User:Radish2023/sandbox

Hyperthreat
The concept of climate and environmental change as constituting a hyperthreat hyperthreat" of climate and environmental change was developed by Elizabeth Boulton, PhD, and first published in 2018. The concept was later used to develop PLAN E, a climate and environmentally centred security strategy.

Heading text
The hyperthreat concept draws upon eco-philosophical thinkers and military theorists, as follows:


 * Eco-philosopher Timothy Morton's concept of hyperobjects - which he defines as ‘things’ massively distributed in time and space relative to humans. See their book Hyperobjects, published in 2015.
 * Environmental writer Rob Nixon's concept of slow violence, which he defines as "violence that occurs gradually and out of sight, a violence of delayed destruction that is dispersed across time and space, an attritional violence that is typically not viewed as violence at all." (Nixon, 2011 p.130).
 * Military theorist Carl von Clausewitz's concept of 'moral forces' and general approach to threat definition and strategic thought also infuses the approach.

Definition
The hyperthreat of climate and environmental change has warlike destructive capabilities that are so diffuse that it is hard to see the enormity of the destruction coherently nor who is responsible for its hostile actions. It defies existing human thought and institutional constructs.

It is powered and energised by three key enablers:


 * 1) Its invisibility and unknowability;
 * 2) Its ability to evade all existing human threat-response mechanisms
 * 3) Human hesitancy––the slower humans are to act, the stronger it becomes.

General idea
The hyperthreat concept proposes that together, global warming and all types of environmental degradation and destruction (inclusive of all nine planetary boundaries) is not merely a scientific or governance issue, but rather constitutes a new form of violence, killing, destruction and harm.

The hyperthreat concept diverges from dominant approaches to climate/environmental policy and security in two key ways.

Climate/eco change not a hazard, but a threat
Traditional security and climate-security literature generally adopted definitional norms from geography and disaster risk literature, where hazards are differentiated from military threats as not having a brain or a conscious hostile intent.

Boulton argues that while this logic did suit a pre-climate era––naturally occurring cyclones or tsunami were not caused by an entity with a conscious intent ––the distinction is no longer as neat. The improving ability of climate attribution science to statistically link extreme events to a warmer climate part of the improving evidence base, and this needs to inform the way in which such hazards or threats are perceived.

Boulton argues that old logic on culpability, enemy, and hostile intent to harm must be reconceived in such a way that allows humanity new mechanisms to protect itself.

She proposes that humanity and planetary life do face a new form of hostile intent to cause harm, (a threat) but that it manifests in a diffuse way. She argues against an identity based approach to threat, but instead suggests focus must shift to actions that enable the hyperthreat and that new legal and governance remedies are needed.

Climate/eco change not a threat multiplier, but the main threat
In the security sector, thinking about climate change is dominated by Sherri Goodman’s original framing of global warming as a “threat multiplier” introduced in a 2007 CNA report. Boulton argues in "Defence One" that climate and environmental change is not a threat multiplier, but rather the main threat.

PLAN E: Application of the hyperthreat concept
Boulton applies modified military threat analysis and response planning tools to the hyperthreat to develop a concept for a "Hyper-response" - called PLAN E.

PLAN E is a concept for how humanity could enact a emergency response. It is also the world's first climate/eco centred security strategy.

It argues that current threat posture is incoherent and constitutes a new form of Mutually Assured Destruction.

The overall mission is to reach “Destination Safe Earth” by 2100: a habitable planet “safe” for all people and all species.

The hyper-response could be described as a predominantly bottom-up solution. It proposes a civil-led, civil moblisation which is distinct from militarisation.

Strategy development through ongoing hyper-conversations across the whole of society, with a shift of resources and decision-making capacity to local levels. It also aims to restore nation-state agency and foster eco-multilateralism and regional solutions. Overall, it offers an alternative to a globalised, top down control approach.

The rationale for this approach and the methods used are outlined in the Spring 2022 issue of the Journal of Advanced Military Studies. To prompt broader imagining of what a new threat posture could look like, a demonstrational prototype PLAN E was developed, also published by the US Marine Corps University Press.

Reception
The idea was positively reviewed by independent media, Byline Times and Counterpunch, and received with curiousity and some enthusiasm in public talks at universities and a World Beyond War webinar, for example. However, in 2022, it was ignored by mainstream media and most formal climate security agencies, including the UN and related agencies.

In 2023, the Council on Strategic Risks, published another explainer on the "threat multplier" framing, which suggests it is their preferred approach.

Further information
More information on the hyperthreat concept is available at the website Destination Safe Earth.