The relationship between climate change and humanitarian crises is often oversimplified in public discourse.Humanitarian Alterternatives Rodrigo Mena Contrary to popular belief, climate change is not the direct cause of disasters, but rather an amplifier of pre-existing risks, exacerbating socio-economic and political vulnerabilities. This nuanced vision calls for an integrated approach that goes beyond a simple emergency response to tackle the root causes of vulnerability and promote anticipatory and resilience strategies, notably through anticipatory humanitarian action and climate-resilient local adaptation. Multiple reports highlight the significant role of anthropogenic climate change (CC) in both the occurrence of humanitarian crises and its impact on humanitarian action. Regarding the latter, CC can contribute to the increasing frequency of climate-related disasters, health challenges, food insecurity and migration. Additionally, its compounded effects can exacerbate conflicts and livelihood deterioration, while the rising number of crises intensifies competition for limited humanitarian funding, further straining response efforts.[1] As a result of the former, humanitarian organisations and donors have begun integrating CC into their risk frameworks and action plans.[2] However, public discourse, along with some academic and grey literature in the humanitarian sector, often oversimplifies the issue, portraying CC as a primary cause of disasters, conflict, displacement and humanitarian crises. This oversimplification is also reflected in United Nations (UN), non-governmental organisations (NGO) and donor strategies, as well as broader political, institutional, economic, and social frameworks. This article challenges that perspective by unpacking a more nuanced understanding of CC vis-à-vis humanitarian crises and actions.
While CC may play a role in migration, disasters and conflict, the true drivers behind these crises are mediated by human actions and decisions, governance structures and societal vulnerabilities. CC alone does not directly cause crises. Rather, it magnifies existing weaknesses within human systems, as explained below.The mediating role of human action in climate-related crises......A cornerstone of disaster theory is the understanding that disasters are not solely the result of hazards (processes or phenomena that can cause harm)[3] but that vulnerability sharply determines how such events affect people and the environment. Extreme weather events alone do not inherently lead to disasters, forced migration or social conflict. Rather, societal actions – or inaction – determine whether these events escalate into crises or disasters.[4] This understanding underscores the notion that disasters are not natural, but rooted in sociopolitical dynamics.[5] For example, some countries have robust infrastructure capable of absorbing rainwater, well-equipped disaster response systems, or advanced early-warning mechanisms to predict storms, while others lack these capacities. As a result, the same rainfall can have vastly different impacts, largely due to disparity in governance, infrastructure and socio-economic inequality.
Similarly, while many disasters and humanitarian crises are linked to weather-related events such as hurricanes, droughts and floods – and some of these can, in turn, be attributed to CC – the key factor determining their impact is how societies anticipate, respond to and mitigate these risks.[6] This also applies to climate-related displacement and conflict. Whether people decide to leave a place, to stay or may lack the option to move (e.g. trapped populations) is often driven by socio-economic factors rather than a singular climate stressor.[7] Likewise, conflicts attributed to CC typically stem from deeper issues such as poor resource management, political instability and historical grievances.[8] Research further shows that while disasters and conflicts frequently co-occur (with up to 70% of conflict-affected areas also experiencing disasters), their relationship is indirect, mediated by multiple societal factors.[9] The previous arguments establish that CC’s role in humanitarian crises is indirect and mediated by human (in)action. While a full explanation of how this happens is complex and beyond the scope of this article, below are four key ways in which this occurs:
First, a well-established argument in literature is that CC acts as a risk-amplifier rather than the root cause of crises. It exacerbates vulnerabilities and magnifies existing social, economic and political challenges, acting as a trigger or accelerator rather than a sole cause.[10]
Second, CC contributes to livelihood deterioration, particularly in sectors like agriculture. For example, prolonged droughts or unpredictable weather can devastate agriculture, leaving farmers unable to sustain their families. Without effective mitigation, many may be forced to migrate as a coping mechanism. Such displacement can strain resources, heighten social tensions, and, in extreme cases, contribute to conflict and humanitarian crises.[11]
Third, CC may increase (or reduce) the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events.[12] Without adequate prevention and response measures, such events can lead to mass casualties, infrastructure damage and societal disruption. An important caveat here is attribution: many extreme weather events cannot be conclusively linked to CC, though some have varying levels of confidence.[13] This uncertainty should not be problematic though, as action is needed to protect at-risk populations, regardless of attribution.
Fourth, CC is not just a climatological phenomenon. It also shapes political, economic and societal dynamics. It has given rise to a vast industry focused on climate mitigation and adaptation, including carbon trading, climate-neutral products and political movements like the Extinction Rebellion. This reinforces the idea that CC is deeply embedded in societal narratives and structures, influencing decision-making at multiple levels.....read on https://www.alternatives-