Presentation short abstract

Defence planning faces high levels of uncertainty and climate change adds more complexity, shaping both the causes and character of warfare. How can defence scientists strengthen evidence for capability decisions and engage in a way that is generative, reflexive, and morally responsible?

Presentation long abstract

Political ecology has long challenged securitised framings that cast climate change as a linear “threat multiplier”. This presentation takes that critique seriously and questions how defence scientists can engage with these perspectives in a way that is generative, reflexive, and morally responsible? Defence planning faces high levels of uncertainty and climate change adds more complexity, shaping both the causes and character of warfare. My role, as a defence scientist, is to strengthen evidence for capability decisions, but this is not neutral. Choices about data, definitions, and frameworks embed politics: whose security counts, and on what terms? Rather than defend the status quo, I propose a layered approach that opens space for dialogue: combining critical ethics (guardrails against securitisation and appropriation), systemic risk modelling (to capture non-linear climate impacts), and institutional diagnosis (that addresses issues caused by short-termism and dispersed responsibilities undermine adaptation). Empirically, I will draw on work to develop a conceptual taxonomy and a dynamic, recursive model, adapted from the spirit of Planetary Boundaries, capable of mapping how vulnerabilities and adaptive capacities manifest across temporal and organisational scales. My interest is in how we can develop meta-theoretical openness that can move beyond critique-versus-practice and become a shared project that respects political ecology’s insights while addressing the operational realities of climate security and the institutional logics of national security.