{"id":35424,"date":"2025-05-18T18:50:59","date_gmt":"2025-05-18T16:50:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/?p=35424"},"modified":"2025-05-18T18:51:52","modified_gmt":"2025-05-18T16:51:52","slug":"why-are-peaceful-countries-the-least-environmentally-sustainable","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/2025\/05\/18\/why-are-peaceful-countries-the-least-environmentally-sustainable\/","title":{"rendered":"Why are peaceful countries the least environmentally sustainable?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Global conflicts and environmental risks are on the rise, and the two phenomena often interact in both cause and effect. These links and their mutual impacts are complex., from rising malnutrition to rising migration and potential causal links to direct violence. Despite intuition and findings from previous studies suggesting that ecological sustainability and peace are positively correlated, recent analysis based on more comprehensive environmental indicators reveals a surprising, even inverse, relationship.<\/p>\n

Study<\/span><\/a> replicated the approaches of previous research, which often used the Environmental Performance Index (EPI) as a measure of sustainability. While the EPI is a robust indicator of domestic environmental health, it does not provide a comprehensive assessment of a country\u2019s overall environmental impact. It does not take into account greenhouse gas emissions or the environmental or material footprint of domestic consumption and material inputs across the value chain. These omissions overlook the externalized effects of ecologically unequal trade, where rich countries that score high on the EPI often rely heavily on resources from the global South.<\/p>\n

New study reassesses the relationship between sustainability and peace using more comprehensive measures of ecological sustainability and vulnerability to environmental risks<\/strong>. These measures include per capita CO2 emissions, ecological footprint and material footprint. Peace is measured using the Global Peace Index (GPI) for negative peace (absence of violence) and the Positive Peace Index (PPI) for positive peace (structures and institutions supporting peace). The study also takes into account vulnerability to climate change (ND Vulnerability).<\/p>\n

The results of this analysis for the period 2010-2022 contradict the conclusions of previous studies. Fundamental indicators of ecological sustainability are significantly negatively correlated with both positive and negative rates<\/strong>This means that the countries with the highest levels of peace, especially positive peace, are those that are the least ecologically sustainable<\/strong>On the contrary, countries that are most vulnerable to environmental risks and experience conflict contribute the least to environmental sustainability issues through their consumption<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The countries that are most responsible for anthropogenic climate change (have high emissions and consumption) are also those that are least vulnerable to it and experience high levels of peace.<\/strong>On the other hand, those that are least responsible are most exposed to environmental and conflict risks.<\/p>\n

The study also distinguishes between domestic and interstate conflicts. While national conflicts are more often associated with countries that have lower emissions and consumption rates<\/strong>, interstate conflicts are more often associated with higher emissions and consumption. Examples from 2015, such as the United States (high consumption, high peace, interstate conflicts), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (low consumption, domestic conflicts), and Switzerland (high consumption, high peace, no conflicts), illustrate this difference. The high energy and material burden associated with participating in conflicts in other countries may partly explain why interstate conflicts are more positively associated with the level of environmental impacts.<\/p>\n

This \u201cparadox of well-being and consumption\u201d raises the question of how to meet people\u2019s needs and ensure human security for all without exceeding planetary boundaries. The findings do not mean that high consumption causes<\/em> peace, rather they point out that the peace currently achieved in some countries is associated with unsustainable resource use and externalization of environmental costs<\/strong>. Countries with a lower ecological footprint, which experience more internal conflict and have lower levels of positive peace, often face challenges in basic needs and institutional functions, even while remaining within their ecological boundaries. They are also often the countries where the extraction of resources primarily consumed by countries with higher levels of peace and lower levels of conflict takes place.<\/p>\n

Despite the findings of an indirect relationship, the study emphasizes that this relationship is not necessary<\/strong>. Ecologically sustainable peace for all is possible. The example of Costa Rica in 2015 shows a country that was approaching ecological sustainability on all three fundamental measures while experiencing no internal or interstate conflict and achieving high levels of positive peace.<\/p>\n

The main limitation of the study is its focus on correlations, not causal mechanisms. It provides a strong starting point for understanding the underlying relationship, but future research is needed to explore ways to achieve and sustain comprehensively sustainable peace for all without potentially externalizing the risks of conflict or environmental risks. Understanding and addressing this paradox is essential for ensuring global peace and sustainability in a world of increasing conflict. Spring<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

\n

The study is\u00a0published<\/a>\u00a0in\u00a0Communications Earth & Environment magazine<\/i>\u00a0.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Global conflicts and environmental risks are on the rise, and the two phenomena often interact in both cause and effect. These links and their mutual impacts are complex.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-35424","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-klimaticka-zmena"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35424","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=35424"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35424\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=35424"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=35424"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=35424"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}