This paper explores the nexus between climate change and conflict using three case studies to look at the role of political analysis in analysis of climate change impacts. The first, on Aceh, shows how inattention to the political legacy of a recent conflict can undermine well-intentioned and technically sound environmental or climate mitigation programmes. The second, on East Africa, explores what might happen when the political sophistication of those writing climate change strategies is not matched by those reading and supporting them. The third, on Darfur, looks at whether conflicts can be analysed directly through links to climate change and resource scarcity. Together, the three case studies are taken to show that, when disciplines are used techno-centrically and in the absence of sophisticated political analysis, there are significant risks that interventions designed to support resilience may in fact do more harm than good.