Prospect of war looms if world's largest economies fail to act aggressively to address climate change

The International Court of Justice’s ruling on climate change recognized that it poses an immediate and far-reaching threat to people around the world and has implications for the full enjoyment of human rights. 

  

By Fareed Khan 

  

Twenty-two years ago, the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment, a highly regarded internal think tank, sounded an alarm that reverberated through US defence circles. Its 2003 report, An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security, warned that climate change could surpass terrorism as a national security threat by 2008, driven by abrupt climate shifts that would trigger resource scarcity, mass migration, and widespread conflict.

 

The report drew on studies of prehistoric weather patterns and the ocean’s thermohaline circulation, which regulates global climate by distributing warm and cold currents. It cautioned that rapid polar ice melt would release vast amounts of freshwater, disrupting ocean salinity and slowing the ocean currents which regulate weather patterns, leading to catastrophic changes like violent storms, and rising sea levels. The impact of such changes would affect low lying coastal regions most dramatically, and could result in Siberia-like winters in Europe and North America, alongside droughts and shortened growing seasons in key agricultural regions, resulting in political and economic instability around the world. Though the report’s most extreme timeline predictions have not fully materialized, its scientific foundation remains robust, and its warnings about climate-driven insecurity are now unfolding with alarming clarity.

 

 

On July 23, 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) amplified these concerns with a landmark advisory opinion, declaring that a state’s failure to take decisive action against climate change could constitute an “internationally wrongful act”, and potentially a crime against humanity. The court underscored the gravity of the situation as “an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet.” The unanimous ruling by the court’s 15 judges affirmed that a “clean, healthy, and sustainable environment” is a human right, establishing a legal framework that could hold nations accountable for environmental harm caused by their actions or inaction.

 

The court further recognized that climate change poses an “immediate and far-reaching threat to people and communities around the world and has implications for the full enjoyment of human rights.” This 130-page opinion is a clarion call for states to align their policies with international obligations to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, reinforcing the Pentagon’s foresight that climate change is a global security issue with far-reaching consequences for all nations.

 

Today, the predictions of the 2003 report are no longer speculative—they are unfolding before our eyes. The World Meteorological Organization confirmed 2024 as the hottest year on record, with global temperatures approximately 1.55°C above pre-industrial levels. Extreme weather events—scorching heatwaves, devastating floods, massive wildfires, and intensified hurricanes and typhoons—are becoming more frequent and severe, causing more deaths and more physical damage year after year. 

 

For instance, in 2024 Hurricane Helene devastated coastal and inland communities in the United States, with studies attributing its catastrophic impact to climate change. In Asia, typhoons and floods displaced nearly eight million people in 2024, while in South Sudan, four consecutive years of flooding submerged two-thirds of the country, exacerbating a hunger crises. Wildfires have also surged, with the western United States experiencing a 500% increase in burned areas between 1972 and 2018, and similar trends observed in Canada, Europe, and Australia. These events have released millions of tons of CO² into the atmosphere, creating a feedback loop that intensifies global warming and heightens security risks worldwide.

 

Poorer nations, which contribute the least to global GHG emissions, face the most severe consequences, their national security threats amplified, with little recourse to address them. In Sudan, decades of droughts, rainfall variability, and desertification have driven 15 million people into severe hunger, with climate shocks compounding regional conflict. In Bangladesh, a 2024 flood affected over 18 million, with more than 1.2 million people trapped by flash flooding in eastern and south-eastern parts of the country, underscoring the vulnerability of low-lying regions to rising sea levels and extreme weather events. These nations already grapple with food and water insecurity, mass displacement, and heightened conflict over dwindling resources. The added crises of climate related catastrophes is something beyond their ability to address on their own.

 

There is also the fact that climate change acts as a “threat multiplier,” intensifying existing conflicts and creating complex humanitarian crises. By 2040, extreme climate hazards are projected to include a third of the planet’s nations, with most hosting displaced populations, posing security challenges for themselves and their neighbours.

 

As climate-driven instability grows, richer regions and nations—North America, Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand—are likely to adopt a fortress mentality to protect their resources and borders, a scenario envisioned by the Pentagon report.  It warned that wealthier nations would eventually face an influx of millions of climate refugees from Africa, Asia, and South America, and that by 2050, climate change could push 158 million more women and girls into poverty, and 236 million into hunger, fuelling migration from vulnerable regions. In response, richer nations may fortify their borders, as seen in debates over migration in the US and various European countries, where climate-driven displacement is already a factor amplifying security concerns.

 

The potential for military conflict escalates as resource scarcity intensifies, a risk the Pentagon identified. The US intelligence community’s 2021 National Intelligence Estimate pinpointed 11 countries, including Afghanistan, India, and Pakistan, as particularly vulnerable to climate-induced instability. Competition over fresh water, food, and energy could spark conflicts or even societal collapse, particularly in regions like the Middle East and North Africa, where water scarcity and extreme heat already strains societies. In Jordan, population growth and refugee influxes from neighbouring countries already exacerbates water shortages, while Saudi Arabia faces the prospect of diminishing aquifers affecting fresh water availability, and rising sea levels threatening coastal cities.

 

The Pentagon’s report also warned of nuclear proliferation as “have-not” nations with technical know how develop nuclear weapons to secure resources or coerce aid or resources from their neighbours or wealthier countries. Such scenarios are plausible, with Egypt’s president hinting at military action over Nile River water disputes with Ethiopia, a situation exacerbated by climate change, highlighting the global security stakes.

 

The ICJ’s ruling offers a legal framework to hold nations accountable, but its effectiveness is uncertain when major powers flout international law elsewhere. The ongoing genocide in Gaza, labelled by the United Nations, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as a genocide, underscores this hypocrisy, as states fail to uphold their obligations, under the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Genocide Convention, to prevent and punish criminal acts. If nations like Israel, the US or China evade accountability for atrocities such as crimes against humanity and genocide, who is to say that they will prioritize climate action when their own economic interests are at stake?

 

The ruling also arrives at a time when global cooperation on climate action is faltering. Nations like Canada, the US, Australia and Russia—major GHG producers on a per capita basis—have consistently failed to meet their emissions reduction targets, undermining the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Furthermore, Canadian prime minister Mark Carney and American president Donald Trump have proposed policies to expand fossil fuel extraction in their respective countries, while China continues building coal-fired power plants to power its economy. This is despite warnings from the world’s top climate scientists about the impact that additional oil and gas extraction, and burning fossil fuels will have on the planet, and the predictions of economic experts that global oil production may peak before 2030, all of which could disrupt global energy markets, substantially increase GHG emissions, and heighten security risks.

 

The failure to meet GHG reduction targets compounds the climate crisis, which in turn undermines global security. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emphasizes that emissions must be halved by 2030 to limit warming to 1.5°C, yet current trajectories suggest a 3°C increase, with catastrophic consequences. In Asia, rising temperatures and changing precipitation patterns threaten agricultural productivity which would impact billions, while urban areas face increased risks from flooding and heatwaves. These disruptions could drive migration and conflict, as seen in the war in Syria in the 2010s, and the displacement of tens of millions in Bangladesh, China, India, and the Philippines due to typhoons and floods over the past decade. Richer nations’ reliance on fossil fuels contradicts the ICJ’s call for accountability, exacerbating the security threats identified by the Pentagon, and putting nations on the path to possible military conflict.

 

For Canada, the climate crisis poses unique national security challenges, particularly in the Arctic. The rapid melting of Arctic ice, driven by increasing water temperatures, is opening new shipping routes and providing new opportunities to exploit valuable resources, intensifying competition among nations like Russia, China, and the United States. Historically, Canada’s territorial sovereignty in the Arctic was protected by its ice-covered waters, but as the ice retreats, the region becomes a potential flashpoint for military conflict. Canada has invested minimally in Arctic defence since climate change became a major policy issue in the 1990s, relying on its harsh northern climate as a natural barrier. However, with the Arctic warming at up to four times the global rate, Canada must now contend with foreign powers eyeing its resources in the north and possibly challenging its territorial claims, echoing the Pentagon’s warnings about climate-driven conflict.

 

The path forward requires urgent, transformative action. The ICJ’s ruling provides a legal framework for nations to prioritize climate justice and pushes the needle on prioritizing threats to the planet over economic growth. Wealthier nations must lead by reducing emissions, investing in resilient infrastructure, implementing policies to mitigate GHG emissions, and supporting vulnerable countries through climate finance and technology transfers. Programs like the US’s Feed the Future initiative, which promotes climate-resilient crops, shows potential, but their scale must expand dramatically and such programs must be adopted by other food producing giants if future conflict is to be prevented. Individuals can also pressure their governments to implement policies aligned with the Paris Agreement and the ICJ’s framework, advocating for equitable solutions that prioritize the most vulnerable.

 

The climate crisis is a present reality that is already having profound implications for global and national security, it will impact our children and grand children for decades to come. The Pentagon’s 2003 warning, followed by the ICJ’s 2025 ruling, underscores the urgent need for action to prevent a future of conflict resulting from climate change, the mass displacement of hundreds of millions across the globe, and the adoption of a fortress mentality among those nations that have the resources to adapt to a changing climate.

 

For Canada, the melting Arctic ice signals a new era of vulnerability, where military conflict over sovereignty is a very real possibility. Without swift, coordinated global efforts, the world risks descending into a struggle for survival, where the consequences of inaction or actions that worsen the problem, will be measured in lives lost, nations divided, and ecosystems despoiled due to climate change related conflicts. The researchers who authored the Pentagon report painted a bleak picture of the future if nations didn’t act to implement policies that changed the way economies were managed. It remains to be seen if political leaders in the seats of economic power around the world heard what they were saying, if they are listening to the ICJ’s recent advisory opinion, and whether they will take action to protect the interests of all of humanity or only those who vote them into power.

  

© 2025 The View From Here. © 2025 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.