LATEST PRINTED ISSUE

LATEST FREELY ACCESSIBLE MATERIALS

Climate security and military activities: subject-object model of relationship

stmm. 2025 (3): 5-30

DOI https://doi.org/10.15407/sociology2025.03.005

Full text: https://stmm.in.ua/archive/ukr/2025-3/3.pdf

OLEKSANDR STEGNII, Doctor of Sciences in Sociology, Leading Research Fellow at the Department of Methodology and Methods of Sociology, Institute of Sociology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (12, Shovkovychna St., Kyiv, 01021)

o.stegniy@gmail.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7829-127X

Based on an interdisciplinary approach, the socio-structural aspects of climate change are investigated: social causes and consequences; social strategies for mitigation and adaptation; socio-political actors of public discourse. Particular attention is paid to the causal relationships between political and security manifestations of climate change. Two types of risks are distinguished: the first type is a consequence of the direct and indirect impacts of climate change, while the second one is caused by the impact of climate change on the social manifestations of maladaptation and energy transition. The subject-object model of the relationship between climate security and the organization of military activities is analyzed. The peculiarity of the dilemma of post-materialism for the sphere of military activity is noted, namely the opposition "environmentalism vs combat capability", which significantly complicates the decarbonization of the armed forces. The army's institutional reflection on climate change is the introduction of changes in the system of professional military education and the creation of a new structure in military units — climate intelligence. The main obstacle to civil-military cooperation is identified as the difference in organizational culture. The perspective of using the concept of "total defense" to optimize methods of hiring and integrating civilian and military personnel is emphasized.

Keywords: climate change; climate security; military activity; metabolic break; climate justice; ecological skepticism; climate security risks; сonception of “total defense”; decarbonization; climate intelligence

References:

  1. Barron, E., Sikorsky, E. (2024). Integrating Climate Change into Professional Military Education: Event Summary. Swedish Defence University.

  2. Bellamy, R. (2024). Dialogues on climate change. Dialogues on Climate Change, 1(1), 3-6. https://doi.org/10.1177/28768659241261298

  3. Berdntsson, J., Goldenberg, I., Von Hlatky, S. (2023). Total Defence Forces in the 21st Century. Montréal, Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780228019404

  4. Bharadwaj, R., Shakya, C. (Eds.). (2021). Loss and Damage Case Studies from the Frontline: A Resource to Support Practice and Policy. IIED. Retrieved from: https://www.iied.org/20551iied

  5. Bringel, B., Svampa, M. (2023). The Decarbonisation Consensus. Global Dialogue, 13(3), 29-31.

  6. Brulle, R.J., Carmich, J.T., Jenkins, J.C. (2012). Shifting public opinion on climate change: An empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S. 2002-2010. Climatic Change, 114, 169-188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0403-y

  7. Caniglia, B.S., Brulle, R.J., Szasz, A. (2015). Civil society, social movements, and climate change. In: R.E. Dunlap, R.J. Brulle (Eds.), Climate Change and Society (pp. 235-268). New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199356102.003.0008

  8. Carmin, J., Tierney, K., Chu, E., Hunter, L.M., Roberts, J.T., Shi, L. (2015). Adaptation to climate change. In: R.E. Dunlap, R.E. Brulle (Eds.), Climate Change and Society (pp. 164-198). New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199356102.003.0006

  9. Carolan, M. (2016). Society and the Environment: Pragmatic Solutions to Ecological Issues. Hachette: Avalon Publishing.

  10. Castañeda Carney, I., Sabater, L., Owren, C., Boyer, A.E., Wen, J. (2020). Gender-based violence and environment linkages. IUCN. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2021.20.en

  11. Climate Security Mechanism. Conceptual Approach. (2020). New York: UN Environment Program. Retrieved from: https://dppa.un.org/sites/default/files/csm_toolbox-2-conceptual_approach.pdf

  12. de Klerk, L., Shlapak, M., Gassan-zade, O., Korthuis, A. (2024). Climate Damage Caused by Russia's War in Ukraine. 24 February 2022-23. Initiative on GHG accounting of war. Report. Retrieved from: https://en.ecoaction.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Climate-Damage-Caused-by-War-24-months-EN.pdf

  13. Decarbonized Defense: The Need for Clean Military Power in the Age of Climate Change. (2022). International Military Council on Climate Security. Retrieved from: https://imccs.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Decarbonized-Defense-World-Climate-and-Security-Report-2022-Vol.-I.pdf

  14. Dunlap, R.E. (2013). Climate change skepticism and denial: An introduction. American Behavioral Scientist, 57, 691-698. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213477097

  15. Dunlap, R.E., Brulle, R.J. (Eds.). (2015). Climate Change and Society: Sociological Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199356102.001.0001

  16. Ehrhardt-Martinez, K., Rudel, T.K., Norgaard, K.M., Broadbent, J. (2015). Mitigating climate change. In: Dunlap, R.E., Brulle, R.J. (Eds.). Climate Change and Society (pp. 199-234). New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199356102.003.0007

  17. Frerks, G. (2016). Who are they? - Encountering international and local civilians in civil-military interaction. In: G. Lucius, S. Rietjens (Eds.), Effective Civil-Military Interaction in Peace Operations. Theory and Practice (pp. 29-44). Springer International Publishing AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26806-4_3

  18. Frerks, G. (2023). Climate security between acts of God and the anthropocene: Lessons from paradigmatic shifts in disaster studies. In: Climate Security and the Military. Concepts, Strategies and Partnerships (pp. 39-56). Leiden University Press. https://doi.org/10.24415/9789400604780-007

  19. Gevers, A., Tmusuya, T., Bukuluki, P. (2019). Why climate change fuels violence against women. Apolitical, 9 December. Retrieved from: https://apolitical.co/solution-articles/en/why-climate-change-fuels-violenceagainst-women

  20. IPCC. (2023). Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (Eds.)], (pp. 1-34).

  21. Islam, M.S., Kieu, E. (2021). Sociological perspectives on climate change and society: A review. Climate, 9, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli9010007

  22. Islam, S., Pei, Y.H., Mangharam, S. (2016). Trans-boundary haze pollution in Southeast Asia: Sustainability through plural environmental governance. Sustainability, 8, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8050499

  23. Jivnani, K.S., Kang, I. (2021). Building smarter military bases for climate resilient communities. GeoTech Cues, October. Retrieved from: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/geotech-cues/building-smarter-military-bases-for-climate-resilient-communities/

  24. Kousser, T., Tranter, B. (2018). The influence of political leaders on climate change attitudes. Global Environmental Change, 50, 100-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.03.005

  25. Lucius, G., Rietjens, S. (2016). Effective Civil-Military Interaction in Peace Operations. Cham: Springer International Publishing Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26806-4

  26. Mobjörk, M., Gustafsson, M.-T., Sonnsjö, H., Baalen van S., Dellmuth, L. M., Bremberg, N. (2016). Climate-related security risks. Towards an integrated approach. SIPRI. Stockholm University.

  27. Nugee, R. (2023). Deep Geothermal and Defence. The Climate Change & (In)Security Project. Retrieved from: https://cciproject.uk/resourcesblog/ozc4dr1xq8qdzfb1175jw81i6z0u1m

  28. Nugee, R., Selisny, L., Burwell, T., Clack, T. (2023). Defence evolution: Climate intelligence and modern militaries. In: Climate Security and the Military: Concepts, Strategies and Partnerships (pp. 57-74). Leiden University Press. https://doi.org/10.24415/9789400604780-008

  29. Pastor, M., Morello-Frosch, R. (2018). Gaps matter: Environment, health, and social equity. Generations: Journal of the American Society on Aging, 42(2), 28-33.

  30. Popescu, M.M. (2019). Models of communications in a military environment. Journal of Romanian Literary Studies. 17, 241-252.

  31. Robinson, M. (2018). Climate Justice: Hope, Resilience, and the Fight for a Sustainable Future. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

  32. Salleh, A. (2010). From metabolic rift to metabolic value: Reflections on environmental sociology and the alternative globalization movement. Organization & Environment, 23, 205-219. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026610372134

  33. Sikorsky, E. (2023). Warning on a warming planet: Integrating climate change into NATO's intelligence programs. In: C. Maternowski (Ed.), Navigating a Global Crisis: Climate Change and NATO (pp. 11-15). NATO Association of Canada.

  34. Skillington, T. (2019). Climate Change and Intergenerational Justice. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315406343

  35. Stegnii, O. (2012). A Sociological Reading of Nature. [In Ukrainian]. Kyiv: Environmental Education and Information Centre.

  36. Stegnii, O. (2022). Socio-ecological risks of the Russian-Ukrainian war. [In Ukrainian]. In: Ukrainian Society in the Conditions of War. Year 2022 (pp. 77-87). Kyiv: Institute of Sociology, NASU.

  37. Stegnii, O. (2023). The ecological context of modern warfare. [In Ukrainian]. In: Ukrainian society in the conditions of war. Year 2023 (pp. 209-240). Kyiv: Institute of Sociology, NASU.

  38. Stegnii, O. (2024). Environmental public opinion: methodological principles of research. [In Ukrainian]. Sociology: Theory, Methods, Marketing, 2, 111-136. https://doi.org/10.15407/sociology2024.02.111

  39. Studer, M. (2001). The ICRC and civil-military relations in armed conflict. International Review of the Red Cross, 83, 367-392. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1560775500105723

  40. Svampa, M., Acosta, A., Viale, E., Bringel, B., Lang, M., Hoetmer, R., Aliaga, C., Buitrago, L. (2023). Green pacts and the geopolitics of ecosocial transsitons. Global Dialogue, 13(1), 19-22.

  41. Swain, A. (2024). Climate Security. SAGE Publications Limited.

  42. Van Rensburg, W., Head, B.W. (2017). Climate change scepticism: Reconsidering how to respond to core criticisms of climate science and policy. Sage Open, 7(4), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017748983

  43. Von Lucke, F., Diez, T., Aamodt, S., Ahrens, B. (2021). The EU and Global Climate Justice: Normative Power Caught in Normative Battles. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003081517

  44. Wang, X., Lo, K. (2021). Just transition: A conceptual review. Energy Research & Social Science, 82. Retrieved from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214629621003832 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102291

  45. Weddig, C. (2022). Climate change denial & scepticism: A review of the literature. MediaWell, September 15. Retrieved from: https://mediawell.ssrc.org/research-reviews/climate-change-denial-skepticism-a-review-of-the-literature/ https://doi.org/10.35650/MW.3043.d.2022

  46. Сizreli, B., Ustun, A. (2023). Climate change: the role of sociology. Eurasian Research Journal, 5(1), 72-85. https://doi.org/10.53277/2519-2442-2023.1-05

Received 12.02.2025

Climate security and military activities: subject-object model of relationship

stmm. 2025 (3): 5-30

DOI https://doi.org/10.15407/sociology2025.03.005

Full text: https://stmm.in.ua/archive/ukr/2025-3/3.pdf

OLEKSANDR STEGNII, Doctor of Sciences in Sociology, Leading Research Fellow at the Department of Methodology and Methods of Sociology, Institute of Sociology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (12, Shovkovychna St., Kyiv, 01021)

o.stegniy@gmail.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7829-127X

Based on an interdisciplinary approach, the socio-structural aspects of climate change are investigated: social causes and consequences; social strategies for mitigation and adaptation; socio-political actors of public discourse. Particular attention is paid to the causal relationships between political and security manifestations of climate change. Two types of risks are distinguished: the first type is a consequence of the direct and indirect impacts of climate change, while the second one is caused by the impact of climate change on the social manifestations of maladaptation and energy transition. The subject-object model of the relationship between climate security and the organization of military activities is analyzed. The peculiarity of the dilemma of post-materialism for the sphere of military activity is noted, namely the opposition "environmentalism vs combat capability", which significantly complicates the decarbonization of the armed forces. The army's institutional reflection on climate change is the introduction of changes in the system of professional military education and the creation of a new structure in military units — climate intelligence. The main obstacle to civil-military cooperation is identified as the difference in organizational culture. The perspective of using the concept of "total defense" to optimize methods of hiring and integrating civilian and military personnel is emphasized.

Keywords: climate change; climate security; military activity; metabolic break; climate justice; ecological skepticism; climate security risks; сonception of “total defense”; decarbonization; climate intelligence

References:

  1. Barron, E., Sikorsky, E. (2024). Integrating Climate Change into Professional Military Education: Event Summary. Swedish Defence University.

  2. Bellamy, R. (2024). Dialogues on climate change. Dialogues on Climate Change, 1(1), 3-6. https://doi.org/10.1177/28768659241261298

  3. Berdntsson, J., Goldenberg, I., Von Hlatky, S. (2023). Total Defence Forces in the 21st Century. Montréal, Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780228019404

  4. Bharadwaj, R., Shakya, C. (Eds.). (2021). Loss and Damage Case Studies from the Frontline: A Resource to Support Practice and Policy. IIED. Retrieved from: https://www.iied.org/20551iied

  5. Bringel, B., Svampa, M. (2023). The Decarbonisation Consensus. Global Dialogue, 13(3), 29-31.

  6. Brulle, R.J., Carmich, J.T., Jenkins, J.C. (2012). Shifting public opinion on climate change: An empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S. 2002-2010. Climatic Change, 114, 169-188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0403-y

  7. Caniglia, B.S., Brulle, R.J., Szasz, A. (2015). Civil society, social movements, and climate change. In: R.E. Dunlap, R.J. Brulle (Eds.), Climate Change and Society (pp. 235-268). New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199356102.003.0008

  8. Carmin, J., Tierney, K., Chu, E., Hunter, L.M., Roberts, J.T., Shi, L. (2015). Adaptation to climate change. In: R.E. Dunlap, R.E. Brulle (Eds.), Climate Change and Society (pp. 164-198). New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199356102.003.0006

  9. Carolan, M. (2016). Society and the Environment: Pragmatic Solutions to Ecological Issues. Hachette: Avalon Publishing.

  10. Castañeda Carney, I., Sabater, L., Owren, C., Boyer, A.E., Wen, J. (2020). Gender-based violence and environment linkages. IUCN. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2021.20.en

  11. Climate Security Mechanism. Conceptual Approach. (2020). New York: UN Environment Program. Retrieved from: https://dppa.un.org/sites/default/files/csm_toolbox-2-conceptual_approach.pdf

  12. de Klerk, L., Shlapak, M., Gassan-zade, O., Korthuis, A. (2024). Climate Damage Caused by Russia's War in Ukraine. 24 February 2022-23. Initiative on GHG accounting of war. Report. Retrieved from: https://en.ecoaction.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Climate-Damage-Caused-by-War-24-months-EN.pdf

  13. Decarbonized Defense: The Need for Clean Military Power in the Age of Climate Change. (2022). International Military Council on Climate Security. Retrieved from: https://imccs.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Decarbonized-Defense-World-Climate-and-Security-Report-2022-Vol.-I.pdf

  14. Dunlap, R.E. (2013). Climate change skepticism and denial: An introduction. American Behavioral Scientist, 57, 691-698. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213477097

  15. Dunlap, R.E., Brulle, R.J. (Eds.). (2015). Climate Change and Society: Sociological Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199356102.001.0001

  16. Ehrhardt-Martinez, K., Rudel, T.K., Norgaard, K.M., Broadbent, J. (2015). Mitigating climate change. In: Dunlap, R.E., Brulle, R.J. (Eds.). Climate Change and Society (pp. 199-234). New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199356102.003.0007

  17. Frerks, G. (2016). Who are they? - Encountering international and local civilians in civil-military interaction. In: G. Lucius, S. Rietjens (Eds.), Effective Civil-Military Interaction in Peace Operations. Theory and Practice (pp. 29-44). Springer International Publishing AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26806-4_3

  18. Frerks, G. (2023). Climate security between acts of God and the anthropocene: Lessons from paradigmatic shifts in disaster studies. In: Climate Security and the Military. Concepts, Strategies and Partnerships (pp. 39-56). Leiden University Press. https://doi.org/10.24415/9789400604780-007

  19. Gevers, A., Tmusuya, T., Bukuluki, P. (2019). Why climate change fuels violence against women. Apolitical, 9 December. Retrieved from: https://apolitical.co/solution-articles/en/why-climate-change-fuels-violenceagainst-women

  20. IPCC. (2023). Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (Eds.)], (pp. 1-34).

  21. Islam, M.S., Kieu, E. (2021). Sociological perspectives on climate change and society: A review. Climate, 9, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli9010007

  22. Islam, S., Pei, Y.H., Mangharam, S. (2016). Trans-boundary haze pollution in Southeast Asia: Sustainability through plural environmental governance. Sustainability, 8, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8050499

  23. Jivnani, K.S., Kang, I. (2021). Building smarter military bases for climate resilient communities. GeoTech Cues, October. Retrieved from: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/geotech-cues/building-smarter-military-bases-for-climate-resilient-communities/

  24. Kousser, T., Tranter, B. (2018). The influence of political leaders on climate change attitudes. Global Environmental Change, 50, 100-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.03.005

  25. Lucius, G., Rietjens, S. (2016). Effective Civil-Military Interaction in Peace Operations. Cham: Springer International Publishing Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26806-4

  26. Mobjörk, M., Gustafsson, M.-T., Sonnsjö, H., Baalen van S., Dellmuth, L. M., Bremberg, N. (2016). Climate-related security risks. Towards an integrated approach. SIPRI. Stockholm University.

  27. Nugee, R. (2023). Deep Geothermal and Defence. The Climate Change & (In)Security Project. Retrieved from: https://cciproject.uk/resourcesblog/ozc4dr1xq8qdzfb1175jw81i6z0u1m

  28. Nugee, R., Selisny, L., Burwell, T., Clack, T. (2023). Defence evolution: Climate intelligence and modern militaries. In: Climate Security and the Military: Concepts, Strategies and Partnerships (pp. 57-74). Leiden University Press. https://doi.org/10.24415/9789400604780-008

  29. Pastor, M., Morello-Frosch, R. (2018). Gaps matter: Environment, health, and social equity. Generations: Journal of the American Society on Aging, 42(2), 28-33.

  30. Popescu, M.M. (2019). Models of communications in a military environment. Journal of Romanian Literary Studies. 17, 241-252.

  31. Robinson, M. (2018). Climate Justice: Hope, Resilience, and the Fight for a Sustainable Future. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

  32. Salleh, A. (2010). From metabolic rift to metabolic value: Reflections on environmental sociology and the alternative globalization movement. Organization & Environment, 23, 205-219. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026610372134

  33. Sikorsky, E. (2023). Warning on a warming planet: Integrating climate change into NATO's intelligence programs. In: C. Maternowski (Ed.), Navigating a Global Crisis: Climate Change and NATO (pp. 11-15). NATO Association of Canada.

  34. Skillington, T. (2019). Climate Change and Intergenerational Justice. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315406343

  35. Stegnii, O. (2012). A Sociological Reading of Nature. [In Ukrainian]. Kyiv: Environmental Education and Information Centre.

  36. Stegnii, O. (2022). Socio-ecological risks of the Russian-Ukrainian war. [In Ukrainian]. In: Ukrainian Society in the Conditions of War. Year 2022 (pp. 77-87). Kyiv: Institute of Sociology, NASU.

  37. Stegnii, O. (2023). The ecological context of modern warfare. [In Ukrainian]. In: Ukrainian society in the conditions of war. Year 2023 (pp. 209-240). Kyiv: Institute of Sociology, NASU.

  38. Stegnii, O. (2024). Environmental public opinion: methodological principles of research. [In Ukrainian]. Sociology: Theory, Methods, Marketing, 2, 111-136. https://doi.org/10.15407/sociology2024.02.111

  39. Studer, M. (2001). The ICRC and civil-military relations in armed conflict. International Review of the Red Cross, 83, 367-392. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1560775500105723

  40. Svampa, M., Acosta, A., Viale, E., Bringel, B., Lang, M., Hoetmer, R., Aliaga, C., Buitrago, L. (2023). Green pacts and the geopolitics of ecosocial transsitons. Global Dialogue, 13(1), 19-22.

  41. Swain, A. (2024). Climate Security. SAGE Publications Limited.

  42. Van Rensburg, W., Head, B.W. (2017). Climate change scepticism: Reconsidering how to respond to core criticisms of climate science and policy. Sage Open, 7(4), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017748983

  43. Von Lucke, F., Diez, T., Aamodt, S., Ahrens, B. (2021). The EU and Global Climate Justice: Normative Power Caught in Normative Battles. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003081517

  44. Wang, X., Lo, K. (2021). Just transition: A conceptual review. Energy Research & Social Science, 82. Retrieved from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214629621003832 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102291

  45. Weddig, C. (2022). Climate change denial & scepticism: A review of the literature. MediaWell, September 15. Retrieved from: https://mediawell.ssrc.org/research-reviews/climate-change-denial-skepticism-a-review-of-the-literature/ https://doi.org/10.35650/MW.3043.d.2022

  46. Сizreli, B., Ustun, A. (2023). Climate change: the role of sociology. Eurasian Research Journal, 5(1), 72-85. https://doi.org/10.53277/2519-2442-2023.1-05

Received 12.02.2025

LATEST PRINTED ISSUE

LATEST FREELY ACCESSIBLE MATERIALS

} } } } }