Government urged to publish full version of explosive climate insecurity assessment

The government was shamed in the House of Lords on Monday 23 February 2026 for only publishing its explosive nature and national security assessment after being forced to via a Freedom of Information (FOI) Act request, and urged by peers to release the unabridged version.

The assessment, titled Nature security assessment on global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security, was published in January 2026 following an FOI request from the Green Alliance think tank.

It was originally scheduled for publication in Autumn 2025. The Times newspaper reported that publication of the report was stalled by 10 Downing Street because of fears that it was too negative. The paper said the full version “warned of mass migration and nuclear war”.

Labour asked to work with allies to address findings of assessment

Starting the debate, Liberal Democrat energy security and net zero spokesperson John Russell said:

A nature security assessment was initially withheld and then only partially released following an FOI (Freedom of Information) request.

Given the gravity of its findings for biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and our future national security, will the Government now publish the report in full? What policy responses are being developed as a result?

Will Ministers engage in open dialogue, both at home and with allies, that recognises the interlinked climate and nature emergencies as essential to our natural security strategy and future prosperity?

Responding, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) parliamentary under-secretary of state Sue Hayman implied that a longer version of the assessment was indeed withheld. She said:

It is important to note that this is a strategic tool and not a prediction of future possibilities. The idea behind it is to help government plan for future shocks that are credible enough to warrant preparation. The way it has been managed reflects standard national security planning for preparedness.

On policies, we are taking comprehensive action to strengthen resilience to environmental risks, both at home and aboard, through various ways. Tree planting in England is at its highest rate, and we are restoring peatlands, improving water quality and protecting pollinators. We have introduced landmark legislation to protect our oceans.

We are supporting food security with new technology and farming schemes that reward sustainable production, and we are also committed to providing international climate finance—I could go on.

Labour failing to meet its own environmental targets

Later in the debate, Green Party peer Jenny Jones said:

The government sound very good on all these policies, but, in fact, they are not meeting their targets. They are not meeting their targets on tree-planting, marine protected areas or flooding.

It is going to be a contest between which comes first – world war three or climate collapse. Do the government agree?

In response to Jones, Hayman said:

At least the noble Baroness thinks I sound good. The revised environmental improvement plan is designed to deliver everything the noble Baroness talked about. We are working very hard in Defra to ensure that it does.

Peer urges government to publish full report

Reflecting on the debate, Jones later told the Canary:

This government report explains how climate change is a threat to national security because of the disruption and scarcity it brings, so I don’t understand why the government themselves are playing it down.

Wars often begin with fights over resources, with access to food and water being two of the basics and disruption of established trading systems being another. We clearly need a plan to grow more of our own food and become more self reliant by taking care of our farmers.

War in an era of nuclear weapons always carries greater risk, so it’s a priority for the government to publish the full report, including a plan to deal with the consequences of climate changes and to keep our food supply safe.

The world is a far less stable place than it was before Trump and Russia failed to renew their landmark nuclear warhead limitation treaty. This is a bad sign ahead of the latest assessment of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which will indicate whether the world is going forwards or backwards on the potential for nuclear destruction.

Earlier in February 2026, the treaty to reduce strategic nuclear weapons stockpiles and build trust between the US and Russia – New START – expired.

Reacting soon after the treaty expired, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament told the Canary that:

Rather than sitting on the sidelines, the government could show leadership and use its diplomatic influence to push for the US and Russia to extend New START.

Politicians need to ‘face up to reality of environmental insecurity’ – conservation expert and
Wildlife and Countryside Link chief executive Richard Benwell told the Canary:

Any politician who thinks that environmental decline isn’t a security issue has their head in the recently-desertified sand. Conflict over resources is an age-old issue and we haven’t outgrown it.

Climate change is causing security headaches in the Arctic, pollinator decline, and water shortages. It threatens food security, as well as putting homes at risk from flood and fire. It’s time for all political parties to face up to the reality of environmental insecurity and restore nature.

Policymakers told to address drivers of biodiversity loss, not its consequences

Conflict and Environment Observatory director Doug Weir told the Canary:

Policymakers must avoid the mistakes made with climate security, where security risks were presented as inevitable and a justification for militarised responses rather than tackling emissions, adaptation and finance.

Address the drivers of biodiversity loss, not its consequences, and make sure that global biodiversity goals address the relationship between nature, peace and security, because right now they don’t.

Former intelligence official criticises ‘bungled rollout’ of assessment

Analysis from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists – the organisation which publishes the high-profile Doomsday Clock – also weighed in to criticise the UK government’s handling of the assessment’s publication.

The Bulletin published an article on 23 February 2026, written by the US National Security Archive’s Climate Change Transparency Project director Rachel Santarsiero, where she quoted former US intelligence official at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, Rod Schoonover.

Schoonover said:

The rigour of the Defra assessment doesn’t negate its bungled rollout, nor the public backlash that ensued. Any pull back from transparency is a mistake from any government.

He added:

I suspect that the intelligence community did not make the determination that this [report] should not go forward. It feels like [it came from] someone higher up.

Featured image via the Canary