Climate Deterrence: Avoiding a Climate Fallout

The idea and concept of Climate Deterrence was unveiled by the author of this piece at the 4th Workshop on Contemporary Security Issues organized and conducted by the Faculty of Aerospace and Strategic Studies at Air University, Islamabad. Climate Deterrence is something that did not exist out there in the literature. Climate Deterrence is a thought, a concept, a research topic that took shape and then was developed over two years in consultation with Dr. Adil Sultan. The concept has now been put on the metaphorical paper and is online for all to read – Climate Deterrence; a framework to avoid a climate fallout.

Climate change and deterrence are both well studied areas. A matter of ecology, ecosystems, environmental science, and developmental studies on the one hand and the threat of nuclear weapon use on the other. Two seemingly and supposedly diametrically opposed areas on the spectrum. One thing that is highly non—traditional and one thing completely traditional. Nevertheless, each possesses a lot to offer the other.

Introducing Climate Deterrence

Climate change is recognized as a critical global security issue, and interestingly it can even impact traditional security and nuclear deterrence capabilities. This is evidenced in US DOD’s Quadrennial Defense Review documents, in the Carnegie Endowment paper that elucidates how climate change impacts nuclear deterrence itself through “mission-altering impacts on nuclear deterrence,” and various other published sources elucidate these connections. Not only that but during conversations of the author with various officers from the three military services, the threats from climate change to notions of traditional security is undeniable. Unfortunately, those sources prefer to stay anonymous and thus cannot be quoted.

Given the sheer scale of the threat of climate change, innovative strategic and security thinking is necessitated, one that is not intrinsically chained down by traditional notions of what is most imperative for security and what is the way to address such threats. Climate Deterrence fills this gap and need, and it is placed at the intersection of a threat existential enough to change the face of life as we know it and the dire need for something that leads towards substantive action.

Understanding Climate Deterrence

At its core, Climate Deterrence’s framework employs deterrence by punishment while leveraging political, legal, diplomatic, and economic measures to shape the behavior of state and non-state actors that are the highest emitters and coerce compliance with the Paris Agreement’s climate action goals through a coalition of the willing. Membership of the coalition would be contingent on demonstrable progress towards those goals and more importantly consist of those that are most affected. It is important to see the logic that a small set of states and non-state actors are among the highest emitters, meaning that that set of actors is, to put it simply, most responsible for climate change and, in conjunction, for the devastation that has and will take place as a resultant. It is a crime of the highest degree and a severe violation of the right to survive and exist of each and every state that suffers the most from climate change, especially given the marginal role they play in terms of contributing to climate change. Thus, this coalition of the willing will seek to deter the atrocities being committed by those that are causing and worsening climate change.

Any effective deterrence framework must consist of “red lines” for triggering punitive actions, along with the other Cs of deterrence (credibility, capability, and communication) which would be crucial in this case as well; including but not limited to the capability, credibility, and communication of those punitive measures. Therefore, Climate Deterrence would involve “red lines” for triggering punitive actions against the highest contributing state and non-state actors towards climate change.

Those redlines would include and revolve around meeting the commitments made at numerous Conference of Parties (COP) and the Paris agreement. The complete details of the framework which elaborate the redlines and the exact punitive measures is a matter for a later research publication since an Op-Ed provides limited space. Additionally, creating and developing a new and full fledge framework that takes ground and momentum requires the work of many publications and at many different levels. Nevertheless, a succinct yet complete picture of the concept is necessary. To that effect, Climate Deterrence’s framework would also employ a norm building approach for creating political and diplomatic pressure, as employed during the genesis and till the actualization of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

Communicating and demonstrating the consequences of inaction through the use of punitive measures as part of the Climate Deterrence framework, some of which are elaborated below, it is possible to encourage and facilitate collaboration for a more sustainable future and coerce states to move from inaction to action. The complete set and specifics of those punitive measures can only come to light once the coalition of the willing is established and their respective state representatives agree on those punitive measures. Some suggested punitive measures as part of the climate deterrence framework include:

• Taking the violating state to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) since their pollution and GHG emissions constitute a crime against all humanity with devastating impacts. This advisory opinion of the ICJ can build pressure on its own but also serve as the basis for action in the International Criminal Court (ICC).
  • A violating state would be determined based on said state’s failure to meet substantive action regarding its commitments towards the net zero targets and pledges in the Paris Agreement based as per the 5-year global stocktake cycle and through the use of the enhanced transparency framework (ETF).
• States with no net zero targets will be prohibited from trading with the coalition partners.
• Trade limitations for the violating states and the highest emitters with the coalition parties as trade with those countries would be prioritized that are not the biggest contributors of climate change.
  • Trade with coalition partners for non-coalition partners would be subject to varying tiers of tariff and trade preferences based on the non-coalition country’s level of climate action in relation to the mechanisms and guidelines in the Paris agreement.
• Trade agreements to the effect of a basket of currencies determined by the coalition members as opposed to trade in the currency of the highest emitters.
• Political and diplomatic pressure to coerce highest emitting states towards climate action.

The logic of the punitive measures being to raise and inflict (if it comes to that) costs for not taking the prescribed actions and for not meeting the commitments made in multiple COPs and the Paris Agreement. The reason being that so far, the moral logics and scientific argumentation has fallen on deaf ears. Israel’s aggression and war against Palestine, the associated boycott movements of 2023 and 2024, and the results of what concerted political action and pressure can achieve regarding Palestine have highlighted that collective action from willing communities or states can result in billions of financial losses and drive movement forward which is more substantive than the current situation. So, similarly, even if coalition countries reduce their trade with those out of the coalition by a small percentage, the losses would still be estimated to hundreds of billions of USD. Therefore, a coalition of the willing can inflict heavy financial and political costs on the states that fail to follow desired actions as listed above and additional substantive costs through the punitive measures above.

The Climate Deterrence framework will communicate and demonstrate that inaction on climate change carries a hefty price tag because to communicate and reach the minds of those in power who see all through the lens of finance and cost, the argumentation, logic, and language must be of finance and cost. To that end, currently, the biggest polluting states are China, with more than 14 million tons of CO₂ released; United States, with 6 million tons of CO₂; India, with 3.5 million tons of CO₂; European Union 3.4 million tons of CO₂; Russia, with 2 million tons of CO₂. Looking at the non-state sector it is evident that the fossil fuel industry is the most responsible with only a 100 companies being the source of more than 70% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions since 1988.

Moderate estimates have shown that the global cost of climate change damage will be between $1.7 trillion and $3.1 trillion per year by 2050. Analyzing costs from the highest emitting countries, those that are to be deterred (such as U.S., China, Russia, Brazil, and India), it shows that they have collectively caused $6 trillion in global economic losses between 1990 and 2014. Swiss Re has estimated that effects of climate change can be expected to shave 11-14 % off global economic output by 2050 compared with growth levels without climate change, which amounts to as much as $23 trillion in reduced annual global economic output worldwide. Evidence regarding the economic cost of climate change and how, simply said, it makes us lose lots and lots of money significantly and by dealing with it, we stand to gain money. This is not only a financial cost but comes with cascading security impacts.

The other end of the spectrum is those whose language is hardcore or traditional security and as highlighted much earlier, climate change can and does affect traditional security meaning it endangers military security, territorial integrity, and nuclear deterrence. The depths of how and why are best addressed in a separate piece. Given the sheer existential nature of this threat, Climate Deterrence emerges as a strategic imperative akin to nuclear deterrence, offering a framework to avoid a climate fallout.