We are sceptical about the effectiveness of Andrew Solow's proposals for cooling the debate over a possible link between wars and climate change (Nature 497, 179–180; 2013). We think that the division between the two sides ('quants' versus 'quals') is not as clear-cut as he implies.
Solow argues that this dividing line distinguishes between those who search for connections between violence and natural phenomena, including climate-related factors (quants), and those who prefer to explain conflicts as social processes (quals). But both approaches are studied by quants as well as quals. Quants may study climate-related effects on conflicts by analysing single events in detail or by considering many wars on aggregate using statistics.
There are also strong disagreements among those on each side of Solow's dividing line. For example, quants as well as quals include both proponents and sceptics of the connections between climate change and violent conflict.
In our view, the true divide is not so much about substance as about perspective.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brzoska, M., Scheffran, J. Climate and war: No clear-cut schism. Nature 498, 171 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/498171c
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/498171c
This article is cited by
-
Acclimate—a model for economic damage propagation. Part 1: basic formulation of damage transfer within a global supply network and damage conserving dynamics
Environment Systems and Decisions (2014)