Can Climate Change Increase Conflict or Violent Extremism? What the Evidence Actually Says

Climate change does not directly cause terrorism. Poverty does not directly cause terrorism. Glacier melt does not directly cause terrorism. These claims are too simple and can mislead readers.

The IPCC’s assessment is careful: climate hazards can affect conflict risk, but socio-economic, political and cultural factors are usually more important. Climate pressures matter most when they interact with inequality, poverty, weak institutions, political exclusion and pre-existing conflict.

Violent extremism is also multi-causal. UNDP’s 2023 Journey to Extremism in Africa study interviewed nearly 2,200 people across eight African countries. It found livelihood and employment pressures were significant among voluntary recruits. But this is comparative evidence from specific African contexts. It should not be treated as evidence that the same recruitment pathway applies directly to Nepal.

The responsible framing is about pathways. Climate shocks can damage livelihoods. Livelihood loss can worsen poverty, debt and displacement. Those stresses can deepen grievances in places where institutions are weak or communities are excluded. Armed or extremist groups may exploit such conditions, but exploitation depends on politics, organization, ideology, security, governance and local history.

This distinction matters because bad analysis leads to bad policy. If climate is treated as the only cause, governments may ignore accountability, inclusion, rights, jobs, education and services. If climate is ignored entirely, prevention misses a growing source of pressure.

Read Save Mountain’ full mountains and human security explainer for the broader pathway.