British security in a heating world | Dominic Lawson

“Threat multiplier”

In the language of strategic planning, climate change is considered a ‘threat multiplier’, meaning that it brings with it an increasing number of side effects that aggravate areas which are already precarious.

The global economic system relies upon an edifice of interconnected networks which are extremely fragile in the face of exogenous shocks, or ‘black swans.’ Any successful British security policy needs to take account of, and fully recognise, how dependent we have become on the various nodes within this greater system along with the dangers this represents. Serious, potentially severe challenges lay ahead for states in the coming decades and Britain’s shall be no exception.

Fortunately, the upper echelons of the Western military-security establishment are clearly aware of this. Unlike politicians, who can kick the proverbial can down the road, military strategists must deal with the world as it is and will be in the coming years, and they have indicated their disquiet at the growing threat of a changing climate. 

The Pentagon, for instance, has expressed their fears that climate change and the various risks it brings, such as the collapse of freshwater stocks, or rising sea-levels across the globe, would generate such total political and economic instability so as to leave the US military completely overstretched and unable to operate. Without a fundamental policy shift, the report concludes, the US military would come to be overwhelmed by a perfect storm of climate related crises across the world.

In the UK, the RAND Corporation, one of the world’s best strategic think tanks, has stated that the UK faces similar issues. The UK, according to them, faces the prospect of military overextension as our armed forces will be used to secure vital resources and protect British interests in areas with weak and collapsing states, provide humanitarian relief to Commonwealth countries dealing with extreme weather (such as those in the Caribbean), and deliver basic services and support to our own people when flooding occurs in our coastal areas- which it will in increasing amounts. 

If this comes to pass, this means that the UK will need to increase military spending to ensure that our armed forces are capable of dealing with the spreading threats sparked by an altering climate. Whether this is economically viable is, unfortunately, doubtful when we factor in the other effects that are to be had. 

Whitehall mandarins have issued warnings of climate change inflicting large scale economic damage to the UK; via weather related disruption to supply chains. We are especially vulnerable to shocks in the global supply network, considering that we import close to forty percent of our food from abroad, and half of that comes from countries which are directly threatened by climate change.

A 2017 parliamentary report found that even imports from countries which are not on the frontlines of a changing climate could be disrupted, as state elites opt to restrict exports to secure food for their own populations. This may well come to pass. We saw this recently, when global staple exporters, such as Vietnam and Russia, began stockpiling their produce for fear of COVID-related supply shocks. 

If this was to happen on the scale that some civil servants fear, however, we would likely see a severe increase in food prices throughout the UK. At present, some 8 million Brits are economically precarious, any increase will push more people into poverty and prevent the vital formation of stable homes and communities.

Alongside this, it will likely lead to further insecurity throughout British towns and cities, as the link between food price increases and violence is well documented. In the previous years, some in the Tory Party quietly warned that falling living standards were creating the basis for political extremism, if true, rising food prices could act as the catalyst which ignites frustrations and sparks large scale civil disorder in the UK. 

Our new northern battlefield

The UK will have to contend with increased competition in the Arctic Circle. 

We know that Arctic sea ice is thinning. While there will always be some degree of ice coverage, this change means that previously impassable areas can now be broken by icebreaker fleets, therefore opening up time-saving trade routes between Europe, East Asia and North America.

The Arctic seabed is endowed with a bounty of valuable resources. Precious metals, including gold, are plentiful there. As are industrial materials which are key to the development of next generation infrastructure and technology; including rare earth minerals which are vital for the construction of satellites and solar panels and are a rare commodity outside of China. 

Alongside this trove, the Arctic is also believed to be rich in untapped oil, with some estimates placing it at close to 30% of the world’s virgin hydrocarbon deposits, although whether oil and gas prices will remain high enough to justify their extraction is doubtful. 

The thinning Arctic ice has massive implications for the UK. We are a sub-Arctic nation, and should the North Pole open, we could have one of the world’s most valuable regions at our doorstep. 

However, it would also prove to be one of the world’s most dangerous. As increased commercial traffic comes to the region, we can expect the globe’s militaries to follow. Russia has already begun increasing her presence in the region. And we are likely to see Beijing supplement the proposed “polar silk road” with heavy military support. 

Inexorably, this means that the British armed forces will be drawn in as well. The Royal Navy will likely become a constant presence in the region, and Scotland’s upper most islands will become vital basing areas to prevent hostile powers from threatening the home island.  

The British state has recognised a “globalisation” of the Arctic. Alongside the mineral wealth and sea-lanes, the region is home to multiple overlapping territorial claims. This all but guarantees that we will see the area become a potential hotspot in the coming decades.

World on the move

As well as fending off hostile states, the United Kingdom will also be forced to contend with growing levels of intra-state violence and instability within the Global South which will inevitably harm our interests. 

Many Global South states are immensely fragile and internally fractured by ethno-religious cleavages that competition for resources will aggravate. 

The Darfur conflict, for instance, was intensified by desertification and reduced rainfall. Nigeria has witnessed increased violence between nomads and settled communities over diminishing grasslands. And some researchers have sought to link the Syrian conflict to a prior drought in which one million Sunni farmers lost their lands to desertification and moved into cities, aggravating present sectarian tensions. 

Disruption in rainfall and the spreading of deserts will become a likely push factor for forced migration between and within states, overwhelming already fragile governance. Collapse of African or Middle Eastern states is likely, with the OIC admitting that the majority of Muslim states face existential crisis from the effects of global warming.  

The Global North is simply unprepared for the mass movement which will come from this. The Syrian migration crisis of 2016 resulted in some one million people moving into Europe and was fundamentally destabilising to the countries on the continent. The numbers that will likely come in the future will dwarf this. 

We can also not dismiss the possibility of the spread of “ungoverned spaces” emerging which will give shelter to terrorists, criminals and drug traffickers who will target the UK and our allies in Europe. Countries such as Libya and Syria already act as bases from which attacks can be organised, human trafficking infrastructure emerges, and we will see that spread should the worst projections come true. 

Solutions

There are no easy answers to the question of climate change. It is encouraging, at least, that the UK’s relevant institutions and power elite are aware of the variety of complex threats it represents. We are in a relatively enviable position, being a wealthy, wet and northern island-state, yet, to do nothing will leave us exposed and overwhelm the capacity of our state to govern within and defend without. 

Our elites must begin to build resilience in vital industries, particularly food, water and energy. Recently, COVID has exposed how fragile our links to global manufacturing centres are, and a reshoring of industry should be considered a national security priority.

In regards to energy, we also have vast potential for hydrocarbon and wind power. At the Tory Party conference, Mr Johnson referenced a desire to make the UK “the Saudi Arabia of wind”. Whether this is a typical Johnsonite soundbite, one which remains deliberately vague and lacks detail, remains to be seen, but it is a genuinely good idea from a national security standpoint. 

The political Right seems to have suffered from a lack of imagination when it comes to the overall issue of the climate. Environmentalism is actually natural political territory for the Right. Thus, it creates room for coalition of social conservatives, who fear the societal instability that climate change will engender, nationalists who see a demographic wave on the horizon, and the securocrat establishment. Alongside the non-ideological who just want to enjoy Britain’s green spaces, we have sufficient reason to believe this constitutes a tipping point majority within the British population, and such a grouping would present a sensible and attractive alternative to the bizarre antics of climate groups on the Progressive Left.  

Extinction Rebellion, for instance, has toxified the brand of environmentalism and is little more than a doomsday cult for bored and downwardly-mobile middle class humanities students. 

Environmentalism is far too serious a politics to be left in the hands of groups such as this. It is also a truth of human nature that we care more about our country and family’s future than we do for those of strangers. Aris Rousinous was right when he wrote that nationalism and the “lifeboat ethics” that it represents are probably one of the most powerful human drives and should be used to confront trouble on the horizon. 

Why not take advantage of this collective instinct and present the reforestation of the British Isles, the reshoring of industry, and creation of local farming initiatives powered by hydrocarbon and wind projects as a national project to “Make Britain Green Again”?

–

If you liked this article and want to help our organisation expand, please consider donating. Every little helps.