Summary

Empirically, militaries’ relationship with the ecological environment is intricate. Militaries contribute to ecological damages and climate change because they are significant polluters and major greenhouse gas emitters. But militaries also respond to environmental and climate change. This includes implementing strategies to decrease their impact on the environment, adapting their capabilities to better navigate the effects of climate change, and intervening in crises that are linked with climate-related issues. However, these responses are often complex and may have unintended political, social, economic, and other consequences. To categorize these complex interactions appropriately requires a framework that differentiates military activities based on (a) whom they affect, (b) why they are undertaken, and (c) how they are conducted.

These ecological entanglements of military forces can be examined through various theoretical frameworks including securitization, riskification, and climatization. Critical security studies highlight the evolution of security discourses to include non-military concerns and the securitization and/or riskification of climate change by different actors. Critiques of military responses to climate change underscore concerns regarding their effectiveness in addressing root causes and their potential for injustice. Simultaneously, security actors like militaries are gradually climatizing their security portfolios by integrating climate change into their tactics, operations, and strategies.

As a consequence, the intersection of ecological and military matters provides a multifaceted subject for academic inquiry. Five priorities for future research can be identified. First, it is important to continue critical assessments of ecologically relevant military activities related to climate action pillars such as energy transition, adaptation efforts, and knowledge production and dissemination. Second, it is urgent to explore the potential ramifications of military involvement in climate geoengineering futures, navigating risks, governance structures, and security implications. Third, research must strongly emphasize the importance of diverse geographies and epistemes in studying military–climate entanglements, inclusive perspectives, and interdisciplinary approaches. Fourth, critical research is needed on defense-related activities within international climate governance frameworks to analyze their roles, contributions, and challenges. Finally, research on ecologically relevant military activities should explore its linkages to the Anthropocene literature by contextualizing the contributions of military activities to climate-related insecurity and historical entanglements, including colonialism. This research agenda provides a roadmap for scholars to unpack the complexities of military–climate entanglements, offering insights for policy, academic, and military circles alike.