Page 32 - Australian Defence Magazine June 2019

DEFENCE BUSINESS
CLIMATE CHANGE
“Notwithstanding energy transformations and economic cost, the frame of climate change as a threat multiplier is one with which national security agencies are comfortable.”
tial risks cannot be one of trial-and-error. There is no opportunity to learn from errors. The reactive approach – see what happens, limit damages, and learn from experience – is unworkable. Rather, we must take a proactive approach. This requires foresight to anticipate new types of threats and a willingness to take decisive preventive action and to bear the costs
(moral and economic) of such actions.
So how to mitigate and manage the risks presented by environmental degradation and climate change? Risk is widely un- derstood and can be described by detailed mathematical models to assist decision- making. However, perception of risk and risk appetite vary individually as we are influenced by many factors like historical events, family, culture, beliefs, etc. Organ- isations are often able to describe a sophis- ticated mathematical risk process as a deci- sion support tool but that assessment is still subject to human intervention and intui-
New security frameworks / mindsets
As Donella Meadows noted, in systems thinking the point of most leverage is the mindset or paradigm out of which the sys- tem goals, power structures, rules and cul- ture arise. Our climate is changing rapidly and is likely to do so in a non–linear way as self-re-enforcing feedbacks push the planet past thresholds where temperature can be sta- bilised. As the climate moves through these trajectories different security frameworks or mindsets are needed, as illustrated below.
The threat multiplier mindset
As outlined earlier in this article, national security agencies have framed climate change and environmental security chal- lenges principally as a “threat multiplier”. In this framing climate change is seen as multiplying or accelerating existing threats. Relationships with environmental chal-
Notwithstanding energy transforma- tions and economic cost, the frame of cli- mate change as a threat multiplier is one with which national security agencies are comfortable. This frame prompts no radi- cal thinking as the lucky county mindset dominates and the environmental security challenge is seen as being within the adap- tive capacities of existing security agencies.
The peace inhibitor mindset
Several Agency submissions to the Sen- ate Inquiry Report on the ‘Implications of climate change for Australia’s national se- curity’ (in particular, DoHA and Defence) did take a broader systems view where cli- mate change and environmental security risks that intersect with other elements of national security, such as energy and eco- nomics, are identified, but this idea was not developed further – rather, it was relegated to the distant future.
Climate security risks were described im- pacting resources: food, water and energy. Food, water or energy shortages are further seen as potentially increasing probability of conflicts (internal or external) or contribut- ing to mass migrations, further de-stabilis- ing systems of global governance - similar to the destabilising effects of mass migration already seen in Europe. If these impacts are realised, climate and environmental risks might be more accurately thought of as a “peace inhibitor”.
Pressure on resources, especially the wa- ter resources will threaten conflict between nuclear armed powers such as India, Paki- stan and China; all of which are very ex- posed to climate related risks.
Traditional security thinking is already pre-positioning to this risk framing in terms of walls and border security, sovereign capa- bilities, forward deterrence and conscious de-coupling from the global economy. While this may make some sense for the short term should the more catastrophic outcomes of climate change be realised (and they may be as early as 2050) it leads down a path to a “Mad Max” future where the ADF in the near future may be required to repel millions not thousands of poten- tial immigrants fleeing a general collapse of global governance. How it will do so with reliance on those same global supply chains and economies for essential wealth, supplies and energy remains to be explained.
Navigating the mindsets
By focusing primarily on the threat multi- plier traditional national security approach-
tive leadership. Thus, the description of risk practice is a fusion of mathematical model- ling and human behaviour.
National security planning and opera- tions employ sound well-developed pro- cess which identify vulnerability, risk and threat assessments, decisions and actions. This process itself is continually assessed and refined.
Climate change and environmental deg- radation have well developed support from scientific models, but the understanding of risk and the necessary actions of mitigation and adaption are heavily debated, particu- larly in Australia. Yet again, it seems national security is simply incompatible with climate change and environmental degradation.
We cannot necessarily rely on the institu- tions, moral norms, social attitudes or nation- al security policies that developed from our experience with managing other sorts of risks. Existential risks are a different kind of beast. We might find it hard to take them as seri- ously as we should simply because we have not yet witnessed the full extent of such disasters.
lenges are direct and linear. Sea level rise will impact on Defence bases as well as national infrastructure such as ports and airfields. Increase in extreme events will require an increase in disaster responses – placing concurrency pressures on national security capabilities. Increases in tempera- ture may reduce human capability operat- ing performance – with flow-on effects to training and operations.
However, while risks are identified there is little evidence of an understanding how environmental security risks may cascade or be transferred into other domains of na- tional power. One obvious association is with energy transitions where the geopolitics of the new energy transformation may alter existing power balances. Intriguingly, Aus- tralia is well placed to become a new energy superpower, however our traditional five- eyes partners are not challenging us to take a greater strategic leadership role. Another ob- vious risk transfer is from the environment to the economy as the cost of disasters begin to bite, with the cost of natural disasters esti- mated at $33 billion per year by 2030.
32 | June 2019 | www.australiandefence.com.au