Page 30 - Australian Defence Magazine June 2019

DEFENCE BUSINESS
CLIMATE CHANGE
“Our continued economic success,
the lack of perceived need to transform, and propensity for organisational inertia has made Australians complacent.”
lem?”, observed this is a picture in stark con- trast to the analyses reported in the media. The claim that the Australian economy will have a buffer to respond to any adverse de- velopments that might occur in the global economy, suggesting that we have adequate economic resilience, is fanciful at best.
However, Australians have grown wealthy on the back of sustained economic success, and pessimistic opinions with warnings of complacency can easily be ignored because lived experience shows that Australians re- peatedly pull through when others don’t.
This is not just an economic narrative; it has become a strong national narrative driv- ing success. The outstanding economic suc- cess and wealth of Australia defines a new culture for Australia, and it affects the way economic degradation and climate change are viewed. Simply put, consideration of these elements is a threat to economic success.
Organisational roadblocks created by implicit behaviours is also a challenge. The 2015 Centre for Policy Development (CPD) Paper on Climate Change and Secu- rity observed “the examples demonstrate a
quences of climate change would not be felt until after 2030 (not on my watch so need to worry?). The Gillard government's Defence White Paper and National Security Strategy in 2013 identified the climate as a vague na- tional security threat.
Well-known climate spokesperson, Ian Dunlop, has been critical of the 2016 Defence White Paper as it only mentioned climate change in passing as one of its six key strategic drivers of Australia’s security environment to 2035 and the impacts as a “threat multiplier”.
He also describes the mixed messages in the 2017 Foreign Policy White Paper which acknowledged that climate change will be an important influ- ence on international affairs, particularly in our region, but then anticipated "buoyant demand for our ex- ports of high-quality
coal and LNG." Critically, envi-
ronment is consid-
ered by Defence to be an issue of good stewardship on bases and ranges, while DFAT considers environ- mental action as an obligation required in
treaties and agreements.
The 2018 Senate Enquiry into the “Implica-
tions of climate change for Australia's national security” was an opportunity to build a more sophisticated understanding of systemic risk and vulnerability. Unsurprisingly, the conclu- sion was marred by political differences and consequently agreement was only achieved on the “low hanging” tactical fruit of existing programs, with no strategic implications.
Coalition senators in their ‘Additional comments to the Enquiry’ further con- firmed their view that current arrangements on climate change and national security interconnection was entirely appropriate, planned for and robust.
Paul Barnes in the 2019 Australian Se- curity Policy Institute Agenda for Change
notes: “It’s fairly clear that, both historically and recently, groupings of national security agencies in Australia haven’t been able to articulate a joined-up approach to effectively begin to tackle the many impacts likely to flow from regional and global climate change effects and weather-related disasters.
"Greater coordination of effort is needed. This should occur over time as recent na- tional security agency changes are more fully implemented, but time is a commod- ity that’s rapidly disappearing. There’s a degree of urgency, and such coordination shouldn’t be left to chance."
Understanding systemic risk
There are primarily two existential threats to humanity, climate change and nuclear annihilation. Existential disasters have major adverse consequences for the course of human civilisation for all time to come. Nuclear arms as a manmade weapon are subject to many processes, technical and human, to prevent nuclear conflict, yet the threat remains an existential challenge. Climate change and environmental deg- radation are more difficult to understand as this is an emerging phenomenon. This is part of the reason we have not evolved mechanisms, either biologically or cultur- ally, for managing such risks.
Our intuitions and coping strategies have been shaped by our long experience with risks such as dangerous animals, industrial accidents, volcano eruptions, earthquakes, war, and, epidemics. These types of disasters have occurred many times and our cultural attitudes towards risk have been shaped by trial-and-error in managing such hazards over human history.
Therefore, we arrive at the greatest in- compatibility preventing integration of cli- mate change and environmental degrada- tion with national security. Our national security thinking is successful for our past and developed through trial and error. The climate change threat does not sit neatly in the ‘way we think’. Our approach to existen-
perception of an institutional reluctance to address this critical security challenge com- prehensively. The sum of the parts that are identified demonstrate an understanding of the threat, yet without a guiding compass.”
Our continued economic success, the lack of perceived need to transform, and propensity for organisational inertia has made Australians complacent. Essentially the underlying culture expressed as ‘she’ll be right’ affects our preparedness to assess the risk represented by climate change and environmental degradation.
Australia’s security responses
to climate change
In fairness, Australia hasn’t been totally asleep at the wheel in relation to facing up to the re- alities of climate change and environmental degradation. The 2009 Defence White Paper mentioned that the likely strategic conse-
30 | June 2019 | www.australiandefence.com.au
GETTY