Climate Security and Intelligence Operations: A Global Perspective

Executive Summary: Climate security and intelligence operations must adapt to climate-driven geopolitical risks. From the melting Arctic to the drought-stricken Sahel and low-lying coasts of Southeast Asia, changing climate conditions are fueling resource competition, mass displacement, and state fragility. Defense and intelligence agencies worldwide are adapting strategies to address climate-driven conflicts, protect critical supply chains, and harden infrastructure. In fragile states, climate stressors exacerbate conditions for extremism and terrorism. At the same time, intelligence-led disaster early warning and response efforts are becoming essential as natural catastrophes intensify. Cyber threats are emerging as adversaries seek to exploit vulnerabilities in energy grids and water systems under climate stress. This report examines key intersections of climate security and intelligence operations, and offers policy recommendations for integrating climate risk into national security planning, bolstering international cooperation, and improving early warning systems.

Geopolitical Risks of a Changing Climate

A farmer tends to drought-stricken land in the Sahel. Intensifying droughts in this region have fueled conflicts between herders and farmers, contributing to instability and extremist violence.

Climate change acts as a “threat multiplier” that aggravates resource scarcity, displacement, and geopolitical tensions. In sub-Saharan Africa’s Sahel, decades of rising temperatures and erratic rainfall have inflamed competition over land and water. Prolonged drought has devastated crops and herds, driving farmer-herder conflicts and forcing migrations. Ministers at the 2020 Berlin Climate and Security Conference pointed to the Sahel as an example of how worsening drought has spurred communal violence and fueled insurgencies. In the Lake Chad Basin, the lake’s area has shrunk by over 90% in the last half-century, intensifying fights over water and displacing millions. These conditions undermine state stability and create vacuums that extremist groups exploit (as discussed later in this report).

In Southeast Asia, climate impacts likewise threaten stability. Sea-level rise, intense cyclones, and heatwaves endanger densely populated coastlines and agricultural zones. A recent analysis highlights that climate change is transforming Southeast Asia’s economic and social landscape, stressing water and food supplies for tens of millions. The result is heightened social instability and a risk of internal conflict – in effect, climate change is a “threat multiplier” in the region. Governments in Southeast Asia are increasingly wary that mass displacement from low-lying megacities or failed harvests could trigger humanitarian crises and cross-border pressures. For example, the Mekong River’s changing flow (due to both climate variability and upriver damming) has raised tensions among countries that depend on it for irrigation and fisheries.

Meanwhile, the Arctic is becoming a new theater of geopolitical competition as it warms at roughly twice the global rate. The dramatic loss of sea ice – declining about 13% per decade – is opening strategic sea lanes and access to vast untapped resources. An estimated 90 billion barrels of oil and 30% of the world’s untapped natural gas lie beneath the Arctic, along with significant rare earth and mineral deposits. As the Northern Sea Route becomes seasonally navigable (cutting transit time between Europe and Asia by ~40%), Arctic coastal states and even near-Arctic countries like China are vying for influence. Russia has moved quickly to assert its interests: it has elevated its Northern Fleet to a special military district, reopened dozens of Soviet-era Arctic bases, and deployed advanced missiles and icebreakers to secure its stake. These moves signal how climate change can stoke great-power friction – Moscow and Beijing’s Arctic push has already prompted NATO strategists to recalibrate defenses in the High North.

Mass Migration is an increasingly likely consequence of these intertwined pressures. Droughts, failing crops, and extreme storms are uprooting populations on an unprecedented scale. By one World Bank estimate, three regions (Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, and Southeast Asia) could generate over 140 million climate migrants by 2050 absent urgent climate and development action. For instance, after Cyclone Idai struck Mozambique in 2019 – one of the strongest storms on record for the region – nearly 1.85 million people needed assistance and 146,000 were displaced from their homes. Rising seas threaten to inundate low-lying nations (from Pacific atolls to Bangladesh), potentially creating stateless climate refugees. Sudden influxes of migrants can destabilize border regions and strain the resources of receiving states, leading to frictions between neighbors. Intelligence assessments warn that after 2030, climate-fueled migration and water shortages will increase the risk of conflict in several hotspots. In sum, the geopolitical map is being redrawn by climate stress – requiring policymakers to anticipate and mitigate security risks that span from the icecaps to the equator.

Military Strategies for a Climate-Changed World

Floodwaters and storm debris at Naval Station Norfolk (Virginia) after a tropical cyclone in 2006. Coastal bases like Norfolk face frequent flooding as seas rise and storms strengthen, spurring military investments in resilient infrastructure.

Militaries and intelligence services are increasingly treating climate change as a core national security concern, not just an environmental issue. Defense agencies are reorienting strategies, operations, and infrastructure to respond to climate-driven instability:

• Responding to Climate-Driven Conflicts: The military is often called to respond when climate impacts cross the threshold into crisis or conflict. Prolonged droughts and resource clashes can escalate into insurgencies or civil war (as seen in places like Mali, Sudan’s Darfur, and Syria), sometimes necessitating peacekeeping or humanitarian intervention. In the United States, the Department of Defense officially recognized in 2010 that climate change affects missions, plans, and installations, declaring that climate considerations must be “prioritized” in defense policy. This acknowledgment has evolved into action: today, combatant commands include climate-induced instability in their theater security assessments, and scenario planning often features climate variables (such as mega-droughts or coastal urban flooding) as catalysts for conflict. The U.S. military’s 2022 National Defense Strategy explicitly notes climate change will increase demands on military resources and can aggravate conflict drivers.
• Securing Supply Chains and Resources: Climate change is prompting militaries to secure access to critical resources and diversify supply chains. For example, as countries pursue green energy, demand is surging for rare earth elements (REEs) and critical minerals used in batteries, solar panels, and advanced defense technologies. Currently, China controls a large share of global rare earth mining and processing. U.S. strategists have flagged this as a strategic vulnerability, especially as rivals could use resource access as leverage. A proposed strategy is diversifying rare earth supply chains – through stockpiling, developing domestic or allied sources, and recycling – to ensure the military-industrial base isn’t beholden to any single foreign supplier. Climate change also threatens supply routes; melting Arctic ice, for instance, may alter global shipping patterns, but also raises the risk of new chokepoints and the need for search-and-rescue or policing of new sea lanes. Intelligence agencies are monitoring how competitors position themselves in resource-rich areas – e.g. Russian and Chinese investments in mining in Africa or the Arctic – to inform supply chain security planning.
• Adapting Military Infrastructure: Around the world, military bases are on the front lines of climate impacts. Many critical installations sit in coastal or drought-prone areas. The U.S. Navy’s largest base, Norfolk, already faces frequent tidal flooding; over the past century, local sea level at Norfolk has risen 18 inches and is projected to rise up to 1–3 more feet by 2050. This threatens base access (flooded roads, compromised piers) and damages infrastructure during storms. To maintain readiness, militaries are fortifying facilities against extreme weather – what the U.S. Navy calls building a “resilient shore.” For example, engineers at Norfolk and other bases are constructing berms and floodwalls, elevating critical equipment, and using natural buffers like restored wetlands to absorb storm surge. New bases and barracks are being built with future climate conditions in mind (e.g. higher wind load standards, better drainage). In Alaska and the High North, melting permafrost is cracking runways and roads; the U.S. Army is investing in permafrost-resistant foundations and monitoring to stabilize Arctic facilities. Across the services, “climate-proofing” efforts also include hardening power and water systems on bases to ensure they remain operable during heatwaves, droughts or grid outages. Allies are taking similar steps: NATO has issued resilience guidelines for installations, and countries like the UK and Australia have audited bases for climate vulnerabilities. In short, adapting infrastructure is now seen as mission-critical to avoid erosion of military capacity from climate stress.
• Operational Posture and Planning: Climate trends are factoring into long-range defense planning. Militaries are recalibrating force posture – for instance, increasing naval presence in the Arctic to anticipate more traffic and potential disputes in newly ice-free waters. Humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HADR) has become a core mission set (addressed more in the next section), meaning forces need training and equipment for rapid response to natural disasters. Logisticians are accounting for how extreme heat could degrade troop performance or how drought could limit water supply for deployments. On the positive side, some armed forces are also seizing opportunities for innovation: the U.S. Army and Air Force have rolled out “operational energy” initiatives to use more fuel-efficient vehicles and deploy renewable power in the field, which both cuts emissions and improves endurance in remote areas. In sum, defense agencies recognize that climate change is altering the strategic landscape and are moving from analysis to action – securing critical resources, safeguarding supply lines, and investing in resilient forces and facilities to face the climate-changed future.

Climate Change, Counterterrorism and Extremism

Climate stress not only risks interstate conflict; it can also exacerbate conditions that foster terrorism and extremist violence, especially in fragile states. Destabilizing weather patterns – droughts, floods, crop failures – hit hardest in regions already grappling with poverty and weak governance. This can create a breeding ground of grievances and desperation that militant groups exploit.

Studies find that climate change amplifies drivers of radicalization. Resource scarcity, food insecurity, loss of livelihoods, and displacement can inflame intercommunal tensions and undermine faith in governments. As one analysis notes, climate change worsens the “underlying conditions conducive to radicalisation” and also gives extremist groups propaganda and recruitment opportunities. In countries ranging from Nigeria to Somalia to Iraq, extremist actors have woven climate-related woes into their narratives – casting themselves as providers of aid or justice where the state falters.

A case in point is Boko Haram and other jihadist groups in the Lake Chad and Sahel region. The rapid shrinking of Lake Chad devastated fisheries and farming livelihoods for communities in Nigeria, Niger, Chad, and Cameroon. As families lost their incomes and were displaced, Boko Haram found it easier to recruit young men with few alternatives. U.N. briefings have directly linked the area’s desertification and agricultural collapse to helping Boko Haram fill its ranks. Similarly, in Mali and Burkina Faso, militant groups have exploited farmer-herder conflicts (exacerbated by drought) to gain local support or at least acquiescence. Al-Shabaab in Somalia has taken advantage of chronic drought and famine – at times stepping in to distribute food or water in regions where the government’s presence is weak, thereby winning influence. As Ireland’s representative told the U.N. Security Council, poor government response to extreme weather “weakens the social contract…providing breeding grounds for terrorist groups”. In other words, when citizens see the state failing to help them survive a climate disaster, they may become more receptive to anti-government ideologies or protection offered by insurgents.

Terror groups also weaponize natural resources in their strategies. In Iraq and Syria, ISIS famously controlled dams along the Tigris and Euphrates, manipulating water flow to punish communities or reward loyalty. In West Africa, extremist factions have seized water points and extorted those who need access. A U.S. defense analysis noted that Violent Extremist Organizations “are weaponizing water” – for example, by cutting off communities from wells – to sow instability and force migrations. This not only entrenches their power locally but can spur larger refugee flows that distract or overwhelm national governments.

It’s important to note climate change is rarely a singular cause of terrorism – governance, ideology, and ethnic factors remain paramount. However, climate impacts interlink with these issues. Research underscores that climate change acts as a threat multiplier in terrorism contexts. Many top terror-affected countries (e.g. Afghanistan, Mali, Pakistan) are also highly climate-vulnerable. For instance, prolonged drought in Syria from 2007–2010 – the worst in recorded history there – led to crop failures and a mass migration of farming families to cities, aggravating socioeconomic tensions. This was one factor (among many political ones) that set the stage for Syria’s descent into civil war and the rise of ISIS. Likewise, in Sudan’s Darfur region, expanding desertification in the 1980s–90s deepened competition between herders and farmers, which interacted with ethnic divides and ultimately ignited a conflict referred to as the “first climate change war” by some observers. While militants in Darfur were initially motivated by local grievances, climate-change-driven scarcity undeniably fanned the flames of violence.

Intelligence and counterterrorism professionals are responding by integrating climate variables into their analysis of extremist threats. This includes monitoring how droughts, food price spikes, or storm disasters might create openings for terrorist recruitment or mobility. For example, intelligence agencies track refugee camps and displaced populations where extremists might try to radicalize vulnerable youths. In fragile states, anticipating “hot zones” where climate stress and conflict intersect can inform preventive action – such as bolstering community resilience or increasing development aid to drylands – as a part of counter-extremism strategy. The Security Council has even debated formalizing climate-security monitoring, though some members remain wary. As climate impacts grow, counterterrorism efforts will increasingly need to address not just the militants, but the environmental and humanitarian crises that help breed insurgency. A holistic approach – stabilizing livelihoods, improving resource management, and deploying timely relief – can undercut the narrative and recruitment appeal of extremist groups that thrive on government neglect in the face of climate disasters.

Disaster Response and Humanitarian Operations

Climate change is supercharging natural disasters, from mega-hurricanes to massive wildfires, and intelligence agencies play a key role in forecasting and responding to these events. The increasing frequency of climate-related disasters is straining military and humanitarian response systems worldwide, prompting a more proactive, intelligence-driven approach to disaster risk reduction.

Early Warning: Intelligence and meteorological agencies are enhancing early warning systems to predict climate-induced crises. Advances in satellite remote sensing, AI-driven climate modeling, and geospatial analysis now allow for better forecasting of extreme weather and its impacts. For instance, multi-hazard early warning systems integrate data from weather satellites, ocean buoys, and ground sensors to give more lead time before floods, droughts, or cyclones. National intelligence units often fuse such environmental data with on-the-ground human intelligence – for example, reports on crop health, reservoir levels, or population movements – to anticipate humanitarian emergencies. This intelligence can trigger preemptive actions: stockpiling food in areas likely to face crop failure, alerting peacekeepers in regions where a disaster could spark conflict, or evacuating populations before a cyclone hits. A notable initiative is the Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET) run by the U.S. (with intelligence community support), which analyzes climate and market data to project food insecurity hotspots, allowing aid agencies to act before famine sets in.

Rapid Response and Military Assistance: Despite better warnings, disasters still strike with increasing intensity, and militaries are often the only actors with the logistical capacity to respond at scale. In 2023, the United States experienced 28 separate climate-related disasters that caused nearly $100 billion in damage – in many cases, military units were mobilized to assist local responders in lifesaving efforts. From wildfire firefighting teams to Army engineers rebuilding washed-out roads, climate disasters are an “all-hands” mission. This trend is global: a tracking tool by the Center for Climate and Security documented 501 military deployments to climate-related disasters across 97 countries in just the 2.5 years between mid-2022 and early 2025 – averaging more than one deployment every two days. Such operations range from airlifting aid into typhoon-hit Southeast Asian islands, to peacekeepers delivering drought relief in Africa, to naval ships providing medical support after Caribbean hurricanes. Military intelligence helps coordinate these efforts by rapidly assessing damage (using drones and satellite imagery) and identifying priority needs and routes when civilian infrastructure and communications are knocked out.

Humanitarian agencies are also leveraging intelligence insights. For example, after Cyclone Idai in Mozambique (2019), mapping support from defense intelligence identified isolated villages cut off by flooding, guiding where helicopters should drop relief supplies. In the South Pacific, satellite surveillance of sea-level rise and storm patterns is helping nations like Fiji and Vanuatu plan relocations of villages before they are destroyed. Intelligence sharing through international frameworks (like the International Charter on Space and Major Disasters) allows countries to get critical satellite data for response even if they lack their own space assets.

Logistics and Health Security: Climate disasters often lead to secondary crises – disease outbreaks, lawlessness, or mass migration – which intelligence and military planners must anticipate. In the wake of extreme floods, for instance, there is risk of cholera or other epidemics. Intelligence-led epidemiological modeling can forecast where health aid is needed to prevent an outbreak from spreading. Security forces deployed after disasters also may need to manage civil unrest or conflict that can arise when communities compete for scarce relief resources. A classic example was after the 2010 Pakistan floods, where militant groups tried to assert control over aid distribution; understanding these dynamics was crucial to supporting an effective and fair response.

Additionally, climate-related disasters have necessitated international humanitarian interventions. Consider the case of Syria’s civil war, where a severe drought prior to the conflict contributed to instability; as war unfolded, subsequent climate extremes (like harsh winters in refugee camps) demanded a massive international relief intelligence effort to support millions of refugees. Intelligence agencies contributed by mapping refugee flows and working with organizations like UNHCR to ensure humanitarian corridors remained open.

For the intelligence community, the upshot is that traditional boundaries between security and disaster relief are blurring. Climate-induced disasters can rapidly become security issues if mismanaged, and conversely, conflict zones are made more complex by climate shocks. Thus, intelligence operations increasingly adopt a “dual-use” approach: assets and analysis meant for security are applied to humanitarian aims. Reconnaissance aircraft might be re-tasked to survey hurricane damage, or signals intelligence could be used to map the communications needs of first responders. By predicting and preparing for disasters, intelligence services help save lives, reduce economic damage, and prevent affected regions from sliding into chaos that adversaries could exploit.

Cyber and Infrastructure Security in the Climate Era

As governments fortify physical infrastructure against climate threats, a parallel challenge has emerged in the digital realm: cyber threats targeting critical infrastructure during times of climate stress. Energy grids, water systems, and other vital networks are vulnerable not only to storms and heatwaves but also to malicious cyber actors looking to exploit those very emergencies.

Power Grids Under Dual Threat: Electric grids worldwide are being tested by more extreme weather, which causes blackouts by downing power lines or spiking demand beyond capacity. In the U.S., extreme weather is already the leading cause of power outages, and climate change is worsening this risk. Heatwaves, for instance, force households to max out air conditioning, straining the grid’s peak load. At the same time, state-sponsored hackers and cyber criminals have shown growing interest in targeting power infrastructure. The convergence is alarming – a grid stressed by a heatwave or storm may be more susceptible to disruption if a cyberattack strikes key control systems at that moment. As one assessment bluntly put it, “some of the largest threats (to the grid) are extreme weather and cybersecurity”, underscoring that both must be managed together. Intelligence agencies are working with utility companies to identify weak points (both physical and digital) in the energy supply. For example, during the 2021 Texas winter freeze, grid operators and federal intel analysts monitored cyber chatter closely, concerned that adversaries might attempt to compound the crisis. Fortunately, a major cyber incident did not occur then, but the event served as a warning. Going forward, protecting energy security means building resilience to climate and cyber shocks – from investing in grid modernization (smart grids and microgrids that can isolate failures) to running joint cyber-weather emergency drills.

Water Systems and Smart City Infrastructure: Water treatment facilities, dams, and smart city sensors are also at risk. Prolonged droughts can push water utilities into emergency modes of operation, while floods can knock out pumping stations – moments a hacker might seize to infiltrate systems. Indeed, there have been worrying examples: in 2021, an unknown attacker gained access to a Florida city’s water treatment plant and attempted to poison the water supply by raising lye levels in the water. An alert operator caught the breach in time. The incident highlighted “endemic failures in the cybersecurity of the US water sector”. Now imagine a scenario where a region is in severe drought and water is scarce – a cyberattack that shuts off pumps or opens a dam unexpectedly could turn an environmental crisis into a social catastrophe. Similarly, in 2020, Israel reported foiling an attempted cyber intrusion into its water control systems, widely suspected to be an Iranian operation, which if successful could have altered chlorine dosing. These incidents demonstrate that critical infrastructure is a tempting target, especially when populations are already under duress from climate events.

Cyber-Espionage and Data Integrity: Another facet is how climate change is driving a massive deployment of new technologies (like sensors, flood controls, smart grids) which themselves expand the cyber attack surface. Adversarial intelligence services might seek to compromise climate monitoring systems or emergency alert networks to sow confusion. For instance, falsified data in an early warning system could cause either a false alarm (inducing panic and costly evacuations) or, worse, a missed alarm. Ensuring the integrity of climate and disaster-related data is therefore a national security priority. During active disaster responses, secure communication networks are vital – and hostile actors might try jamming or hacking coordination systems. NATO and other militaries are now incorporating cyber defense into disaster response exercises for this reason.

Furthermore, geopolitics of energy transition introduces new cyber risks: As nations race to deploy renewable energy (solar, wind) and electric vehicles to cut carbon emissions, they become more dependent on digital control systems and rare mineral supply chains. The FBI and others have warned that renewable energy infrastructure (like solar farms and battery storage sites) face growing cyber threats. An attack on a large solar inverter farm, timed during a heatwave when grid reserve margins are low, could trigger cascading blackouts. Intelligence agencies are thus expanding cooperation with the private sector utilities to harden systems, share threat intelligence, and require stronger cybersecurity for critical infrastructure. Some are even exploring “active cyber defense” measures to preempt adversary operations against grids and pipelines during climate disasters.

In summary, the intersection of climate and cyber security is a 21st-century hybrid threat: natural forces and human adversaries each amplify the impact of the other. A holistic security posture is needed – one that treats safeguarding power, water, and communications infrastructure as both an engineering challenge and an intelligence/cyber challenge. This might include developing contingency plans for “black start” recovery of the grid if a cyberattack and storm happen simultaneously, or deploying backup communication systems (like satellite phones or mesh networks) for first responders in case mainstream networks are compromised. The worst-case scenarios can often be prevented with foresight: for example, knowing through intelligence which hacker groups or nations are developing capabilities against SCADA (industrial control) systems gives an opportunity to patch vulnerabilities before a climate crisis hits. Close international collaboration will also be key, since cyber incursions often cross borders – a breach in one country’s grid can impact neighbors on a shared network. Therefore, climate security in the modern era must encompass not only the natural environment but the digital systems that societies rely on.

Policy Recommendations

Climate change is no longer a peripheral issue for national security – it is a central risk that intelligence communities and militaries must systematically address. Below are policy-oriented recommendations for integrating climate security into intelligence and security operations, fostering international cooperation, and strengthening early warning:

1. Mainstream Climate Risk in Intelligence Assessments: National intelligence agencies should incorporate climate change impacts into all major assessments and estimates. This means treating climate factors as integral to analyses of political stability, conflict hotspots, and terrorism – not as a separate stovepipe. For example, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence was directed in 2021 to produce a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) specifically on climate security, and such efforts should continue regularly. Intelligence officers should be trained to evaluate how extreme weather, crop failures, or migration pressures could alter a country’s security landscape. Organizationally, agencies might create dedicated climate security fusion cells bringing together regional analysts with experts in climate science. The goal is to ensure policymakers receive forward-looking insight on which states or regions are most at risk of climate-related instability before crises erupt.

2. Enhance Early Warning Systems through Technology and Data Integration: Governments should invest in cutting-edge capabilities for forecasting climate-security threats. This includes leveraging artificial intelligence and big data to develop multi-hazard early warning systems that integrate meteorological forecasts with social and economic indicators. For instance, an early warning model could combine drought forecasts with satellite images of crop health and price data to predict food insecurity and potential unrest months ahead. Intelligence agencies can partner with scientific institutions to improve predictive models and scenario planning (e.g., war-gaming a 2°C or 3°C warmer world and its security implications). Crucially, warning intelligence must be actionable: if a warning shows a high risk of climate-driven conflict or disaster in Country X, there should be protocols for alerting decision-makers and triggering preventive measures (such as pre-positioning humanitarian aid or mediating resource-sharing agreements between rival groups). The “Early Warnings for All” initiative under the UN aims to ensure every person on Earth is protected by early warnings by 2027 – intelligence agencies should support this by sharing relevant information (declassified as needed) to international and local partners. Satellites and reconnaissance assets should be routinely used for environmental monitoring, and their data disseminated quickly to those who can act on it.

3. International Climate Security Cooperation: Climate change is a transnational threat that no single nation can manage alone. Intelligence and security agencies should deepen cooperation with allies and multilateral bodies to address climate-security challenges. This could involve joint intelligence working groups focused on specific regions (e.g., an Arctic security group sharing intel on shipping incidents or military build-ups related to climate) or global issues (like tracking climate-related migration flows). Sharing climate risk assessments with allies can build a common picture of threats and promote burden-sharing in response. For example, NATO has established a Climate Change and Security Center of Excellence to facilitate information exchange among member states. Similarly, regional organizations (ASEAN, African Union, etc.) could develop climate security risk maps for their areas. International exercises and training that simulate climate disaster scenarios with multi-country forces can improve coordination for real events. Information sharing agreements should be updated to include climate and environmental data – perhaps creating a classified international repository of satellite imagery and analysis for rapid use in crises. In unstable regions, coordinated diplomatic efforts are needed to address root causes: for instance, major powers could jointly support water-sharing treaties in drought-prone basins to preempt conflict. Overall, climate security should be elevated in diplomatic dialogues; much as counter-terrorism intelligence was widely shared post-9/11, we need a global coalition treating climate threats with similar urgency.

4. Climate-Proof Defense and Critical Infrastructure: Policymakers must ensure that adaptation and resilience are built into national security infrastructure and supply chains. This requires funding and guidance for the military to continue fortifying bases against climate impacts (floods, storms, wildfires) and to diversify supply chains for critical resources (fuel, food, rare minerals) that could be disrupted by climate events. Defense departments should regularly assess their installations worldwide for climate vulnerability and report on progress in mitigating risks. On the civilian side, governments should work with industry to harden critical infrastructure (power grids, water systems, communications networks) against both climate extremes and cyber threats. This might include establishing resilience standards (e.g., backup power requirements, flood defenses) and conducting “stress tests” of systems under combined climate-cyber attack scenarios. Intelligence agencies can contribute by identifying which infrastructure nodes adversaries might target during a natural disaster (for instance, pinpointing a key transformer substation whose failure would cause a regional blackout). Protective measures can then be prioritized for those nodes. In sum, resilience planning must become a core element of national security strategy – just as militaries plan for kinetic attacks, they must plan for climate shocks. Countries like Germany and Japan have recently made climate security a pillar of their national security strategies, which is a model others should follow.

5. Whole-of-Government Climate Security Task Forces: To break down silos, governments could establish high-level interagency task forces on climate security. These would bring together intelligence, defense, diplomatic, development, and scientific agencies to formulate integrated responses. For example, if climate models predict a severe multi-year drought in a volatile country, the task force can synchronize efforts: diplomats push for conflict resolution and resource agreements, development agencies ramp up aid and climate adaptation projects, while defense/ intel prepare contingency plans for peacekeeping or evacuation if needed. Embedding climate analysts in regional policy teams (e.g., having a climate adviser in the State Department’s Africa bureau and the relevant combatant command) will ensure continuous exchange of information between scientists and strategists. Scenario exercises at the Cabinet level (for instance, simulating a concurrent climate disaster and security crisis) can help policymakers identify gaps in authorities or resources before a real crisis hits.

6. Invest in Research and Community Resilience to Counter Extremism: Given the links between climate stress and instability, nations should invest in programs that build resilience in fragile communities as a form of preventive security. This means supporting research on the climate-conflict nexus to better understand where interventions will be most effective. Intelligence assessments might highlight, for example, a particular province where drought is pushing farmers into cities – a signal to fund livelihood diversification or water management projects there, which can mitigate recruitment by extremist groups. Incorporating climate adaptation into counter-insurgency strategy (often termed “winning hearts and minds”) can yield security benefits. Simple steps like helping villages install drought-resistant wells or better irrigation can improve the local economy and government legitimacy, undercutting militants’ narrative. International development agencies and militaries should coordinate on such “climate peacebuilding” initiatives. As Norway’s delegate to the UN noted, peace efforts should be climate-sensitive and climate action conflict-sensitive – an insightful principle for policymaking.

7. Continuous Monitoring and Reporting: Finally, establish metrics and reporting mechanisms to gauge progress on climate security integration. Annual threat assessments should explicitly evaluate climate risks to national security. Legislatures can require defense and intel agencies to report on how climate considerations are being implemented (for example, reporting how many early warnings were issued or how climate informed an operation’s planning). This accountability will keep the issue high on the agenda. Security institutions should also engage external experts – academia, think tanks, local NGOs – for independent evaluations and to incorporate the latest science. The security community must remain agile as climate science evolves, updating its plans for worst-case scenarios (such as more rapid ice melt or higher-end sea level projections) and low-probability but high-impact events (like an abrupt climate tipping point).

In conclusion, climate change demands a paradigm shift in how we approach security and intelligence. It is encouraging that many countries and organizations have started to move in this direction – Australia, the EU, Germany, and others have created climate-security frameworks and risk assessments. The U.S. and allies are increasingly framing climate action as essential for peace and stability. But much more can be done to institutionalize climate foresight in national security decision-making. By investing in robust early warning systems, strengthening cooperation, and proactively shoring up vulnerable states and systems, policymakers can mitigate the worst security outcomes of climate change. The intelligence and defense communities have a vital supporting role: providing the foresight, analysis, and operational capability to navigate this era of unprecedented global change. As the world marches into an uncertain climatic future, integrating climate security is not just a niche issue – it is mission-critical for safeguarding international peace and security in the 21st century.

Sources:

1. Brodka, M. (2021). Arctic Competition, Climate Migration, and Rare Earths: Strategic Implications… The Strategy Bridge – on Arctic resources, sea routes, and rival powers.
2. Climate Refugees (2020). Climate, Conflict, Migration in the Sahel – on Sahel drought fueling conflict and UNSC concerns

climate-refugees.org

3. Brookings (2019). The climate crisis, migration, and refugees – on projected climate migration by 2050.
4. National Intelligence Council (2021). Climate Change and International Responses Increasing Challenges to US National Security (NIE Key Judgments) – on climate as a risk to stability after 2030.
5. Belfer Center (2021). Climate Change, Intelligence, and Global Security (Report) – on US DNI climate NIE and policy shift.
6. Vision of Humanity (2023). Climate Change, Terrorism and P/CVE – on how climate exacerbates radicalization factors

visionofhumanity.org

7. Ibrahim, H. O. – UN Security Council briefing (2020) – on Lake Chad’s 90% shrinkage aiding Boko Haram recruitment.
8. Think Global Health (2022). The World’s First Climate Change Conflict Continues – on Darfur’s drought, land use changes, and conflict.
9. Defense One (2021). DOD, Navy Confront Climate Change in Virginia – SecDef Austin quote on climate threat to missions and Navy base adaptation measures.
10. Department of Defense News (2021). Efforts in Climate Adaptation – on military base resilience (Norfolk sea level rise).
11. American Security Project (n.d.). Threats to the Energy Grid – on extreme weather and cyber as top threats to power grid

americansecurityproject.org

12. RUSI (2021). US Water Plant Suffers Cyber Attack – on Florida water system hack attempt

rusi.org

13. Center for Climate & Security (2025). MiRCH Tracker Update – on frequency of military deployments to climate disasters (501 in 97 countries)

climateandsecurity.org

14. E3G (2023). Climate is now a security issue for countries everywhere – on integrating climate risks into security strategies and need for cooperation/early warning

e3g.org

.