Decarbonization Could Reduce the Number of Wars Globally
As the world continues to grapple with the energy-related repercussions of the ongoing Iran war, climate change experts say decarbonization could be the key to reducing the number of wars across the world in the future.
In a recent interview with ABC News, several climate and energy experts said that eliminating fossil fuels from the energy mix could reduce armed conflicts by making oil and other fossil fuels less tied to economic performance.
Oil has driven a substantial portion of interstate wars since the 1970s and long before, with studies linking the resource to numerous military confrontations. Allied nations cut Japan’s oil imports by 88% in mid-1941, months before Pearl Harbor. The 1973 Arab-Israeli conflict created an oil shortage that forced emergency rationing.
Iraq seized Kuwaiti oil fields in 1990, launching the Gulf War. Russia redirected oil sales to Asia during the Ukraine invasion to fund combat operations despite European sanctions.
Nearly three-quarters of the world’s population currently lives in countries that must import fossil fuels to keep their societies running, creating conditions where competition over supplies, terrorism, and scarcity spark violence. The recent fighting with Iran has revealed just how greatly oil shapes modern warfare.
Iran shut down the Strait of Hormuz after facing U.S. and Israeli strikes, blocking a waterway that carries about one-fifth of global oil shipments, and gas prices jumped immediately.
Simon Stiell, who leads the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, says the economic chaos should motivate countries to break free from fossil fuel dependence faster. Fossil fuels breed conflict because supplies are limited and concentrated in specific regions, says Drew Shula, who founded sustainability consulting firm Verdical Group.
Societies will eventually deplete these resources, generating scarcity that drives competition. Kate Guy, a senior fellow at the Columbia Center of Global Energy Policy, notes climate change has become a flashpoint for disputes as resources shrink and some territories become harder to inhabit.
Renewable energy offers a different dynamic. Solar generation, the most plentiful renewable option, works even when skies are overcast. Wind, geothermal, and hydropower provide additional green sources.
Erin Sikorsky, who directs the Center for Climate & Security, says none of these has triggered major international fighting. Stephen Porder, who teaches ecology and environmental biology at Brown University, says societies once accepted armed conflict as the cost of securing energy. Modern technology has changed that equation. A single cargo vessel loaded with solar equipment carries the energy equivalent of 100 vessels hauling coal.
According to Sikorsky, fossil fuel supplies give authoritarian leaders power that renewable systems wouldn’t grant. Even so, green energy transitions create different tensions. Rare minerals and metals required for renewable equipment like advanced batteries exist in limited quantities and could spark regional disputes in areas including the Democratic Republic of Congo and China, says Geoff Dabelko, who teaches environmental studies at Ohio University.
Guy points out that China dominates the global solar panel industry, raising concerns about dependencies in strategic rivalries. Morgan Bazilian, who directs the Payne Institute at Colorado School of Mines, cautions that active wars center on immediate human survival rather than energy or climate considerations.
As the role that switching to renewables plays in reducing global conflicts becomes clearer, many will start looking at the efforts of companies like Vision Marine Technologies Inc. (NASDAQ: VMAR) in a different light as their focus on turning marine transport green reaches more markets.
Please see full terms of use and disclaimers on the GreenEnergyStocks website applicable to all content provided by GES, wherever published or re-published: https://www.greennrgstocks.com/Disclaimer
As the world continues to grapple with the energy-related repercussions of the ongoing Iran war, climate change experts say decarbonization could be the key to reducing the number of wars across the world in the future.
In a recent interview with ABC News, several climate and energy experts said that eliminating fossil fuels from the energy mix could reduce armed conflicts by making oil and other fossil fuels less tied to economic performance.
Oil has driven a substantial portion of interstate wars since the 1970s and long before, with studies linking the resource to numerous military confrontations. Allied nations cut Japan’s oil imports by 88% in mid-1941, months before Pearl Harbor. The 1973 Arab-Israeli conflict created an oil shortage that forced emergency rationing.
Iraq seized Kuwaiti oil fields in 1990, launching the Gulf War. Russia redirected oil sales to Asia during the Ukraine invasion to fund combat operations despite European sanctions.
Nearly three-quarters of the world’s population currently lives in countries that must import fossil fuels to keep their societies running, creating conditions where competition over supplies, terrorism, and scarcity spark violence. The recent fighting with Iran has revealed just how greatly oil shapes modern warfare.
Iran shut down the Strait of Hormuz after facing U.S. and Israeli strikes, blocking a waterway that carries about one-fifth of global oil shipments, and gas prices jumped immediately.
Simon Stiell, who leads the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, says the economic chaos should motivate countries to break free from fossil fuel dependence faster. Fossil fuels breed conflict because supplies are limited and concentrated in specific regions, says Drew Shula, who founded sustainability consulting firm Verdical Group.
Societies will eventually deplete these resources, generating scarcity that drives competition. Kate Guy, a senior fellow at the Columbia Center of Global Energy Policy, notes climate change has become a flashpoint for disputes as resources shrink and some territories become harder to inhabit.
Renewable energy offers a different dynamic. Solar generation, the most plentiful renewable option, works even when skies are overcast. Wind, geothermal, and hydropower provide additional green sources.
Erin Sikorsky, who directs the Center for Climate & Security, says none of these has triggered major international fighting. Stephen Porder, who teaches ecology and environmental biology at Brown University, says societies once accepted armed conflict as the cost of securing energy. Modern technology has changed that equation. A single cargo vessel loaded with solar equipment carries the energy equivalent of 100 vessels hauling coal.
According to Sikorsky, fossil fuel supplies give authoritarian leaders power that renewable systems wouldn’t grant. Even so, green energy transitions create different tensions. Rare minerals and metals required for renewable equipment like advanced batteries exist in limited quantities and could spark regional disputes in areas including the Democratic Republic of Congo and China, says Geoff Dabelko, who teaches environmental studies at Ohio University.
Guy points out that China dominates the global solar panel industry, raising concerns about dependencies in strategic rivalries. Morgan Bazilian, who directs the Payne Institute at Colorado School of Mines, cautions that active wars center on immediate human survival rather than energy or climate considerations.
As the role that switching to renewables plays in reducing global conflicts becomes clearer, many will start looking at the efforts of companies like Vision Marine Technologies Inc. (NASDAQ: VMAR) in a different light as their focus on turning marine transport green reaches more markets.
Please see full terms of use and disclaimers on the GreenEnergyStocks website applicable to all content provided by GES, wherever published or re-published: https://www.greennrgstocks.com/Disclaimer
