Climate and Security?

Discussion of the security risks posed by climate change has become commonplace, and not for no reason: climate change acts as a “threat multiplier,” raising the risk of conflict by—among other things—threatening agriculture and access to water and making some parts of the world inhospitable to human life. Yet some people have pushed back on this framing of the issues, warning that framing climate change as a security issue invites us to think of people harmed by climate change not as victims, but as enemies. In a recent op-ed called “The Myth of Climate Wars?” Alaa Murabit and Luca Bücken argue that these critics are mistaken. “Rather than resisting the securitization of climate,” they say, “advocates and policymakers should be advancing…‘the climatization of security’” by “using security to increase the salience of climate action, highlighting the shortcomings of current security frameworks, and promoting gender inclusiveness and local leadership as holistic and long-term solutions for fostering local, regional, and international peace.”

There is compelling evidence that the resulting agreements are likely to be more durable and the peace longer-lasting if local women are more involved in conflict resolution and peacebuilding processes. Both for that reason and for the sake of gender equity more generally, Murabit and Bücken are quite right to suggest that we need to give them the tools they need to do that. Nevertheless, trying to temper discussions of the security threat posed by climate change by “climatizing” security talk seems to me a dangerous mistake. Rather than doing that, I submit, we should abandon the security frame entirely at the level of messaging, instead emphasizing conflict prevention and peacebuilding, terms that have the distinct advantage of not suggesting that desperate people whose wells have run dry are our enemies.

The only reason Murabit and Bücken give for retaining the emphasis on security is that “linking climate change to security can positively contribute to mobilizing climate action.” Presumably their thought is that talk of threats to our national security is likely to galvanize people into action by convincing them that climate change is a threat to their personal well-being. Certainly, that’s possible: if you’re worried about some threat, a rational response is to try to nip it in the bud by addressing its root cause. What seems more likely, however, is that many people will respond to discussions of the security threat climate change poses by pushing for hardened borders and more preparations for the climate wars they have been led to think they need to worry about. Consider, for instance, the reaction we have seen in the US to migrants from Northern Triangle countries seeking asylum, some of whom fled after finding that their traditional farming techniques no longer workable in light of increasing drought and changing rainfall patterns. Far from spurring climate action, first Candidate and then President Trump's and others' presentation of these people as threats to national security has spurred calls to “build the wall.” Similarly, refugees fleeing the Syrian Civil War--a conflict precipitated, in part, by record-setting droughts--have been greeted by nativist backlash throughout Europe. 

Not only are there no good reasons to retain the security frame, however; framing climate change as a security threat carries serious risks. As Murabit and Bücken themselves note, emphasizing the security threat posed by climate change could “challenge already-strained international cooperation on climate governance, while driving investment away from necessary interventions—such as the shift to a low-carbon economy—toward advancing military preparedness.” Even more worrisome, there is a real chance that framing climate change as a security threat will exacerbate frightening recent trends in European and American politics. After all, the more people harmed by the disruptive effects of climate change are presented as threats to our way of life, the more reasonable it will come to seem to for governments to take extreme measures to protect their citizens. Just recently, for instance, the crowd at a Trump campaign rally cheered when an attendee suggested we shoot incoming migrants; President Trump made a joke about the comment.

Admittedly, Murabit and Bücken are probably right that, given its implications for migration, public health, resource scarcity, and other pressing policy issues, it will be difficult if not impossible to completely disentangle climate and security discussions. Moreover, and for the same reason, it is understandable that people have become concerned about potential security threats associated with climate change. Even so, I think we do well to at least de-emphasize the point if not avoid it entirely, emphasizing instead the need for cooperation and solidarity in the face of scarcity. What evidence we have available to us seems to suggest that emphasizing threats associated with these various phenomena does little to spur climate action; meanwhile, that strategy has the potential to do a good deal of additional harm to those most affected by climate change.