“Peace Through Strength” Means Preparing for Climate Change
How climate change denial is bad policy and a threat to national security
First, Some Administrative Stuff
Don’t forget that our book club kicks off next week! We’ll be reading Not the End of the World by Hannah Ritchie. For Week 1, the week of April 6th, I’m planning to focus on the Introduction and Chapter 1 on sustainability. I’ll share more details in the Chat section soon.
I’m really excited about this book because after reading reviews and thumbing through it, it seems to offer a digestible, and maybe even hopeful, take on what’s happening with environmental policy & outcomes. I hope you’ll join us or jump in whenever you’re able!
Let’s Talk About Climate Change
I’m starting to get some thicker skin and sea legs for what’s been happening with environmental policy and regulations at the federal level. So, I thought we could broach this subject by examining what’s been going on with ignoring or outright denying climate change, especially within the Department of Defense, and what that means for our national security.
One reason I want to start with climate change and the Department of Defense is that, while it's important to highlight the dangerous actions taking place, it’s also the perfect topic to wax poetic about why economics is such a powerful tool.
Economics helps explain why climate change is happening in the first place (i.e., market failures), how we measure the damage and decide when to act, and what the most effective and efficient policies could be once we do. Climate change is a systems problem, not just an environmental issue, and economics is one of the best lenses we have for tackling it.
And yet, despite how much we know, we’re seeing more and more efforts to ignore or erase climate science, especially in red states and federal policy circles. But the comments coming from Pete Hegseth have been particularly tough to hear. He’s claimed the Department of Defense isn’t in the business of climate change, calling it “crap” and suggesting it’s not part of the military’s core mission. The Pentagon has also reportedly canceled over 90 climate-related studies.
It’s not just Pete Hegseth. At a recent Senate hearing on national security threats, Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence, also downplayed climate change, saying it doesn’t pose a direct risk. Despite growing evidence that extreme weather, global instability, and energy insecurity are already shaping U.S. military priorities, climate change was noticeably absent from this year’s official Annual Threat Assessment.
It was only a few years ago, in 2022, that the Pentagon requested $3.1 billion for climate resilience and adaptation. That budget proposal included funding for protecting bases, increasing operational readiness under changing conditions, and investing in clean energy technologies that enhance energy independence.
It’s a striking shift that signals just how far climate risks have been pushed off the radar at the highest levels of government.
Those omissions and rhetoric might score political points, and sure, it might feel easier to pretend it’s not happening, but science and economics don’t disappear just because we close our eyes. And frankly, it’s not aligned with the DOD’s own strategic framework.
Comfort in denial. Consequences in Reality
I’d really like to give Trump & co the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they’re not intentionally ignoring the risks because the instinct to look away isn’t just political. It can also be psychological.
In economics, specifically behavioral economics, we discuss psychological distance, solution aversion, and lack of efficacy. These concepts help explain why people, even smart ones, fail to act on long-term risks like climate change.
Psychological distance means the problem feels far away.
Solution aversion means we deny the problem because we don’t like the fix.
Lack of efficacy means people feel like nothing they do matters, so why bother?
All three concepts are likely influencing how people respond to climate risks. Unfortunately, though, climate change is happening, whether or not it feels immediate or solvable. It’s a physical force, not a political one.
All that happens when you cancel studies, scrap infrastructure resilience, and stop preparing is to increase your vulnerability. That’s just bad risk management.
So, as an economist who thinks a lot about systems and long-term risk, I want to discuss a few things that matter for national security.
Climate Change Is a National Security Issue
Let’s start with the mission of the Department of Defense which is to “deter war and ensure the security of the United States, its allies, and its interests.” Climate change is one of the clearest and most predictable threats to that mission.
And I’m not simply referring to melting ice caps or polar bears. Climate change is actively damaging infrastructure, destabilizing regions, and requiring military resources to support increasingly frequent disaster response missions.
Here are a few examples:
Coastal military bases like Naval Station Norfolk, the world’s largest naval base, are already experiencing flooding from rising sea levels and stronger storm surges. Rebuilding and reinforcing this infrastructure is expensive and constant.
Wildfires have directly threatened military bases, especially in the western U.S., forcing evacuations, damaging training grounds, and reducing operational readiness during fire seasons.
Extreme heat is reducing operable training days and damaging equipment. When it’s 110°F on the tarmac there are higher maintenance and repair costs, safety risks to personnel, and compromised effectiveness.
Global instability is made worse by climate-driven food and water shortages, particularly in vulnerable regions. These pressures fuel migration, conflict, and terrorism, all of which directly affect U.S. strategic interests.
Energy security becomes more fragile under extreme weather conditions, from damaged grids to disrupted fuel supply chains.
And the cost? Military installations are expected to spend $387 billion over the next 25 years just to deal with climate impacts both proactively and reactively. That number alone should raise eyebrows for anyone who cares about long-term defense budgeting (see my post on the federal debt).
These example impacts show that climate change is, in many ways, like a slow-moving war. And we’re choosing not to fight it.
“Peace Through Strength” Requires Foresight
Let’s come back to Pete Hegseth’s favorite phrase: “Peace through Strength.”
If you truly believe that strength deters conflict, then you must invest in preparation. You must acknowledge risk. And you must stop wasting taxpayer money rebuilding infrastructure that keeps getting wiped out because we won’t build for a hotter, more volatile planet.
Denying the existence of climate change or giving in to the psychological barriers that make it feel distant or unsolvable doesn’t make it go away. It only makes us weaker, less ready, more reactive, and far more vulnerable.
The way I see it, what’s happening at the federal level isn’t just about disagreement.
It’s about willful neglect.
It’s about ignoring evidence.
And it’s about putting politics over preparedness.
Climate change is happening, with or without Pete Hegseth’s & Tulsi Gabbard’s permission. The longer we pretend otherwise, the more damage we’ll face.
To me, that sounds more like surrender than a strategy.
We can’t fight every battle, so we have to pick the ones that matter most to us. If climate change is high on your priority list, check out some organizations below to get involved or learn more.
Advocacy & Action
Citizens’ Climate Lobby (CCL): A grassroots advocacy group focused on bipartisan climate solutions, especially carbon pricing, offers training, local chapters, and ways to meet with elected officials. I’ve volunteered my time with them in the past (writing policy briefs & lobbying for carbon pricing) and found them to have one of the best formulas for talking to ALL groups and people.
The Climate Leadership Council: Advocates for a carbon dividend plan supported by a broad range of entities. I’ve had and continue to have serious concerns about their carbon pricing model, but we can get into that another day. I still think they are worth looking into.
350.org: A global movement focused on climate justice and ending fossil fuel dependence. They offer ways to join local actions or online campaigns.
Additional Climate Information
Resources for the Future (RFF): A think tank working on environmental economics and policy design, including carbon taxes, adaptation, and resilience.
The Climate Economics Index by Swiss Re: Offers easy-to-understand breakdowns of climate risks to global GDP, which is useful for explaining the economic costs of inaction. As they say, “no action is not an option.”
*Thumbnail pictures is from army.mil
Solid, as usual