Skip to main content
main-content

Über dieses Buch

This book examines how the armed forces of the United States and Australia have responded to the threat posed by climate change to national security. Drawing on established securitisation frameworks (‘Copenhagen’ and ‘Paris’ Schools), the author uses a combination of quantitative and qualitative techniques to systematically examine more than 3,500 speeches, policies and doctrinal articles since 2003. Importantly, the author undertakes an examination of the intersection between the political and the military spheres, probing the question of how ideology has influenced the military’s uptake on the issue. In this context, the author identifies the difficulty of an ostensibly apolitical institution responding to what has become both a hyper-political issue and an unprecedented security threat. A close examination of the key political actors – their intent, outlook and political mandate for broader climate action – is therefore crucial to understanding the policy freedom and constraints within which military leaders operate. The book consists of eight chapters divided into four parts, focusing on: perspectives and methodological insights; empirical case studies; case study comparison; and concluding observations.
• Offers a rare and systematic examination of military climate policy by a military officer from Australia• Identifies a divergence of Australian military climate policy from that of the US military during the Obama Administration• Develops a unique method that quantifies climate security, enabling a graphical representation for quick and ready reference ideally suited to policy-makers

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Frontmatter

Introduction

Frontmatter

Chapter 1. The Strategic Dissonance of Australia’s Climate Security Response

Abstract
This chapter outlines how the Australian Department of Defence, and the Australian Defence Force (ADF) in particular, developed a strategic apathy in its early response to addressing the challenges posed by climate change. It sketches the wider sectoral, political and allied-military responses to climate change and highlights existing risks and knowledge gaps in ADF climate response. Four main reasons are identified for ADF climate apathy: incompatible timeframes, institutional reluctance, more appropriate use of resources, and the challenge of an avowedly non-partisan institution grappling with an ostensibly political issue. The chapter concludes by describing the purpose and structure of this book.
Michael Durant Thomas

Climate Security: The Physical and Policy Basis

Frontmatter

Chapter 2. Climate Security—The Physical Basis

Abstract
This chapter provides an introduction to the physical science of climate change, current and projected levels of anthropogenic GHG emissions and a brief account of the political challenges associated with a coordinated and binding international policy response to limit global warming. This wider examination of climate change is also undertaken within a security and military context. Perforce, ‘climate security’ is defined upfront and the key physical (environmental) risks of climate change are mapped to potential security and military impacts. The chapter also examines military GHG emissions (estate and operations) for the Australian, US and UK militaries. It concludes that the military sector is a significant contributor to global emissions.
Michael Durant Thomas

Chapter 3. Climate Security in Europe, the US and the UN Security Council

Abstract
This chapter provides a narrative history of the policy-orientated literature on climate security, with a focus on highlighting climate discourse within US and European militaries, and the UN. With the fundamental science of climate change in place by the end of the 19th century, it was not until major environmental movements of the 1960s and ’70s that rising GHG concentrations were tentatively, then more boldly, linked to adverse consequences for human, national and international security. By the 1980s climate change as a security issue had been elevated at major global meetings, the US Congress and the UN. Although wider debates on environmental security became prominent in the 1990s, it was not until the mid-2000s that climate change as a security issue was significantly addressed. Robust attempts were made by many Western nations between 2007 and 2010 to frame climate change as a security threat, culminating in it being debated by the UNSC. A counter bloc of countries, dominated by the so-called BRICS, argued against climate change being debated by the UNSC and for it to be addressed exclusively as a sustainable development issue in non-securitised, multi-lateral forums. Climate security in the US was extensively addressed by the US Congress, the National Intelligence Community and by US think-tanks from 2007, and it emerged as an issue of increasing significance for the US military from 2009. In Europe, although there existed moves by various leaders and institutions to frame climate change as a security issue, it was never fully translated into near or long term military planning.
Michael Durant Thomas

Case Studies in Climate Securitisation

Frontmatter

Chapter 4. Case Study Aim and Method

Abstract
This chapter outlines the securitisation case study aim, method and its key limitations. Climate security case studies were undertaken with the aim of examining the process of climate securitisation within the Australian and US political-military sector between 2003 and 2013. This was a key period that spanned centre-right and centre-left governments in both countries and coincided with securitisation moves in the international arena aimed at influencing a binding global commitment to reduce emissions. Three lines of inquiry were developed for the case studies that addressed how climate change was framed, the urgency of the response, and what types of response measures were put in place to address climate change by the political-military establishments of the US and Australia. Securitisation frameworks were developed by the author based on securitisation theories from the Copenhagen and Paris Schools.
Michael Durant Thomas

Chapter 5. Climate Security Case Study: Australia

Abstract
This chapter analyses the response by the Australian political-military establishment to climate change through the lens of securitisation theory. Mixed content analysis techniques were applied to systematically examine more than 1,500 speech-acts, policies, doctrinal articles and other publications between 2003 and 2013. The key findings reveal that climate change was not a security issue in Australia until 2007. Prior to that, climate change was a marginal issue and was not conceived as a security issue by the centre-right government under John Howard. This changed in 2007 with the election of a centre-left government who elevated climate change as a foremost policy issue. Subsequently, climate change was framed as a security issue and it registered in major strategic Defence documents. However, the twin failures of Copenhagen and the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), saw climate change become highly politicised and then marginalised. This stalled wider securitisation efforts and curtailed ADF climate responses. The chapter concludes with an update on climate security initiatives within the ADF since 2013.
Michael Durant Thomas

Chapter 6. Climate Security Case Study: United States

Abstract
This chapter examines the response by the United States political-military sector to climate change through the lens of securitisation theory. Research undertaken used mixed content analysis techniques to systematically examine more than 2,000 speech-acts, policies, doctrinal articles and other publications between 2003 and 2013. Particular attention was paid to the speech-acts of prominent persons in command and leadership appointments as well as major climate programme and initiatives of the United States Navy (USN). The case study reveals that climate security first appeared as a concern during the George W. Bush Administration, though it was not a major factor. In early 2008 the Bush Administration released the National Defense Authorisation Act (NDAA) that directed the US military to undertake a sweeping examination of climate impacts on its operations. A key component of this was the inclusion of climate change in the 2010 National Security Strategy and Quadrennial Defense Review. It also laid wider foundations, bringing climate security to greater prominence in the US military at a time that segued with the ascension of the Obama Administration and its more activist climate agenda. The US Navy—the service most at risk from sea-level rise, natural disasters and with increased operational opportunities in the Arctic—adopted a proactive approach to climate change that included prominence in the speech-acts of USN leaders and via publication of several adaptation and mitigation strategies.
Michael Durant Thomas

Chapter 7. Climate Securitisation in the US and Australia: Discussion

Abstract
This chapter presents a high-level case study comparison of climate security responses by the Australian and US political-military sector between 2003 and 2013. The findings are based on mixed content analysis of more than 3,500 open sourced speech-acts, defence policy documents, military doctrine articles and other such publications emanating from the political, civilian and military leadership of the Australian and US departments of defence. The results indicate that climate change was not framed as a major security issue under the conservative leadership of either Prime Minister Howard or President Bush. Correspondingly, it failed to register as a major issue for the Australian and US militaries during this period. This changed from 2007, when climate change emerged as a centrepiece political issue under the centre-left governments of Kevin Rudd and later, Julia Gillard, in Australia. An equivalent transition was witnessed in the US on the ascension of the Obama Administration in 2009. In response to the more activist political climate, both the Australian and US militaries became progressively engaged. The Australian military however, developed a muted approach to climate change characterised by few programme of consequence and few mentions in the speeches of its senior military leadership. The US Navy, by contrast, developed several high-level mitigation and adaptation programme and it formed a small but notable presence in the speech-acts of its civilian and military leadership.
Michael Durant Thomas

Conclusion

Frontmatter

Chapter 8. Conclusion and Outlook

Abstract
This book set out to examine the securitisation of climate change within the political and military sectors of Australia, with a comparison to the United States. Using two well-known analytical frameworks—the Copenhagen School and Paris School—the book adopted a hybridised qualitative and quantitative method that analysed a large sample of documents from across the political and military levels.
Michael Durant Thomas

Backmatter

Weitere Informationen