Apocalypse soon? Reimagining Defence policy in the fight against catastrophe

Powered By

The climate is in crisis – now. Anthropogenic climate change is reaching tipping points with dire consequences for ecosystem loss and human life. This presents a potentially accelerating and compounding global existential threat – one that requires the integration of climate concerns into contemporary Defence policy. 

The Indo-Pacific strategic environment is rapidly changing. But are we paying attention to the right changes? Security isn’t confined to conventional military dimensions of interstate relations or the pursuit of hegemonic interests. 

The Pacific island states have demonstrated the interdependencies between security, climate and sustainable development, calling for clear pathways toward energy security, urgent decarbonisation of the energy sector, and urgent action to address food insecurity. The climate crisis is a national security threat. 

The hastening of climate disaster coincides with rapidly deteriorating interstate relations in the Indo-Pacific, and a reduction in decades-long strategic warning time, which guided generations of Defence planning. The viability of Australia’s energy and food security, trade and supply routes and the preservation of regional order are all dependent on limiting global warming – 1.5 degrees is now the minimum warming expected. 

Significant irreversible climate shifts are occurring now, with dire consequences for human health, security and livelihoods. Globally, we’re on the precipice of climate tipping points – from ice-sheet loss to Australia’s woeful ability to protect its biodiversity. 

The Defence Strategic Review has been framed as a consideration of Australia’s force posture and structure against accelerated strategic challenges in our region. As the drums of war beat louder and louder, we must ask ourselves: is contemporary defence planning prepared for the accelerating climate crisis and its compounding impacts on military preparedness?

Simply put – it’s not. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be. With focused planning and determined leadership, Defence policy can be flexible in responding to multidimensional threats. It needs to exploit advantages across a whole-of-government security posture to address regional challenges where globalisation underpins geostrategic complexity. Leveraging partnerships in an evolving region – dynamic, populous and on the front lines of the climate crisis – provides an optimal whole-of-nation approach to developing climate resilience.

The Pacific has long asked Australia to take the national security threat posed by climate change seriously. Not only do we need to think smarter about immediate priorities to become a major deterrent against, or a major determinant in, efforts to protect our long-term interests for viable food, water and energy security, we need to examine the mechanisms through which we seek to address climate risk for our national security.

How can this be done? 

Foremost, we need to acknowledge that we’re moving more and more decisively into an era when the military impact on climate change will be scrutinised. A nuclear arsenal has long been heralded as a major conflict deterrent. However, even a ‘limited’ nuclear conflict would be sufficient to generate planetary-scale adverse climate events. Militaries may well find themselves accountable in new ways for carbon reduction strategies.

We then need to revisit the categorisation of threats within Defence policy and align our force structure to face those challenges. The current Defence Strategic Review provides the opportune moment to better construct climate threats and opportunities to embed these in military preparedness and capabilities. The reviewers will hopefully take the bold step in realigning Defence thinking to be more innovative in its treatment of climate risk on preparedness, capability and infrastructure. 

Defence should consider how well its approach to posture, structure and tactical investment has served Australia’s national interests. A realist lens in which military resolution to geostrategic challenges dominates is inadequate. Such an approach doesn’t provide sufficient capability to respond to non-geographic threats outside conventional warfighting doctrine. It prevents the full suite of climate risks from being considered in strategic and tactical planning. 

Militaries everywhere will have a role in responding to the climate crisis. It’s important that the Defence Strategic Review explores what this means for Australia and ensures Defence provides utility to the government and Australia. 

In this regard, Defence could be better equipped to fulfil its role in the context of the climate crisis. Ignoring this reality will have negative consequences for combat effectiveness. In doing so, the review could consider the risk of climate to facilities and equipment, doctrine and concepts, compounding climate consequences from military degradation of the environment, and degradation of the national support base. 

It’s no secret that energy is critical to military success or that militaries are one of the world’s most energy-intensive sectors. Militaries must be involved in the global energy transition – it should be core business. 

Australia is uniquely placed to take advantage of the energy transition. Stabilising global carbon and accelerating energy transition is necessary to protect our long-term interests for a viable planet. Without reconsidering climate risk and a broader conception of the drivers of insecurity, we doom ourselves to generating climate consequences incongruent with our interests. 

Military power isn’t sufficient to respond to climate change or the conflicts and catastrophic environmental consequences it may drive. Addressing the enormity of the climate crisis and the security challenges that might hasten it requires a robust global rules-based order. 

Investing in regional and global institutions can bolster regional stability and drive an accelerated decarbonisation transition to build resilience to climate events. A region, including the Pacific island states, with a stronger diplomatic voice is strategically favourable for Australia. It allows Australia to acknowledge our region’s enduring presence and value in climate solutions. It will enable us to work with other powers to strengthen the global rules-based order needed to ensure climate change adaptation and mitigation efforts are just, equitable and present the best viable option for humanity. 

The known climate risks of a kinetic conflict must sharpen our focus. The global rules-based order presents a viable geopolitical structure to negotiate climate solutions. The Defence Strategic Review should consider how these mechanisms can be better leveraged to protect Australia’s climate interests. It’s the backdrop against which Australia can work with other powers to generate coherent, cooperative responses to global challenges.

A conflict in the Indo-Pacific would be catastrophic. The requisite mobilisation of (fossil-fuelled) industrial might and the possibility of nuclear exchange are inimical to Australian interests and devastating to the environment. 

While Defence considers the capabilities that best provide the means to respond to such a contingency, they may better ask how climate considerations should reshape Defence policy to ensure Australia has the correct strategic settings to respond to the climate crisis.

Sian Phillips is a member of the Defence, Strategy and Industry Practice at Synergy Group and has more than 15 years’ experience in the private and public sectors. Sian has experience in foreign policy, development and women, peace and security.

Nicholas Campton-Smith is a member of the Defence, Strategy and Industry Practice at Synergy Group with five years’ experience in the Defence industry. Nicholas is practised in capability sustainment tendering, maritime domain awareness and open source intelligence. He has a master’s with Excellence in Strategy and Security from UNSW Canberra at the Australian Defence Force Academy.

Photo: Defence