Bridging Planetary Boundaries and Ecosecurity
Last weekend, I attended my wife’s family reunion in a small town tucked away in the hills in western Pennsylvania, just outside Pittsburgh. Surrounded by a familiar mix of uncles, aunts, and cousins—hard working folks making their living in trucking, construction, manufacturing, and retail—we caught up and shared stories. As the evening went on, a few of us gathered around the hood of an old dump truck, glasses of sangria and beer in hand.
The conversation eventually drifted to the changes they’d been noticing around the area. One cousin mentioned how the heavy snowfalls that used to be so common had practically disappeared. Another pointed to the green ponds that seemed to be everywhere. Someone else talked about how there didn’t seem to be nearly as many bugs splattering on windshields as there used to be. And another relative couldn’t help but grumble about how plastic waste seemed to be turning up everywhere, especially washing up along the creeks and rivers that run through the area.
What struck me most wasn’t just the specifics of what they were saying but a shared sense of unease, a recognition that what they were seeing weren’t just random. They were shifts rooted in something much larger, and for the first time that I’d ever heard, it seemed as if everyone there was connecting the dots to human activity. These weren’t distant, theoretical ideas; they were real, everyday observations from people who had spent their entire lives on that land—and echoing the very themes of ecological security that I grapple with in my own work.
Planetary Boundaries and the Planetary Health Check
Their observations align with findings from the newly released 2024 Planetary Health Check, the inaugural annual report led by Professor Johan Rockström, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. This scientific assessment, produced by the Planetary Boundaries Science partnership, reveals that humanity’s influence on the environment has been profound—and not just on a local scale. The report underscores that we have breached six of the nine planetary boundaries, with a seventh now approaching its threshold. The Planetary Boundaries framework, originally introduced by Rockström and colleagues in 2009, continues to offer a vital perspective for understanding these global shifts.
I’ve long been drawn to this body of research because it captures the major ways humanity influences the planet—particularly those changes that have the potential to jeopardize human well-being—while also offering a compelling perspective on the interconnectedness of Earth’s systems. Yet, despite my deep respect for its insights, I’ve often struggled to couple the PBs framework with the domains of human, national, and global security that have been the primary focus of my recent work. With the release of this report, I’m eager to reflect on how the framework can contribute to security discussions while also pointing out ways in which it falls short in addressing security risks.
Engaging with these intersections requires grappling with both the immense scale and the microscopic intricacies of human impacts on Earth systems. The complexity arises from countless variables and interdependencies that span climate change, plastic pollution, biodiversity loss, and more. While researchers and policymakers worldwide work to address these individual issues, piecing together how all these factors interconnect remains a formidable task. Governing to this complexity adds an even more significant challenge.
Moving Beyond a Climate-centric Lens
In recent years, the US government has focused significant federal attention on climate change. While this focus is crucial, the Planetary Boundaries Framework—and many other scientific assessments—make the sobering point that climate change is just one of several planetary stressors, each with its own critical threshold. To address these challenges, it is practical for the policy community to tackle them in manageable segments. Through diplomacy, development, and international scientific engagement, the United States, the UN, and other institutions negotiate frameworks and agreements to deal with challenges like climate change, biodiversity, plastics, pandemic preparedness, and the like. This segmented approach is both necessary and effective for managing global issues at the policy and diplomatic levels.
However, the security community should not take a similar siloed approach, particularly when assessing risks to humans and societies. For instance, a key mandate of the intelligence community is to monitor and assess the stability of nations, especially those of strategic importance to the United States. Focusing narrowly on climate-linked stressors while bypassing other Earth system stresses almost certainly leads to a significant underestimation of destabilization risks for most countries. Pressures like biodiversity loss, freshwater scarcity, and biogeochemical disruptions generally interact, amplifying their impacts. By concentrating on one stressor in isolation, we overlook how they collectively drive instability and conflict, potentially leading to critical misjudgments in risk assessment.
This chronic underscoping of risk remains a persistent problem in ecological security. The interconnected nature of these threats means that neglecting one can fail to anticipate broader security challenges. However, it would be unfair to place the blame solely on analysts or the leadership of the security community. Much of our understanding of Earth system science has emerged relatively recently, and institutional adaptation takes time. Nevertheless, as these blind spots become increasingly apparent and the need for action more urgent, the security community must address these gaps promptly.
This need for a more comprehensive approach was a primary motivator in conceptualizing ourselves as the Ecosecurity Council. Our work emphasizes the importance of considering the broader spectrum of Earth system stresses that impact security, moving beyond the traditional, siloed approach to risk assessment. By adopting this holistic perspective, we can better anticipate, prepare for, and mitigate the complex, interconnected challenges that threaten global stability in the 21st century.
Understanding the Planetary Boundaries in a Security Context
The Planetary Boundaries framework outlines the outer limits of a “safe operating space” for humanity, based on nine key Earth system processes. These boundaries mark the thresholds beyond which human activities could trigger severe or irreversible large-scale disruptions. Staying within this safe operating space is crucial for ensuring that Earth’s systems remain stable, resilient, and capable of supporting life for humans and other species.
The idea of a “safe operating space” draws inspiration from the relatively stable conditions of the Holocene epoch, which began roughly 11,700 years ago. This period offered the stability necessary for human civilizations to emerge and flourish. The argument is that by preserving conditions that reflect those of the Holocene, humanity can help ensure that vital Earth system processes remain within limits that support well-being and global progress.
Adapted from Planetary Health Check 2024, Planetary Boundaries Science, Globaïa.
It’s important to note that these boundaries and risk assessments adapt as our scientific knowledge evolves. Crossing a boundary doesn’t mean an immediate catastrophe, but it does indicate that we’ve entered a zone of increased risk where the potential for significant systemic changes becomes more likely. Surpassing a planetary boundary is undeniably serious and warrants urgent attention.
With the PBs framework now introduced, let’s tour each of the nine planetary boundaries, emphasizing their significance not just from an ecological standpoint but also from a security perspective. I’ll offer a brief overview of each and discuss some potential security implications, aiming to shed light on the links between Earth system stresses and security, while recognizing the considerable uncertainty surrounding many of these connections.
1. Climate Change
What is it?
Tracks the ongoing disruption of Earth’s energy balance, primarily caused by the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leads to long-term shifts in climate patterns. These changes drive extreme weather events, rising sea levels, organism redistributions, and altered ecosystems, threatening human and natural systems.
Current Status: CO₂ levels have soared to 417 ppm, well above the safe threshold of 350 ppm. This limit, established through climate models and paleoclimate research, suggests that exceeding 350 ppm significantly heightens the risk of severe climate impacts.
Why it Matters for Security: Climate change is already contributing to instability by:
Displacing millions of people due to rising sea levels and extreme weather events.
Sparking unrest and even conflict over scarce water and arable land.
Escalating geopolitical tensions as countries grapple with climate-induced disasters.
Undermining global food security, which could lead to famines and widespread social unrest.
Creating environments that foster extremism and terrorism as weakened state capacities make disenfranchised populations more susceptible to radicalization.
Increasing the frequency and intensity of natural disasters, which strain emergency response systems and destabilize entire regions.
2. Change in Biosphere Integrity
What is it?
Monitors the loss of species and the degradation of ecosystems, affecting both biodiversity and ecosystem functionality. The decline in species and habitat fragmentation reduce the resilience of ecosystems, which undermines essential services like pollination, water filtration, and carbon sequestration.
Current Status: This boundary has been surpassed, with species extinction rates currently exceeding safe limits by at least tenfold, and probably much more. Many ecosystems and their functions are at risk of collapse.
Why it Matters for Security: Although frequently overlooked in security discussions, biosphere destabilization poses profound security risks by:
Undermining essential ecosystem services that sustain human life, such as providing clean water, purifying air, and regulating the climate.
Compromising food security, especially in regions that depend on pollinators and diverse species for agriculture, which can lead to widespread hunger and social unrest.
Destabilizing economies that rely on biosphere-dependent industries like fishing and tourism, resulting in job losses, economic hardship, and increased social instability.
Threatening public health, as disrupted ecosystems elevate the risk of zoonotic diseases (such as COVID-19), potentially leading to pandemics that can overwhelm healthcare systems.
3. Introduction of Novel Entities
What is it?
Measures the proliferation of human-made substances, including synthetic chemicals, plastics, genetically modified organisms, and other materials that ecosystems have never encountered. These substances can persist in the environment for long periods, leading to unintended consequences for both human health and ecosystems.
Current Status: We have already crossed this boundary, but the full consequences remain uncertain.
Why it Matters for Security: The deep uncertainties surrounding the long-term impacts of novel entities make security assessments challenging, but we can speculate on some harrowing scenarios:
The accumulation of pollutants such as plastics and synthetic chemicals could severely impact public health and biodiversity, leading to widespread resource shortages and the collapse of crucial ecosystems.
Disruption of industries and livelihoods that depend on healthy ecosystems could result in economic instability, especially in communities that are highly vulnerable to novel entities, causing severe societal upheaval.
The uncontrolled spread of GMOs or synthetic substances into the wild could destabilize ecosystems, jeopardizing food production and accelerating biodiversity loss.
Persistent pollutants, including microplastics and endocrine disruptors, have the potential to cause irreversible harm to ecosystem services and public health, leaving both communities and economies in turmoil.
4. Modification of Biogeochemical Flows
What is it?
Tracks human-driven disruptions to the natural cycles that move compounds through the atmosphere, soil, water, and living organisms, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus. Excessive use of fertilizers in industrial farming has overloaded ecosystems, causing nutrient pollution, dead zones in water bodies, and biodiversity loss.
Current Status: Human activities have pushed both nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient cycles well beyond safe limits, resulting in widespread ecological imbalances.
Why it Matters for Security: Disruptions in these biogeochemical flows can lead to a chain of security challenges:
Contamination of freshwater systems can limit access to clean drinking water, creating serious public health risks and potentially sparking conflicts over increasingly scarce water resources.
Nutrient pollution can fuel algal blooms in freshwater and coastal areas, leading to “dead zones” that devastate fisheries and threaten the economic stability of coastal communities relying on marine resources.
Degraded soil health, caused by nutrient imbalances, could lower agricultural productivity, increasing the risk of food insecurity, famine, and social unrest in vulnerable regions.
5. Land System Change
What is it?
Assesses the transformation of natural ecosystems—such as forests, grasslands, and wetlands—into agricultural land, urban areas, and other human-dominated landscapes. This conversion leads to habitat loss, soil degradation, and changes in regional climate systems, undermining biodiversity and ecosystem services.
Current Status: We have surpassed safe levels of land-system change, with natural ecosystems undergoing significant alterations worldwide, especially in vulnerable tropical regions.
Why it Matters for Security: Land system change triggers a range of interconnected security risks:
The loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services reduces the planet’s ability to supply essential resources and regulate the climate, potentially intensifying conflicts and threatening human well-being.
Forced migration driven by land degradation, deforestation, or unsustainable agricultural practices can escalate social tensions and strain resources in regions where displaced people seek refuge.
Competition for land in areas already facing resource scarcity and social unrest may lead to violent conflicts and broader regional instability.
Decreasing agricultural productivity due to urban expansion or unsustainable practices threatens global food security, raising the risk of food shortages and economic volatility.
Increased risk of zoonotic diseases arises as habitat fragmentation and deforestation bring humans into closer contact with wildlife, heightening the potential for disease transmission and public health crises.
6. Freshwater Change
What is it?
Gauges the imbalance between global freshwater consumption (for agriculture, industry, and domestic use) and the natural replenishment of freshwater resources. Overuse of freshwater disrupts ecosystems, reduces water availability for communities, and contributes to regional conflicts over water rights.
Current Status: Although the global threshold for freshwater use hasn’t been crossed, many regions are experiencing severe water scarcity due to a combination of over-extraction, pollution, and climate change.
Why it Matters for Security: Water security is a well-established field, and freshwater scarcity is widely recognized as a significant driver of insecurity, leading to:
Competition over dwindling water resources, which can heighten tensions both within and between countries, straining diplomatic relations and potentially sparking armed conflicts.
Reduced agricultural productivity due to insufficient water for irrigation, resulting in food insecurity, economic hardship, and increased social unrest.
Limited access to clean water and sanitation, which exposes communities to waterborne diseases, undermining public health and weakening social resilience.
Severe water shortages forcing mass displacement, as people migrate in search of more habitable environments, contributing to humanitarian crises and destabilizing the regions they move to.
7. Ocean Acidification
What is it?
Tracks the increasing acidity of the oceans, caused by the absorption of excess atmospheric CO₂, which leads to harmful changes in marine chemistry. Ocean acidification weakens coral reefs, shellfish populations, and other marine life, threatening food security and coastal economies.
Current Status: While ocean acidification has yet to pass its critical threshold globally, it is rapidly approaching it. Some regions, such as the Arctic and Southern Oceans, are already experiencing signficantly higher levels of acidity than in the recent past.
Why it Matters for Security: The deterioration of marine ecosystems carries serious and far-reaching security implications:
Coastal communities face existential risks as marine life, essential for their sustenance and livelihoods, declines or vanishes, potentially leading to economic collapse and forced migration.
Global food security is at risk, as disruptions in marine food chains threaten the primary protein source for billions who depend on seafood.
Growing competition over dwindling marine resources could spark conflicts between nations, as they fight for access to increasingly scarce fish stocks and other ocean-based commodities.
8. Increase in Atmospheric Aerosol Loading
What is it?
Measures the concentration of aerosols—tiny particles suspended in the atmosphere—primarily from industrial emissions, vehicle exhaust, and agricultural practices. Aerosols affect regional climate systems by altering cloud formation and rainfall patterns, while also posing significant risks to human health.
Current Status: While the global average concentration of aerosols remains within safe limits, many urban and industrial areas experience dangerously high levels of particulate matter, posing serious health and environmental risks.
Why it Matters for Security: The widespread presence of aerosols carries several significant, often overlooked security implications:
High aerosol levels in polluted cities contribute to respiratory, cardiovascular, neurological, and cognitive diseases, overwhelming healthcare systems and reducing economic productivity.
Aerosol pollution can disrupt regional weather patterns, affecting rainfall and temperatures, which in turn leads to agricultural losses, crop failures, and increased food insecurity.
Aerosols can cross national borders, leading to transboundary pollution that strains diplomatic relations and causes disputes over environmental responsibility and compensation.
9. Stratospheric Ozone Depletion
What is it?
Quantifies the concentration of ozone in the stratosphere, the part of the atmosphere above the troposphere in which we inhabit. This vital ozone layer absorbs most of the sun’s UV rays, reducing the risk of skin cancer, protecting crops, and supporting marine ecosystems. However, ozone depletion diminishes this protective barrier.
Current Status: The historic Montreal Protocol has put the ozone layer on a steady path to recovery, highlighting the power of effective international collaboration. Still, continued vigilance is crucial to ensure this progress endures, as the Protocol’s success provides an encouraging model for tackling other pressing planetary challenges.
Why it Matters for Security: Although the immediate threat has been largely addressed, potential future risks remain:
Long-term health impacts, such as increased skin cancer rates and cataracts, particularly if the ozone layer were to weaken again.
Agricultural vulnerabilities, as crops sensitive to UV exposure could be damaged, potentially impacting food security.
While distinct in their scientific definitions, the planetary boundaries are intricately intertwined, forming a complex web of interactions within the Earth system. Climate change, for example, accelerates biodiversity loss by driving habitat destruction and altering environmental conditions. At the same time, deforestation—an aspect of land-system change—further worsens climate change by releasing stored carbon and reducing the planet’s capacity to sequester greenhouse gases.
Similarly, excessive fertilizer use disrupts biogeochemical flows, pollutes freshwater systems, contributes to ocean acidification, and creates dead zones threatening marine ecosystems and the communities dependent on them. These interconnections emphasize the need for a holistic understanding of Earth system stress, as focusing too narrowly on one boundary without considering others grossly underestimates the full spectrum of risks.
Food—both having enough to feed the population and enough nutritious food to keep people healthy—is not in itself a planetary boundary, but almost all planetary boundaries affect food production and quality. Few natural resource challenges will lead to unrest and insecurity faster than food scarcity and affordability.
Assessing the Value of Integrating the PBs Framework into Security
Although the Planetary Boundaries framework wasn’t originally designed for security applications, it provides a valuable lens for understanding the ecological stressors that increasingly influence global security. At its heart, the PBs framework embraces systems thinking, emphasizing the interconnectedness of Earth’s systems. It reveals how disruptions in one area—such as climate change, biodiversity loss, or land-use changes—can trigger cascading effects that evolve into broader security risks.
For instance, the spread of invasive coffee leaf rust in Central America, worsened by shifting climate conditions, has devastated coffee crops there, leading to economic instability and heightened poverty among small-scale farmers. This financial strain has, in turn, fueled social unrest and migration pressures in the region. The framework encourages security professionals to view Earth system challenges not as isolated issues but as part of a dynamic, interlinked network of processes.
Rooted in rigorous Earth system science, the framework’s nine critical processes offer a structured way to categorize and understand these threats. While the PBs framework is somewhat abstract and scientific, making it less immediately intuitive for security professionals, it lays a crucial foundation for grasping the wider impacts of disruptions to Earth systems. The real challenge lies in translating these complex, interconnected processes into actionable insights.
This is where our work at the Ecosecurity Council comes in—we aim to bridge this gap by converting the scientific understanding of planetary thresholds into practical tools and strategies. In doing so, we aim to help the domestic and international security community better understand how disrupted Earth systems translate into tangible threats to human, national, and global security, making the Planetary Boundaries framework more accessible and operationally relevant.
Where the Planetary Boundaries Framework Falls Short for Security
While the Planetary Boundaries framework offers valuable insights, it’s essential to recognize that a “safe operating space” for the planet doesn’t necessarily translate into a safe operating space for people and nations facing ecological stress. Many ecological security issues, though not directly tied to the transgression of global thresholds, can still pose substantial threats to human well-being and stability. (To their credit, the Planetary Health Check authors acknowledge the need to downscale the global PB processes to make them more policy-accessible.)
The following examples, though clearly not exhaustive, are presented to illustrate some of the many localized manifestations of ecological security that arise before PBs are breached:
Zoonotic Spillover: The transmission of pathogens from animals to humans often results in new infectious diseases. As human activity encroaches on natural habitats and disrupts ecosystems, the likelihood of such spillovers increases. Deforestation, wildlife trade, and agricultural expansion bring humans and wildlife into closer contact, creating more opportunities for viruses and other pathogens to jump species.
Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR): Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) often emerges from ecosystems, driven by pollution, nutrient imbalances, and climate change. Wastewater runoff, laden with antibiotics, contaminates waterways, while fertilizer overuse alters soil microbial communities, both contributing to resistant strains. Climate change exacerbates these pressures, creating conditions favorable for drug-resistant microbes. This escalating threat could destabilize healthcare systems, cripple economies, and return the world to the horrors of the pre-antibiotic era.
Critical Mineral Security: The global transition to clean energy technologies has intensified the race for rare earth elements and critical minerals, many of which are sourced from ecologically fragile regions. Mining practices often degrade local ecosystems, leading to deforestation, soil erosion, and water pollution, which can destabilize communities. Uneven distribution of these resources, coupled with rising demand, sparks geopolitical tensions, trade disputes, and conflict as nations compete to control these vital materials.
Fisheries Conflict: The depletion of fish stocks caused by overfishing, habitat destruction, and changing ocean conditions has heightened competition for these critical resources. As fish populations dwindle, disputes over fishing rights and access to maritime territories become more frequent and intense. These conflicts can spark diplomatic disputes, provoke economic hardship, and in some cases, result in violent confrontations.
Population Booms of Disruptive Organisms: Invasive species, pest outbreaks, and the proliferation of overabundant species are causing havoc across ecosystems, agriculture, and economies. For example, locust swarms can decimate crops, leading to food insecurity. Zebra mussels clog water intake pipes, disrupting industrial operations. Algal blooms contaminate water supplies and harm fisheries. These disruptions threaten livelihoods, contribute to social unrest, and destabilize entire regions.
Ecological Desynchronization: Climate change is disrupting natural cycles, affecting pollination, migration patterns, and other critical ecological processes. This desynchronization can undermine food security by disrupting crop yields and pollination, compromise ecosystem services like water filtration and flood control, and exacerbate the spread of infectious diseases.
Human-Wildlife Conflict: As habitats shrink and human populations expand, conflicts between humans and wildlife are increasing. Predator attacks, crop damage from wildlife incursions, poaching driven by economic hardship, and retaliatory killings of animals contribute to growing cycles of violence and insecurity, particularly in communities living near wildlife habitats.
The Need for a Broader Ecosecurity Perspective
While the Planetary Boundaries framework offers a valuable lens for understanding systemic global risks, it’s clear that many security threats—such as food insecurity, conflict, and migration—often arise well before global thresholds are crossed. These immediate challenges frequently stem from localized disruptions in Earth systems, which, if left unaddressed, can contribute to broader instability. By focusing on planetary boundaries, we overlook these localized crises, while ignoring them means missing the big picture, and the underlying drivers that can exacerbate these threats over time.
At the Ecosecurity Council, our mission is to bridge this gap by integrating Earth systems science with security, ensuring a more comprehensive understanding of ecological disruption. We advocate for a multidimensional approach that goes beyond traditional security paradigms, incorporating a broader array of ecological stressors and recognizing their complex interactions with human societies. This perspective enables us to address both immediate concerns, like food insecurity, and long-term risks tied to crossing planetary thresholds.
Our work involves creating practical tools for decision-makers, fostering collaboration between scientists and security experts, and advocating for policies that reflect the complexities of ecological challenges. By embracing this integrated approach, we aim to develop strategies that not only manage risks but also build resilience, ensuring a more secure and sustainable future for humanity.
The task ahead is challenging, but the potential rewards—a future where security and sustainability coexist—are immense.
