Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-7 (section)

==== 7.2.7.5 Observed Impacts on Non-violent Conflict and Geopolitics ====

<div id="h3-29-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

''Climate adaptation and mitigation projects implemented without taking local interests and dynamics into account have the potential to cause conflict'' ( ''high agreement, medium evidence'' ) ''.'' Reforestation or forest management programmes driven by reducing emissions through deforestation, land zoning and managed retreat due to sea level rise have been identified as having the potential to cause friction and conflict within and between groups and communities ( [[#de%20la%20Vega-Leinert--2018|de la Vega-Leinert et al., 2018]] ; [[#Froese--2019|Froese and Schilling, 2019]] ). Conflict may arise when there is resistance to a proposed project, where interventions favour one group over another, or when projects undermine livelihoods or displace populations (e.g., [[#Nightingale--2017|Nightingale (2017)]] ; Sovacool et al. (2015); [[#Sovacool--2018|Sovacool (2018)]] ; Corbera (2017); Hunsberger (2018); Sections 4.6.8, 5.13.4, 14.4.7.3). In addition to conflict generated by the poor implementation of land-based climate mitigation and adaptation projects, [[#Gilmore--2021|Gilmore and Buhaug (2021)]] highlight the links between climate policy and conflict through the potential effects of unequal distribution of economic burdens and fossil fuel markets on economic growth. There is a small literature that draws attention to the potential security of nuclear proliferation, if nuclear energy is increasingly employed as a low-carbon energy source (e.g., Parthemore et al. (2018); Bunn, (2019)).

''Economic and social changes due to changes in sea ice extent in the Arctic are anticipated to be managed as part of existing governance structures'' ( ''high agreement, medium evidence'' ) ''.'' The opening-up of the Arctic and associated geopolitical manoeuvring for access to shipping routes and sub-sea hydrocarbons is often highlighted as a potential source of climate conflict (e.g., Koivurova (2009); [[#Åtland--2013|Åtland (2013)]] ; [[#Tamnes--2014|Tamnes and Offerdal (2014)]] ). Research assessed in AR5 focused on the potential for resource wars and Arctic land grabs. However, research since AR5 is less sensationalist in its approach to Arctic security, focusing instead on the practicalities of polycentric Arctic governance under climate change, the economic impacts of climate change, protecting the human security of Arctic populations whose autonomy is at risk ( [[#Heininen--2020|Heininen and Exner-Pirot, 2020]] ), understanding how different regions (e.g., the EU) are positioning themselves more prominently in the Arctic space (Raspotnik and Østhagen, 2019) and Arctic Indigenous Peoples’ understanding of security ( [[#Hossain--2016|Hossain, 2016]] ; Chapter 3; Chapter 14; CCP6).

<div id="7.3" class="h1-container"></div>

<span id="projected-future-risks-under-climate-change"></span>