How does environmental displacement fuel violent conflict? Worldwide environmental violence uproots more people every year than war, and the alarming acceleration of environmental displacement has generated significant speculation about its security consequences. This chapter undertakes a review of the literature linking environmental migration and violent conflict to: (1) map the complex causal pathways linking environmental migration to the onset and dynamics of political violence; (2) evaluate the “state of the evidence” or available empirical support underlying claims of an environment-migration-conflict link; and (3) identify gaps in existing literature. By systematizing existing research, this chapter seeks to clarify the state of knowledge on the environment-migration-conflict nexus, identify points of consensus and debate, and chart a path forward for future research. The review finds that while existing research suggests environmental displacement fuels civil war and communal conflict, there is a dearth of research addressing how environmental migrants may experience violence at the hands of the state. In addition, more comparative research is needed to gain deeper insights into the conditions under which environmental displacement impacts political violence.

Chapter 7 explores ways in which people’s perceptions of the actual risks posed by climate change can be elevated adequately to motivate them to engage in individual and collective action to counteract it.

This chapter defends the claim that suffering is likely prevalent in wild animals’ lives. It does so by describing the different ways in which the interests of wild animals are systematically frustrated by natural events. These include the wasteful reproductive strategy favored by the majority of wild animals and the enormous variety of natural threats to their health, as well as physical and psychological integrity. It ends by presenting a minimal case for intervention in nature. On the assumption that (i) we ought to aim at preventing or reducing the harms suffered by other individuals whenever it is in our power to do so, if (ii) all sentient individuals, including nonhuman animals, are fully morally considerable and (iii) suffering likely prevails in nature, then (iv) we have reasons to intervene in nature so as to alleviate wild animal suffering as much as possible.

When I dream about Hurricane Katrina, it always starts with the refrigerators. Kenmore, GE, Whirlpool, Frigidaire, Amana. Hundreds of thousands of these abandoned appliances stood duct-taped shut on the curbs and yards of homes throughout New Orleans. Katrina refrigerators are not the only, or even the most dramatic, example of the perils of power outages in extreme weather. From rancid food to emergency-room nightmares, communities take a punch when the lights go out. The nation’s aging power grid leaves us more susceptible to such risks. And the growing intensity of floods and storms on account of climate change make things even worse. But Katrina was not the only, or even the loudest siren blow. Since that time, storms have smashed or drowned parts of the grid in the Northeast (Hurricane Sandy), Houston (Harvey), the Southeast (Irma), and, most tragically, in Puerto Rico, where in 2018, Hurricane Maria knocked out 80% of the island’s electricity network, causing the largest blackout in U.S. history. In the same decade, catastrophic wildfires in Northern California focused attention on the neglected and antiquated system operated by Pacific Gas & Electric, which is believed to have ignited several devastating blazes over two years. Killing at least 84 people and destroying billions of dollars in property, the fires also required cycles of deliberate blackouts to protect parched forests from even more incendiary failures. In this way, the grid became both a cause and a victim of violent disaster. We need a power grid that is more resilient – one that has the capacity to cope with the kinds of low-frequency, high-impact events like those described above. In this chapter, I hope to show how we might get there. I’ll explain what the grid is, describe some of the grid’s most serious vulnerabilities – emphasizing the link to climate disruption and the outsized risks faced by marginalized groups – and propose some first steps toward making the grid more resilient and more productive for all.

Climate change presents two types of risks: those we can adapt to or try to counteract and those beyond our power to cope. The first group includes (1) sea level rise, which threatens much of our infrastructure and cultural patrimony; (2) extreme weather, particularly storm events; (3) climate alterations harmful to agriculture; (4) loss of biodiversity; (5) ocean acidification that interferes with shell production and threatens marine food chains; and (6) threats to human health from disease and especially extreme heat. The second group, which encompasses an unmanageable intensification of all of the first, is the risk of runaway climate change. This can arise if elevated atmospheric carbon concentrations trigger positive feedback mechanisms, like stored methane releases, widespread forest die-offs, reduction of the Earth’s albedo, or changes in prevalent cloud formations that amplify initial warming effects, resulting in a “hothouse Earth.” The tools of standard welfare economics, like calculation of a social cost of carbon and its use in cost–benefit analysis, are unhelpful. Their basis in marginal effects is contradicted by the scale of climate impacts, and their deference to consumer judgment tells us little about the political judgments that must guide policy trade-offs.

In this chapter I focus on another form of EV as a hazard: extreme weather events – specifically tropical cyclones or hurricanes. Where the Sonfon mining example runs the risk, if we don’t apply the EV model, of being portrayed as a local problem, largely driven by local, or at most national, corruption or lack of regulation (whereas the EV model makes clear that the causal process is a global one, and the impacts are wide-ranging), the case of extreme weather sometimes risks being seen as too global to easily assess. Here I explore the cases of three different islands recently struck by storms exacerbated by anthropogenic climate change: Hurricane Lane in Hawaii (2018), Hurricane Maria, Puerto Rico in the United States (2017), and Hurricane Dorian, Abaco Island in the Bahamas (2019). I argue that the human processes and practices that beget EV in the form of toxic pollution as discussed in Chapter 4 – practices such as excess and disproportionate consumption, unequal power dynamics and distribution of impacts, and the like — also precipitate this nontoxic, greenhouse gas-based form of EV and mediate its outcomes.

Here we focus on climate impacts, noting first the need to distinguish valid dire climate warnings from breathless scaremongering. Seeking to separate wheat from chaff, we work systematically through the myriad ways in which climate change is expected to impact natural systems including: sea level rise; extreme weather; ocean acidification; ecosystem stress/collapse; water scarcity; and altered global circulations. The resulting human impacts would include: food scarcity; climate migration; health burdens; and heat stress. Predictions in respect of all of these are inherently uncertain and it is therefore difficult to discern how much risk should be acceptable, but it is clear that less risk would be the safer choice.

Transport contributes around 11% of greenhouse gas emissions and the sector is also vulnerable to climate change. High temperatures can melt roads and distort rail lines while sea-level rise can disrupt coastal transport infrasructure. At the community level, cities and precincts can help mitigate climate change and adapt to changes by promoting active lifestyles with walking and bicyling replacing powered transport for short-distance travel and making cities more compact. Significant cost and health benefits can accrue from reduction of diseases associated with low physical activity and air pollution can also be mitigated. Increased provision and electrification of public transport based on renewable energy can decarbonise these services. The electification of sea and air transport present challenges but significant development work is underway with expected early availability of electrically powered short-haul aircraft. Phase-out of internal combustion engine cars and other vehicles is scheduled in several countries as battery-electric and hydrogen cars, buses and heavy transport vehicles emerge. Governments can help the transition with a range of policy initiatives.