This paper clarifies and extends our critical exploration of the use of war mobilisation as a policy model for rapid climate mitigation through accelerated energy transition. Our study, which appeared in this journal, presented a contingency scenario that focuses on the design of innovative policy model for mobilising finance, labour, and institutions, and their relative limitations. Kester and Sovacool expand the discussion of these limits from a securitization perspective-an extension work that is most welcome but contain incorrect interpretations of our paper. Here, we respond to it point by point and also acknowledge the points that they note regarding incongruences between contemporary climate action and wartime mobilisation. Central to this is a caveat on the use of combative and militaristic language in communicating climate action.