Rethinking climate conflicts: The role of climate action and inaction

• Climate conflicts occur due to the direct and indirect impacts of mitigation (in)action. • Such a broader understanding allows more integrated and policy-relevant research. • Climate conflicts are already widespread and inevitable, including in the Global North. • Teleconnections and trade-offs defy simple solutions for mitigating climate change. • Mainstreaming conflict sensitivity and peacebuilding is key for climate policy-making. The climate-conflict nexus has attracted significant academic and policy interest, but such discussions are often based on a narrow conception of the phenomenon. This article proposes a broader understanding of climate conflicts, which can be related to (1) the direct impacts of climate inaction (e.g., activism for ambitious climate change mitigation), (2) the direct impacts of climate action (e.g., resistance against fossil fuel subsidy cuts), (3) the indirect impacts of climate inaction (e.g., communal tensions over water in vulnerable locations), and (4) the indirect impacts of climate action (e.g., opposition against mining for renewable energies). After assessing existing evidence on these four types of climate conflicts, I outline the benefits of such a broader understanding: It reveals that climate conflicts are widespread and inevitable, including in the Global North. Such a rethinking enables an integrative analysis of the manifold teleconnections and trade-offs in the climate-conflict nexus, hence highlighting the relevance of conflict sensitivity in climate policy and environmental governance. Finally, this broader understanding of climate conflicts enables productive exchanges across different streams of research, including securitisation, political ecology, and decolonial approaches.