Here's an equation for you:

Polycrisis : Treaty :: Polyconflict : Security

In 'Climate as Polycrisis,' we go to COP 28/29/30 etc and sign treaties. Even if most of us don't plan on following through on our commitments. In 'Climate as Polyconflict,' we don't even think of climate; instead we think about energy security.

The more we shift away from climate crisis to climate conflict, the more we will see energy and other transitions wear a securitarian hat. For example, the recent Israeli attacks on Iran have caused oil prices to rise, prompting many countries to rethink their reliance on fossil fuels. As renewable energy becomes more affordable, nations are increasingly shifting toward greener alternatives for energy security. This change is especially significant for countries heavily dependent on oil imports, which are facing rising costs and geopolitical risks.

Co-benefits of war? This is a good thing when it comes to the energy transition, but conflict isn't a good thing for almost anything else. When countries race to build nuclear weapons alongside solar farms (both rational responses to security concerns) it's hard to tell if the glass is half empty or half full.