In 2007, Sherri Goodman, who served as the first deputy undersecretary of defense for environmental security from 1993 to 2001, coined the term “threat multiplier” to describe how climate change impacted every aspect of national security. As the climate changes, every threat is exacerbated. From natural disasters to the intricate movements of geopolitics, there is nothing that the environment doesn’t affect – and military leaders cannot afford to ignore that reality.
“Climate change is a major international security threat,” Goodman writes in her new book “Threat Multiplier: Climate, Military leadership and the Fight for Global Security.”
In the following interview with The Diplomat’s Managing Editor Catherine Putz, Goodman explains how modern military leaders conceptualize climate change, how climate changes affects security, and pushes back on those who argue that that addressing climate risks will detract from military readiness. To them, Goodman says, “climate readiness is mission readiness.”
Militaries have to prioritize. How would you characterize the ranking of environmental/climate change concerns in the prioritization calculations of U.S. military leaders over the last few decades?
Our armed forces have to be able to respond to multiple threats at the same time. During the Cold War, we deterred the Soviet nuclear threat while also preparing to fight a land war in Central Europe. Since 9/11 and the onset of the Age of Terrorism, our armed forces not only responded to al-Qaida and the Islamic State, but also continued to secure global sea routes in the Pacific and beyond. In the current era of climate change, our armed forces are not only preparing to defend Taiwan and ensure security across the Indo-Pacific, they are also adapting to hotter temperatures, rising seas, and more deadly typhoons. In the face of multiple, compounding risks, we often say, “You have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.”
Today, China is the pacing threat for America’s armed forces as it seeks to rapidly close in on, and even surpass, the U.S. in key areas of strategic competition, military capabilities, technological capacity, and economic growth. China seeks to reshape the international world order in its own image, influencing nations away from the values of freedom and democracy which the U.S. has long championed. China’s leaders are making decisions through a climate lens, seeking every advantage that our changing world offers.
China is the opponent on the other side of the chess board, but climate change is reshaping the board. To ignore it is to put yourself at a disadvantage.
Climate change has drawn China’s attention to the Arctic, where they now claim to be a near-Arctic state, stressing their stake in the region, from shorter shipping routes to more accessible natural resources. Climate change has directed China towards Africa, where they are seizing food supplies through illegal and unregulated fishing. Climate change has prompted China to build dams and secure water sources across the Global South that, in fact, jeopardize the water security of key communities. Climate change has prompted China to invest in critical minerals processing for batteries and solar technologies as they try to dominate increasingly important markets. But climate change has also put coastal cities and their artificial islands at risk. As climate reshapes the global chessboard, we need to be sure that we are not missing a key move.
You coined the term “threat multiplier” to describe how climate change impacts security and should be considered by military leaders. Can you provide a few examples of how the changing climate multiplies existing and future threats?
“Threat multiplier” refers to the ways in which a changing climate amplifies pre-existing threats, from strategic competition with Russia and China, to terrorism in the Middle East and Africa, to worsening weather events and extreme heat impacting U.S. energy resilience and security.
In the Arctic, rapid sea ice retreat, rising temperatures, and permafrost melt have led to the opening of new global trade routes. The region is expected to experience ice-free summers as soon as 2040, if not earlier. Russian President Vladimir Putin is already planning to convert the shallow Northern Sea Route that hugs the long Russian coastline into a toll road from ports in Asia to Europe. He is also extracting more fossil energy and critical materials that are now attainable due to permafrost melt. The Arctic, once considered a region of cooperation, has increasingly become a zone of competition for economic resources and political influence.
In the Indo-Pacific, climate extremes threaten most megacities, including Mumbai, Ho Chi Minh City, Manila, Dhaka, Jakarta, and more. Small Pacific Island nations face the existential risk of near-complete submersion, with some national governments already planning to relocate their populations to higher ground because of sea level rise and saltwater infiltration of fresh water. A super typhoon or powerful storm surge has the potential to decimate Taiwan’s infrastructure while leaving mainland China untouched, rendering the U.S. and Taiwan unable to correctly perceive the PRC’s moves. America’s military outposts across the Pacific are also at risk of rising sea levels and worsening climate events, leaving some bases incapable of performing their missions.
Across parts of Africa, climate-driven drought has put farmers and herders into conflict. Water scarcity and associated social unrest creates ideal conditions for terrorist groups to infiltrate areas in Somalia, Sudan, and elsewhere, particularly when these nations already suffer from weak governance.
To what extent has the politicization of climate change in the United States affected U.S. military readiness? Has it also affected U.S. “soft power” and reputation when discussing these issues with partners?
Despite the politicization of climate change, the U.S. Congress has enacted numerous provisions to ensure that climate risks and resilience are considered in defense planning, policies, and practices. The Department of Defense has assessed climate risks and prepared adaptation and engagement plans for the department as a whole, as well individualized plans by branch. The U.S. has integrated climate awareness into its planning for military readiness by transitioning to cleaner energy sources that ensure energy security in contested logistics environments, such as the South China Sea. Advances in near-term climate prediction also enable our forces to better plan for higher sea levels, hotter temperatures, and more extreme weather events.
Working with allies and partners on climate risks and readiness is part of the “soft power” opportunity to share best practices. Together with our allies, the Department of Defense has conducted war games and simulations in every region of the world to better understand and prepare for regionally specific climate risks from drought across Africa, to stronger storms in the Pacific, to the melting Arctic.
The military today is using climate security to advance America’s position from a geostrategic perspective. For example, the Navy’s Office of Naval Research has developed climate decision making tools (tailored data-aggregation dashboards) for Caribbean and Pacific Island leaders to make more informed decisions for their nations. The Secretary of the Navy personally delivered the capability to Palau, and it will soon be shared with Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. The Indo-Pacific Environmental Security Forum, supported by INDOPACOM, convenes leaders across the Indo-Pacific to develop capacity on climate resilience and humanitarian assistance. These types of soft power engagements build partner capacity in disaster risk reduction, climate resilient infrastructure, water security, and public health.
At home, if states fail to recognize the reality of climate change intensifying extreme weather and worsening storms around the country, then they will miss opportunities to upgrade their infrastructure for higher temperatures, more rainfall, and stronger storms.
For some Pacific Island states perceived American dithering on taking responsibility for its nuclear legacy in the Pacific is a top issue. The Marshall Islands, for example, still seeks meaningful engagement, fair compensation and an apology from the United States. Now that the Pacific is again a geopolitical hotspot, is this not a serious a reputational issue? And in being so, does this hamper U.S. efforts to build security relationships in the region vis-a-vis China which does not have this problematic baggage?
In my personal view, the U.S. should resolve the outstanding issues with the Marshall Islands in a fair and equitable manner. Recognizing the strategic importance of the Pacific Islands as well as their existential risk from climate change, the U.S. must continue to strengthen partnerships across the region. Through INDOPACOM and a wide range of security cooperation agreements, the U.S. should direct its efforts toward helping small Pacific Island nations build climate resilience and combat growing Chinese influence.
Advanced technologies and future systems — like crypto mining, blockchain, AI and so on — are often extremely energy intensive, and given that much of our energy is still generated with fossil fuels, they are on balance bad for the environment. How important is it to moderate the pursuit of “advanced tech” with this energy supply reality?
Cleaner energy sources — from advanced nuclear power to geothermal, together with green hydrogen and better batteries to store renewable generation — will support the growing energy demands from AI and other advanced technologies. While there may not be a silver bullet approach to powering advanced tech in every location, there are many “silver buckshot” approaches that can be tailored to specific regions.
For example, the Defense Department has been investing in large-scale renewable energy projects, including solar and wind farms, on military bases. These projects aim to reduce reliance on external energy sources and provide critical operations with a more resilient power supply. DOD is deploying microgrids that integrate renewable energy sources like solar power and battery storage systems. These microgrids enhance the resilience of military installations by allowing them to operate independently from the larger electrical grid, often referred to as “islanding the base.”
What do you think is most misunderstood when it comes to the interplay between climate and security?
Some are concerned that addressing climate risks will detract from military readiness. In fact, the opposite is true: climate readiness is mission readiness. For example, Assistant Secretary of the Navy Meredith Berger reports that sailors and marines need to operate in all possible weather conditions to develop a “warfighting advantage” over our competitors as climate conditions change.
The reality is that by better understanding the security risks of climate change we are able to climatize security. Thus, people working in defense, foreign policy, and intelligence have a more thorough understanding of how rising seas, stronger storms, heat waves, and a melting Arctic impact our mission to promote a free, prosperous, and safe world. By understanding how climate is reshaping the global landscape, we can more effectively prepare our forces to operate under changing conditions while leading by example in the transition to cleaner energy and a more resilient future.