Wars fuel the climate crisis, and vice versa. Is this downward spiral inevitable and without alternative? In his contribution to the “Pluriverse of Peace” series, Kevin Rittberger argues that it is time to develop a kind of climate pacifism, that addresses the planetary polycrisis of the 21st century.
*
In the face of the climate catastrophe that is still too often glossed over as ‘climate change’ or overlooked as an election issue, it is well known that the measures taken are inadequate. Climate scientists are openly expressing their powerlessness and depression.
At the opening of COP29 in Azerbaijan, the UN Secretary-General described 2024 as a “master class in climate destruction.” Meanwhile, there has been a dramatic increase in war deaths, particularly due to the conflicts in Ukraine, Ethiopia, Israel/Palestine, and Sudan. Yet, the link between climate and war is rarely discussed. Even when the international climate justice movement highlights the devastating ecological consequences of the wars in Ukraine, Sudan, and Gaza, a discussion of this issue in the German public sphere is highly unlikely. Nevertheless, climate science leaves no doubt that if we want to mitigate the climate catastrophe, we must also work for peace. As the last elections have shown, peace is increasingly in the interests of voters.
Planetary stalemate
Prior to Russia’s full-scale invasion, Ukraine’s annual CO2 emissions were 186 million tons. Two-thirds of these emissions are roughly equivalent to the Netherlands’ emissions and were produced in the first year of the war alone. Amid the climate catastrophe caused by the Global North, Russia’s war adds another industrialized country to the mix. The air is polluted, forests are burning, soil is contaminated, groundwater is poisoned, and species are dying out. Further raw materials are being exploited on both sides for the current arms race. The enormous energy expenditure required for the growth of the military industry is accelerating global warming. The necessary reconstruction after the war will also result in significant emissions. Wars therefore ensure that climate targets are pushed further into the future. Projects such as HOPE HOME – НАДІЯ, which aims to promote ‘radically different construction in Ukraine,’ will be crucial in ensuring environmentally friendly reconstruction.
A stalemate in which both sides recognize that the costs of war exceed the anticipated benefits is referred to as a ‘mutually hurting stalemate.’ Typically, the parties involved eventually consider negotiations. There is no term yet for a climate peace that factors in ecological costs and damage. Well known in peace research are nonviolent forms of resistance instead of military action, as described by Erica Chenoweth, and the “primacy of the civil” (Jan van Aken). However, is there a peace practice that addresses the planetary polycrisis we are experiencing in the 21st century?
Some use the term ‘Anthropocene’ to designate the atomic age since 1950 as a geological marker for planetary change. These changes suggest that we no longer live under the stable conditions of the Holocene epoch. However, is there recognition that working for peace is not merely a pacifist concern, as it was in the days of Käthe Kollwitz? Rather, this is happening amidst an uncertain transition to the drastic instabilities of a new age. Every prolonged and escalating war causes ecological collateral damage and represents a humanitarian catastrophe of enormous proportions. Peace researchers have long since reached a planetary stalemate in terms of the stability of our livelihoods, which they take as the basis for peace negotiations. So what is the reason for the lack of understanding about the various ecological crises that necessitate collective action?
The autonomy of others
“War is about the destruction of will, or the autonomy, of others. The opposite would be establishing the autonomy or will of others.” This idea was noted by Oskar Negt and Alexander Kluge in their seminal work, “History and Obstinacy,” written in the years following the NATO Double-Track Decision of 1979. According to Negt and Kluge, there are forms of communication and consciousness for war, but not for peace when it comes to recognizing foreign will and producing shared autonomy. However, the current arms race suggests that humanity has not yet achieved this level of understanding, despite the lessons learned from the Cold War. In fact, peace practice and peace research have been completely marginalized in society.
For Stanislav Petrov, a Soviet lieutenant colonel who saved the world from a third world war in 1983, it was clear that nuclear war, which would have meant mutual annihilation, had to be averted at all costs. Petrov believed that peace was an extremely unlikely prospect because the screens falsely showed that the West was attacking. Nevertheless, Petrov decided against a nuclear counterstrike. Today, such reaction times no longer exist. The era of anti-war heroes is also over. A nuclear escalation is more likely today. Therefore, the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985, is currently urging the Western nuclear powers – the US, Britain, and France – to approach Russia and China and declare a ‘doctrine of renunciation of the first use of nuclear weapons.’
Germany will have numerous cruise missiles and hypersonic gliders at its disposal by 2026/27. Additionally, 35 new stealth bombers will be equipped with nuclear weapons by 2027. Unlike the NATO Double-Track Decision, however, there is no dual strategy today. At that time, signs pointed toward rearmament; however, due to an alleged security gap, negotiations were offered regarding the deployment of missiles, which ultimately resulted in the INF disarmament treaty. Those currently in power are enforcing ‘war readiness’ as a new maxim. There is no offer of dialogue whatsoever. “War readiness does not begin with the Bundeswehr, but with all of us,” writes Die Welt, a Springer newspaper. Energy and raw material security are also part of Europe’s security. Shevchenko, in the Donetsk Oblast, is believed to have the largest lithium deposits in Europe. However, Russia currently occupies the area. Ukraine’s accession to the EU would provide the necessary lithium for the internal market and increase Germany’s independence from other countries, such as China.
Dismantling the automotive industry?
The grand coalition’s current interpretation of peacekeeping in Germany can also be disguised as climate policy because Ukraine stores lithium and other rare earths that are important for the energy transition. A so-called “dictated peace” (Friedrich Merz) would result in the loss of these territory-rich areas. However, this ignores the fact that a climate-friendly energy transition would also require a transition in the use of raw materials. A serious transition would entail reducing car production and expanding public transportation because electric cars require ten times more lithium and rare earths than renewable energies do. These issues are often lumped together in the so-called energy transition. Under certain circumstances, a truly green raw materials transition (including a circular economy) would not depend on Ukrainian deposits. However, dismantling the automotive industry is a red rag to Germany. What about establishing a fair, ecological recycling chain that Ukraine could operate itself, as Bolivia does now?
In light of the war of aggression against Ukraine, the Doomsday Clock, which is reset every two years by leading nuclear physicists and Nobel Prize winners, stands at 89 seconds to midnight. This is the most alarming position ever. In his book “Den Frieden gewinnen” (“Winning Peace”), Heribert Prantl sharply warns that current war policy does not guarantee security, despite government promises to the contrary. Prantl argues that the West’s moral integrity has been discredited and that our society is more ignorant about peace than ever before. Peace activists like Reiner Steinweg, who walked from West Germany to Moscow in 1961 as part of the ‘San Francisco–Moscow Peace March,’ are being forgotten. The current peace movement is fragile and divided. Since the peace dove appeared at the Monday demonstrations, its symbolism has fallen into disrepute in Germany. Nevertheless, it is time to reinterpret peace policy in a climate-friendly way.
In her widely cited study, “Civil Resistance – What Everybody Needs to Know,” Erica Chenoweth examined nonviolent strategies in the face of military aggression. Her analysis of over 300 cases from 1900 to the present day shows that nonviolent resistance reduces the number of victims and increases the likelihood of establishing or reestablishing democratic conditions compared to long-standing armed conflicts. Aken asks how many lives could be saved if the war in Ukraine did not continue in its current ruinous stalemate for several more years.
For democracy and climate protection
Instead of de-escalation, diplomacy, and mutual attempts at ‘joint autonomy,’ a war met with military prowess is devastating not only for the climate, but also for democracy. The global rise of authoritarianism is a clear sign of this. But what if peace is not a naive demand that relativizes the aggressor’s actions, but rather the only way for the climate and democracy to survive? In light of the climate catastrophe, is there room for anti-fascist militarism and so-called ‘peacekeeping wars’ or ‘peacekeeping arms races’? It’s clear that justice and democracy can only be achieved by abolishing militarism and war while protecting the climate. Against this backdrop, the question arises: How can movements for democracy, climate justice, and peace join forces to work toward a new pacifism?
Most climate scientists now believe that the 1.5-degree threshold can no longer be maintained and that warming of 2.5 to 3 degrees is expected. According to Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, this would have irreparable consequences for the Earth’s systems and would mean the “end of human civilization.” In Baku, Einur Soltanov, the CEO of COP 29, said: “Of course, it’s about solving the climate crisis and moving away from hydrocarbons.” However, he then added, “I’m talking about a future that may include fossil fuels forever.” The contradiction could not be more apparent. Yet there is no outcry. The situation is untenable, as sociologist Ingolf Blühdorn also acknowledges. They open the floodgates to resignation. Time and again, the hour of the doppelgängers strikes. According to Naomi Klein, this is when the political right exploits the unsustainability of the status quo for its own benefit.
After the justification for the Iraq War was revealed to be propaganda, Etel Adnan wrote the following lines in her disturbingly relevant text, “To Be in a Time of War,” published in 2005: “To bomb, to eliminate a country, to blow up a civilization, to destroy the living.” In short, the destruction of the foundations of life on our planet is at stake – something we should remember with every bomb that is dropped.
Is war avoidable? This is the question that should be on everyone’s lips today – alongside discussions about the necessary socio-ecological transformation of society and the decolonization of Western universalism. For the sake of their own survival, people must inevitably become pacifists today. This is especially true given that the climate crisis and accompanying resource scarcity increase the likelihood of violent conflicts. This deadly spiral must be avoided at all costs. Seventy-six years ago, the framers of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany believed that Germany should promote peace in Europe. Today, we must add that all peace is climate peace, which is necessary for survival.