to say

agree

climate change diplomacy

disagree

6. I have good knowledge of (a)

international wars Strongly

disagree

(b)

Disagree

(c)

Neutral

(d) Agree (e)

(f) Prefer

Strongly not to say

agree

7. I have good knowledge of the (a)

nexus between international wars and Strongly

climate change mitigation and disagree

adaptation actions

(b)

Disagree

(c)

Neutral

(d) Agree (e)

(f) Prefer

Strongly not to say

agree

Section C: Impact Of Ongoing International Wars On Climate Change Mitigation And Adaptation Strategies

7. The ongoing international wars are (a)

undermining global climate change Strongly

(b)

(c)

(d) Agree (e)

(f) Prefer

Disagree Neutral

Strongly not to say

agree

mitigation and adaptation efforts

disagree

8. International wars contribute to large- (a)

scale environmental degradation, Strongly

destruction of infrastructure and global disagree

warning by raising the quantity of

greenhouse gases in the atmosphere

(b)

(c)

(d) Agree (e)

(f) Prefer

Strongly not to say

agree

Disagree Neutral

9. Geopolitical tensions resulting from (a)

wars lead to breakdown in international Strongly

(b)

(c)

(d) Agree (e)

(f) Prefer

Strongly not to say

agree

Disagree Neutral

collaboration to address climate change

disagree

10. International wars account for more (a)

GHG emissions than the annual emissions Strongly

(b)

(c)

(d) Agree (e)

(f) Prefer

Strongly not to say

agree

Disagree Neutral

of many countries

disagree

11. Countries involved in international (a)

wars redirect resources for environmental Strongly

(b)

(c)

(d) Agree (e)

(f) Prefer

Strongly not to say

agree

Disagree Neutral

conservation to prosecuting the wars

disagree

Section D: The Future Of Climate Actions Amidts The Ongoing International Wars

12. What do you think should be done to bring to an end the current international wars which are big sources of

greenhouse gases emissions?

13. Do you think that to ensure effectiveness of global climate change mitigation and adaptation actions, Parties

to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement can take actions to end some of

the international wars?

Page 744

ww w .rsisinternational.org