The world’s largest polluters are also the safest from the environmental damage they help create—while the countries least to blame face the greatest threats, including the increased possibility of violent conflict.

These findings, from a new study co-authored by a University of Notre Dame researcher, challenge conventional understandings of the relationship between conflict and the environment, highlighting inequalities that disproportionately harm countries in the Global South. The study is published in Communications Earth & Environment.

The new findings underscore the need to reimagine the conversation around the environment and conflict, with an eye to helping countries that contribute the least to climate change and yet suffer the most from resource extraction, environmental risks and conflict, said co-author Richard (Drew) Marcantonio, assistant professor of environment, peace and global affairs at the University’s Keough School of Global Affairs.

“Our study highlights the gap in current research evaluating the connection between ecological sustainability and peace,” Marcantonio said. “This is crucial for designing evidence-based policies that address global inequalities and support human dignity.”

The link between environmental risks and conflict is well documented, Marcantonio said. Conflict often leads to environmental deterioration and depletes resources; and environmental risks like climate change or resource scarcity can trigger or worsen conflicts by displacing people or creating competition over limited resources.

Overall, Marcantonio said, greater environmental risks are associated with higher levels of conflict, and social norms and institutions play an important role in this connection.

Previous research had suggested that the inverse might also be true—that high levels of ecological sustainability and peace were similarly correlated. But the new study found just the opposite, Marcantonio said.

A key difference in the new research lies in how it measures both sustainability and peace. Previous studies have used conventional measures of sustainability and peace, Marcantonio said, and these measures overestimate both characteristics in wealthier countries. But the new study used more holistic measures that account for the total ecological footprint and participation in intrastate conflicts that harm other countries.

The result was a more thorough and accurate assessment that highlighted pressing global inequalities, Marcantonio said.

“In evaluating where peace is most prevalent, our results reaffirm the need to ask and answer the question of how to achieve a good life for all within planetary boundaries—or in this case, comprehensively sustainable peace for all,” Marcantonio said. “And, although our results suggest that ecological sustainability and peace are not positively correlated, this relationship is not a necessary one. Ecologically sustainable peace is possible.”

Marcantonio, who is affiliated with the University’s Environmental Change Initiative, co-authored the study with Sean Field, an assistant professor in the School of Computing and Department of Anthropology at the University of Wyoming.

The study’s findings suggest directions for additional work that can provide further evidence for effective peace and sustainability policies, Marcantonio said.

“Future research should focus on how comprehensively sustainable peace can be attained and sustained for all to enjoy without potentially externalizing conflict risks,” he said. “As rates of conflict and environmental risk continue to rise globally, exploring and determining how to effectively address this paradox is essential.”