A senior British Royal Navy officer who is currently the UK's Climate and Energy Security Envoy, Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti tells Climate Spectator editor Giles Parkinson that:
– His role is to assess the potential security implications of climate change as a 'threat multiplier';
– Climate change and energy security are inextricably linked;
– Increased lack of resources – fuel, food and water, in particular – is likely to increase tension in regions around the world;
– creased incidence of extreme weather events may result in more military aid being required
try and help build a capacity resilience in those countries that are going to be worst affected by climate change.
Giles Parkinson: Admiral, you were appointed as UK Special Envoy on Climate and Energy Security in September 2009, if I’m right. So why were you appointed and what’s your role?
Neil Morisetti: It was in the run-up to Copenhagen, but it was part of a wider situation; a growing awareness – as well as the environmental and the socioeconomic and other aspects of climate change – of the potential security implications of climate change. You may recall that, in 2007, the UN Security Council debated it. Some work was done in a Washington think tank on climate change implications for national security in the same year, and our national security strategy in 2008 and 2009 reflected climate change as one of the major challenges of the future, not necessarily as a direct cause of conflict, but as a threat multiplier, increasing the stresses in parts of the world that were already affecting stress.
GP: What sort of scenarios have those reports painted that you’re seeing in your role?
NM: If I take a publication like the United Kingdom’s defence concepts and doctrines, global strategic trends – and the current edition looks out to 2040 – they see climate change as one of those major impacts on all our lives in the next 30 years. They look at where there is existing stress in the world; and by that I mean things like food shortages, health, oil, water or energy shortages, etcetera. It also shows that these stresses are coincidental with where we’ve seen conflict in the recent past. And it’s where climate change can have its greatest effect – or is likely to have its greatest effect – and by that I’m talking about the second or third order of consequences of climate change. In other words, loss of land, loss of livelihood and how it impacts on people and how they react to that.
So, in a sense we’re compounding the problems of those countries by adding further stress to it and that’s a bolt that really runs between the Tropics of Capricorn and Cancer, and through the equator in the centre, across the world from South America right through to Africa, the Middle East, the Indian Subcontinent and to South East Asia.
GP: I guess you’re identifying countries which may have weak governments, but any government is probably vulnerable to rising food and water prices, and energy prices, and shortages of all of those commodities.
NM: I think that you’re right. It will challenge a developed country as much as it would challenge a developing or a more vulnerable country, and that is one the issues. And I think the problem is compounded in that part of the world I’ve just described because through the centre of it run the world’s trade routes. And all our nations, to a greater or lesser extent, are importers or exporters of goods and, in Europe and the United States, we are dependent on energy from that area.
So, these are all the sorts of challenges. Now, what does it mean and why have you got a serving military guy doing it? Well, there are a number of factors in that. One is that, as with many of the emerging threats and challenges we face – cyber, for example, energy security, climate security, or climate change – these are not issues that need to be dealt with by one government department or one organisation across government, across national and international boundaries. And we in Defence have a part to play along with many other organisations.
One of the issues I thought I touched on earlier is this issue of more extreme weather effects which may result in military aid being required. That’s immediate relief after natural disasters. You’ve seen that. We saw that in Pakistan with the floods. You’ve seen it in Haiti after the earthquake. And if the impact of climate change is a requirement to do more of that, then we need to be prepared for that.
GP: What about preparing for future threats that you’ve identified?
NM: It is in our national interest and our partners’ interests to try and help build a capacity resilience in those countries that are going to be affected, to allow the governments of these countries to be able to cope with those challenges, whether it’s in the case of finding alternative crops that are resistant to climate change, that allows them to feed people, or whether it’s in other areas, such as energy. In all of those issues, that capacity-building and the development of resilience is key if we’re going to prevent conflict.
GP: Do you get the impression that lawmakers would be more willing or pay closer attention to what a military person tells them rather than, say, a scientist, or an environmentalist, or a lay person?
NM: Well, I think each of us has something to offer. I think, perhaps, people are listening to the military perspective because of the novelty of looking at climate change as a security issue. But at the end of the day, we are one of a number of professionals offering professional opinions.
GP: And are there similar roles to yours with other governments?
NM: Each country does it in its own way. I think I’m probably unique in the sense, as far as I’m aware… I mean, maybe I’m the only one who is working with three government departments, Ministry of Defence, the Commonwealth Office and the Department of Energy and Climate Change, as a serving military officer, but there are many people involved in many countries. My colleagues in America and the American military look at these issues. I think in each country… there’s a growing awareness of these new and emerging threats, these perhaps unconventional threats that we need to address in a slightly different fashion from where we’ve done it in the past.
GP: And what is the purpose of your trip to Australia? What are you telling the officials that you are meeting?
NM: I’m here to listen and learn. I want to get a better understanding of what Australia’s perspective is on these issues, both globally and within the region. I’ll explain where the UK is, and why we’ve come to the conclusions we have, and hopefully, you know, we can find common ground. And if there are areas where we’re not necessarily of a similar mind, maybe we’ll discuss those and debate those.
GP: And what does the UK see as the specific threats in our immediate region here in south-east Asia and the Pacific?
NM: I think if you look at the signs, and other predictions of the impact of climate change, it’s clear that rising sea levels is an issue and, in this region, there are a number of low lying islands which may find themselves becoming affected by it, as well as the Mekong Delta and the rice crops in that area. You’ve got a problem of rising sea levels, but you’ve also got reduced yields due to increased temperature. If the acidity of the seas increases, that can affect fish stock for fish yields for fishermen.
GP: Does that mean, then, that the military will be called upon to reinforce or to bolster, sort of, what may be perceived as, sort of, weak or vulnerable governments?
NM: Not necessarily to bolster them. And we may find that we are one of a number of agencies helping them to build and develop capacity – perhaps, for example, in a coast guard or something like that.
GP: What about energy security? That seems to be as equal a factor as others implicated by climate change?
NM: I think the two are inextricably linked. Certainly in the UK military we’re looking at this. We’ve been too dependent on fossil fuels and our consumption of energy is a vulnerability because of the logistical support to enable us to continue that consumption. We need to be more energy efficient and we need to look to alternative energy sources. And we also recognise that, as the availability of oil decreases because of demand from the development of countries and population growth, the price is going to go up, so we need to be alert to that and be looking for ways of reducing the costs.
GP: And have you got any specific recommendations about these sorts of energy actions? Do you have a particular preference for alternative energies, be they renewables or more nuclear?
NM: At the end of the day each country must make a judgement on what it wants as its energy policy. It’s not for others to tell them what to do and then much it will depend on the resources available, the technology that’s available. In the UK we’ve clearly decided how we’re going to do it and we have a mixed bag. We’re not putting all of our eggs in one basket. Other countries will do it in a different fashion. In parts of the world where there’s lots of wind, lots of sun, then you can have a different approach from other parts of the world where perhaps there’s less of it.
GP: And just getting back to the sorts of scenarios that you’ve been painting, are they very much like those disaster scenarios that we’ve seen in Pakistan and Haiti and elsewhere or do you paint other scenarios where there is serious conflict because of competition for scarce resources; water, food, etcetera?
NM: There is becoming increased pressure for resources. It’s very hard to attribute a conflict to exactly one cause or other and I think it is fair to say that the lack of resources is likely to increase tension in regions around the world and we need to be alert to that.
GP: What about the issue of mass migration, because that surely will be an impact if food or water is running out or sea levels are rising; how do you cope with that?
NM: It comes back to the fact that this is about food and the capacity and the resilience in the countries likely to be affected, so that they can look after their own people and avoid those mass migrations and to recognise that it is a challenge. One of the ways of addressing that is to improve the capacity of the nations where the people live, as it is today.
GP: Terrific. Admiral, thank you very much for joining us today.
A senior British Royal Navy officer who is currently the UK's Climate and Energy Security Envoy, Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti tells Climate Spectator editor Giles Parkinson that:
– His role is to assess the potential security implications of climate change as a 'threat multiplier';
– Climate change and energy security are inextricably linked;
– Increased lack of resources – fuel, food and water, in particular – is likely to increase tension in regions around the world;
– creased incidence of extreme weather events may result in more military aid being required
try and help build a capacity resilience in those countries that are going to be worst affected by climate change.
Giles Parkinson: Admiral, you were appointed as UK Special Envoy on Climate and Energy Security in September 2009, if I’m right. So why were you appointed and what’s your role?
Neil Morisetti: It was in the run-up to Copenhagen, but it was part of a wider situation; a growing awareness – as well as the environmental and the socioeconomic and other aspects of climate change – of the potential security implications of climate change. You may recall that, in 2007, the UN Security Council debated it. Some work was done in a Washington think tank on climate change implications for national security in the same year, and our national security strategy in 2008 and 2009 reflected climate change as one of the major challenges of the future, not necessarily as a direct cause of conflict, but as a threat multiplier, increasing the stresses in parts of the world that were already affecting stress.
GP: What sort of scenarios have those reports painted that you’re seeing in your role?
NM: If I take a publication like the United Kingdom’s defence concepts and doctrines, global strategic trends – and the current edition looks out to 2040 – they see climate change as one of those major impacts on all our lives in the next 30 years. They look at where there is existing stress in the world; and by that I mean things like food shortages, health, oil, water or energy shortages, etcetera. It also shows that these stresses are coincidental with where we’ve seen conflict in the recent past. And it’s where climate change can have its greatest effect – or is likely to have its greatest effect – and by that I’m talking about the second or third order of consequences of climate change. In other words, loss of land, loss of livelihood and how it impacts on people and how they react to that.
So, in a sense we’re compounding the problems of those countries by adding further stress to it and that’s a bolt that really runs between the Tropics of Capricorn and Cancer, and through the equator in the centre, across the world from South America right through to Africa, the Middle East, the Indian Subcontinent and to South East Asia.
GP: I guess you’re identifying countries which may have weak governments, but any government is probably vulnerable to rising food and water prices, and energy prices, and shortages of all of those commodities.
NM: I think that you’re right. It will challenge a developed country as much as it would challenge a developing or a more vulnerable country, and that is one the issues. And I think the problem is compounded in that part of the world I’ve just described because through the centre of it run the world’s trade routes. And all our nations, to a greater or lesser extent, are importers or exporters of goods and, in Europe and the United States, we are dependent on energy from that area.
So, these are all the sorts of challenges. Now, what does it mean and why have you got a serving military guy doing it? Well, there are a number of factors in that. One is that, as with many of the emerging threats and challenges we face – cyber, for example, energy security, climate security, or climate change – these are not issues that need to be dealt with by one government department or one organisation across government, across national and international boundaries. And we in Defence have a part to play along with many other organisations.
One of the issues I thought I touched on earlier is this issue of more extreme weather effects which may result in military aid being required. That’s immediate relief after natural disasters. You’ve seen that. We saw that in Pakistan with the floods. You’ve seen it in Haiti after the earthquake. And if the impact of climate change is a requirement to do more of that, then we need to be prepared for that.
GP: What about preparing for future threats that you’ve identified?
NM: It is in our national interest and our partners’ interests to try and help build a capacity resilience in those countries that are going to be affected, to allow the governments of these countries to be able to cope with those challenges, whether it’s in the case of finding alternative crops that are resistant to climate change, that allows them to feed people, or whether it’s in other areas, such as energy. In all of those issues, that capacity-building and the development of resilience is key if we’re going to prevent conflict.
GP: Do you get the impression that lawmakers would be more willing or pay closer attention to what a military person tells them rather than, say, a scientist, or an environmentalist, or a lay person?
NM: Well, I think each of us has something to offer. I think, perhaps, people are listening to the military perspective because of the novelty of looking at climate change as a security issue. But at the end of the day, we are one of a number of professionals offering professional opinions.
GP: And are there similar roles to yours with other governments?
NM: Each country does it in its own way. I think I’m probably unique in the sense, as far as I’m aware… I mean, maybe I’m the only one who is working with three government departments, Ministry of Defence, the Commonwealth Office and the Department of Energy and Climate Change, as a serving military officer, but there are many people involved in many countries. My colleagues in America and the American military look at these issues. I think in each country… there’s a growing awareness of these new and emerging threats, these perhaps unconventional threats that we need to address in a slightly different fashion from where we’ve done it in the past.
GP: And what is the purpose of your trip to Australia? What are you telling the officials that you are meeting?
NM: I’m here to listen and learn. I want to get a better understanding of what Australia’s perspective is on these issues, both globally and within the region. I’ll explain where the UK is, and why we’ve come to the conclusions we have, and hopefully, you know, we can find common ground. And if there are areas where we’re not necessarily of a similar mind, maybe we’ll discuss those and debate those.
GP: And what does the UK see as the specific threats in our immediate region here in south-east Asia and the Pacific?
NM: I think if you look at the signs, and other predictions of the impact of climate change, it’s clear that rising sea levels is an issue and, in this region, there are a number of low lying islands which may find themselves becoming affected by it, as well as the Mekong Delta and the rice crops in that area. You’ve got a problem of rising sea levels, but you’ve also got reduced yields due to increased temperature. If the acidity of the seas increases, that can affect fish stock for fish yields for fishermen.
GP: Does that mean, then, that the military will be called upon to reinforce or to bolster, sort of, what may be perceived as, sort of, weak or vulnerable governments?
NM: Not necessarily to bolster them. And we may find that we are one of a number of agencies helping them to build and develop capacity – perhaps, for example, in a coast guard or something like that.
GP: What about energy security? That seems to be as equal a factor as others implicated by climate change?
NM: I think the two are inextricably linked. Certainly in the UK military we’re looking at this. We’ve been too dependent on fossil fuels and our consumption of energy is a vulnerability because of the logistical support to enable us to continue that consumption. We need to be more energy efficient and we need to look to alternative energy sources. And we also recognise that, as the availability of oil decreases because of demand from the development of countries and population growth, the price is going to go up, so we need to be alert to that and be looking for ways of reducing the costs.
GP: And have you got any specific recommendations about these sorts of energy actions? Do you have a particular preference for alternative energies, be they renewables or more nuclear?
NM: At the end of the day each country must make a judgement on what it wants as its energy policy. It’s not for others to tell them what to do and then much it will depend on the resources available, the technology that’s available. In the UK we’ve clearly decided how we’re going to do it and we have a mixed bag. We’re not putting all of our eggs in one basket. Other countries will do it in a different fashion. In parts of the world where there’s lots of wind, lots of sun, then you can have a different approach from other parts of the world where perhaps there’s less of it.
GP: And just getting back to the sorts of scenarios that you’ve been painting, are they very much like those disaster scenarios that we’ve seen in Pakistan and Haiti and elsewhere or do you paint other scenarios where there is serious conflict because of competition for scarce resources; water, food, etcetera?
NM: There is becoming increased pressure for resources. It’s very hard to attribute a conflict to exactly one cause or other and I think it is fair to say that the lack of resources is likely to increase tension in regions around the world and we need to be alert to that.
GP: What about the issue of mass migration, because that surely will be an impact if food or water is running out or sea levels are rising; how do you cope with that?
NM: It comes back to the fact that this is about food and the capacity and the resilience in the countries likely to be affected, so that they can look after their own people and avoid those mass migrations and to recognise that it is a challenge. One of the ways of addressing that is to improve the capacity of the nations where the people live, as it is today.
GP: Terrific. Admiral, thank you very much for joining us today.
NM: It’s a pleasure, Giles. Thanks very much.