Why Training The Military In Climate Change Makes Sense

 

The Daily Telegraph has continued its campaign of encouraging its readership to be scared about things that don’t impact them in the slightest this week by reporting the outrageous ‘news’ that the Royal Navy is looking at giving training in climate change. Apparently this a bad thing. Cue lots of angry commentators moaning about wokery and demanding that the military is used to defend the UK and not act as a tool of social engineering. Is this the case, or in fact is there more to this than meets the eye?

The more complex reality is that whether the armed forces like it or not, climate change is something that will need to be factored into practically every aspect of military life in the years to come. This will range from tactical issues around kit through to strategic trends that will shape how the UK as a nation engages on the global stage. It is not something that can be ignored or dismissed as ‘Whitehall woke nonsense’. Indeed the Defence Select Committee has written extensively on this, issuing a report in 2023 about this subject that is well worth a read. Similarly, most other major armed forces have conducted similar studies or assessments to understand the risks to them and their operations. The MOD climate change roadmap, eloquently setting out the risks and challenges can be found HERE

UK MOD © Crown copyright 2024

The changes wrought through an evolving climate can be felt in a variety of different ways. At a practical level the UK has historically maintained forces capable of operating in reasonably moderate climates of Europe – predominantly mild, wet, and not subject to extremes of temperature. While it has maintained some equipment and stockpiles for other regions, this has been more limited in number and required specialist training – for example, arctic warfare training in the Norwegian winter (currently underway as part of NATO EX COLD RESPONSE), jungle training in Belize and Brunei and desert training with allies in locations like Jordan. Equipment is intended for use, in the main, for the NATO theatre and is not always well adapted to climatic shifts or deployments to other climatic extremes.

At a strategic level this matters because changes in climate will impact on wider international stability. For example, rising sea levels will put some islands under water, forcing mass population displacement. Changes to weather patterns have led to droughts, for example in Africa droughts have led to the collapse of the farming patterns pursued by migratory populations, and in turn led to their moving to new locations, for example in Somalia. Desperate to find income and with resource pressure growing, the resulting outcome is a rise in  piracy as people take to the water to find a way to gain money to buy food that is skyrocketing in price and fishery stocks collapse. The Royal Navy has found itself deployed for years in the region handling counter piracy duties as a result, in part due to climate change elsewhere in Africa. More widely melting sea ice could lead to the opening up of year round sea routes across the arctic, increasing the potential for maritime trade, but also increasing the opportunity for conflict over territory and resources.

Operationally changes to climate are already impacting on how the military trains and operates globally. The constant rise in temperatures in Cyprus means that now training in this strategically critical location is impossible for parts of the year due to heat, while the rise in freak weather events may lead to an increase in demands for humanitarian assistance both in  the UK and globally. Shifts in human population may lead to mass migration of people, requiring interventions, such as the ongoing operations in the Med to assist where migrants are found sailing in desperately unsafe vessels – drawn there by a collapse in the economies in their home regions due to climate change leading to inflation, unemployment and loss of food. Shifts in winter patterns means that the UK may now need to consider carefully how it deploys to the high north, as part of its wider arctic strategy, potentially needing to be ready to deploy more equipment more often to monitor and support deterrence operations to prevent mischief making by others, enabled as better weather increases opportunities for operations.

Tactically climate change will force real choices on the military around investment in equipment. Over 1000 new armoured vehicles are due to enter service over the next decade – will they be able to operate in the climatic extremes likely to be encountered in some crisis scenarios, or will they be unfit for purpose? Does this mean more money has to be spent future proofing them against contingencies, possibly meaning less can be purchased, and what is the impact on the design – what are you trading off capability wise to integrate these climate measures in? This isn’t a hypothetical ‘what if’ – the Royal Navy is already seeing the impact of rising sea water temperatures in the Gulf, beyond what it reasonably expected to encounter, and impacting on ships habitability and performance. Trying to send elderly mine hunters to sea in the height of a Gulf summer may push them beyond the limits of habitability, impairing their operational value and reducing our national ability to contribute strategically to a campaign. It may sound minor, but these decisions can, and will, impact on the UK’s ability as a nation to deploy globally and play a leading role in international security.

This is why it is so important to understand these risks because every member of the armed forces is likely to find their service careers directly impacted by the effects of climate change, be it dealing with uncomfortable to use uniforms, or seeing their houses not being fit for occupation due to temperature extremes. They may find themselves deployed far from home to bring help to others in an emergency, or have their leave cancelled to assist with flood recovery here in the UK. To that end reminding people of it, why it is so important and so central to everything the military does matters a great deal.

The problem is that this has been seized on as ‘proof’ of some kind of agenda of ‘wokeism’ (presumably by these mysterious ultra left Britain hating civil servants that apparently run the MOD despite no one ever having knowingly met one in a position of power). There is outrage that the Royal Navy is now looking at this as an outcome, even though the proposals are just that, proposals. As best as can be seen, given it comes from a leaked document, the RN is possibly adding a short online training session to add to its wider training (also delivered online) to remind personnel of the importance of understanding climate change and how it can impact the military.

It may be helpful to remember that lots of military training is delivered online these days covering everything from safe use of desks to cold weather / hot weather environmental training or reminders about operational security. Personnel are expected to take this on a varying basis from a ‘one off’ to annual refreshers. Adding a short training course that may only need to be taken once does not seem a particularly onerous problem. Of course to those opposed to what they see as social engineering in the military, this is more proof that the ‘woke’ are taking over.  The problem with this ‘war on woke’ is that when you look at the opposition to it online, the people opposed to it usually end up demonstrating exactly why so much of this training is needed in the way that they manage to casually insult and offend anyone who has the audacity to not be a white male member of the military. This is usually accompanied by demands that they have no problem with equal treatment on merit, but they don’t see the point of all this nonsensical training, and who is likely to join up anyway given all the ‘Britain hating brainwashing going on’?

UK MOD © Crown copyright 2024

Sadly, if you look at the many reports which exist and graphically illustrate the scale of the problems faced by non-white male members of the military, you see that it is very necessary. Equal treatment on merit is fine if everyone is genuinely treated equally – unfortunately there are still huge biases in the system, and far too many incidents where people are treated appallingly. The Atherton report details the systematic abuse, assaults and sexual violence inflicted on female service personnel over many years. The recent letter leaked to the Guardian signed by female service and civil service personnel, detailing a horrific catalogue of attacks, sexual molestation, inappropriate conduct and treatment of women as second class citizens in MOD head office is not only deeply worrying, but also a sign that the problems are deep rooted. There is no point saying ‘I believe in equal treatment’ if the culture you actively support, sustain and believe in results in its members being treated as second class compared to their male colleagues.

Some will see this as yet more ‘snowflakery’ because it wasn’t like that in their day. In fact that’s a very good thing because a lot of the conduct in the past would be wholly unacceptable today, and potentially result in criminal charges. If you want to moan about ‘back in my day it was okay’ ask yourself honestly if you’d be happy for your son or daughter (or grandchild) to experience the exact same treatment as you went through. The answer is likely to be no, which is why challenging and changing is so important.  Others moan that the current generation won’t join and won’t fight. This too is nonsense, applications are high, and when the Army launched its fantastic ‘snowflakes’ advertising campaign, it led to one of the highest levels of expressions of interest ever seen in an Army recruiting campaign (and a 71% increase in applications). Strangely if you target the audience you want to attract with messages that resonate to them, they’ll respond in kind. Recruiting has changed and needs to work hard to bring in new recruits who are far more digitally savvy, conscious of their environment and care about issues that are different to their predecessors. They’re still joining up and fighting like lions, or doing their nation proud – just look at how in the last month the Royal Navy has seen its ships in action with the crews operating under huge threats and doing their job to perfection. They’ve always had what it takes, they just communicate and think differently to the previous generation, as has been the way since time immemorial.

There are also moans about how time shouldn’t be spent trying to attract people that won’t join anyway – which seems an attempt to say ‘I’m not a racist but’. The fact is that many minority ethnic communities don’t currently have a tradition of service in the military in the UK, but that can change over time. But it takes a long time to build the culture and community where people feel that a career in the armed forces is for them – if you look at the accounts of racism in the military people experienced in the 1940s and 50s, is it any wonder that some will tell their children and grandchildren ‘don’t join up as the armed forces are racist’,  and too often that message was heard. The reason training and culture shift matters is that this is a generational long mission to shift attitudes and help people of all backgrounds and beliefs realise that they have a place in the military – over time as people go through, and experience fair and genuinely equal treatment, they’ll tell their children and grandchildren to join the military, rather than avoid it.

This matters because if you look at the birthrate of the UK, it is slowing down and new births are increasingly coming from ethnic minority groups or families who migrated here from elsewhere in recent years. If you create the conditions where the armed forces are seen as hostile to people who are not white males, you have slammed the door in the face to anyone interested in joining but realises they are not wanted or welcome. Culture shifts take decades, and this is about ensuring that through small changes now, the recruiting pool in the 2050s – 2100s are keen to join up and serve, rather than relying on an ever smaller group of angry white men to join the infantry. If you want to recruit engineers, cyber security experts, pilots and others, you need to look at the whole of the recruitment demographic, understand that it is slowly but inexorably changing and take appropriate steps to target it. If not then gapping will only increase, and the finest minds of the next generation will be lost to us.

This author makes no apology for coming across as ‘woke’ because we are in a battle for talent now and in the future. The author passionately cares about the military, the armed forces and ensuring they are fit to serve not just today, but for the decades ahead. It is clear that this will only happen if real change happens, and that means embracing ideas, culture shifts and behavioural changes that some people will find uncomfortable. But if this isn’t done, the alternative is even worse, and we find ourselves as a nation without the people we need to keep us safe in future. The stakes could not be higher, we need to do everything possible to recruit and retain everyone. This will make people uncomfortable at times, but something has to be done to break the cycle of decline, to ensure that people have a service experience where they want to stay for as long as possible, not leave due to racist bullying, sexual violence or being career fouled for the audacity of having children. The small amount of training being done, the investment in new career policies and strategies and trying to ensure that there is an honest conversation is vital here. It deserves more support than being dismissed as ‘hard left Britain hating wokery’ because that is utter nonsense. It is being delivered by people who serve their nation, love their country and are trying to do everything in their power to secure its long-term future – they deserve support, not insults from on high.