Climate change and security: towards ecological security?

Abstract

Climate change is increasingly characterized as a security issue. Yet we see nothing approaching consensus about the nature of the climate change–security relationship. Indeed existing depictions in policy statements and academic debate illustrate radically different conceptions of the nature of the threat posed, to whom and what constitute appropriate policy responses. These different climate securitydiscoursesencourage practices as varied as national adaptation and globally oriented mitigation action. Given the increasing prominence of climate security representations and the different implications of these discourses, it is important to consider whether we can identifyprogressivediscourses of climate security: approaches to this relationship underpinned by defensible ethical assumptions and encouraging effective responses to climate change. Here I make a case for an ecological security discourse. Such a discourse orients towards ecosystem resilience and the rights and needs of the most vulnerable across space (populations of developing worlds), time (future generations), and species (other living beings). This paper points to the limits of existing accounts of climate security before outlining the contours of an ‘ecological security discourse’ regarding climate change. It concludes by reflecting on the challenges and opportunities for such discourse in genuinely informing how political communities approach the climate change–security relationship.

Dugong v. Rumsfeld: social movements and the construction of ecological security

“…At the same time, these nonhuman movement symbols -one sentient and another non-sentient -indicate a shift in the hitherto human-centric discourses and practices of security that had prevailed even among anti-militarist activists, let alone state authorities pushing for military expansion as a means of security. These findings-consistent across two different sites of discursive contention-resonate with the growing academic chorus stressing the urgency of viewing both the vulnerable human and nonhuman beings as equally deserving members of the biosphere (Barnett, 2001;McDonald, 2018;Mische, 1989). Ultimately, however, the partial success in the acceptance of these symbols attests to real-world challenges that lie ahead for the increasingly inclusive conceptualization of what constitutes security and who deserves protection.…”

Opportunities and Challenges for Meeting the UN 2030 Agenda in the Light of Global Change—A Case Study of Swedish Perspectives

“…Discussions on Sweden's food security might also link to environmental securitization in terms of national food supplies being threatened by environmental change, generating multifaceted challenges and trade-offs in relation to who is in need of being secured, from what threat, by what actors and by what means [6][7][8]. As the security of Sweden formed the point of departure for the focus group discussions, a state-centric view on security dominated.…”

“…Cohen [3] points to the increasing influence of environmental change on geopolitics, while Dalby [4] argues that, in the future, geopolitics will concern energy consumption, food systems, urban planning and infrastructure rather than war plans. The scientific and policy discourse has shifted from only dealing with state and national security to now also including human and environmental security [5,6] which has implications for how society deals with questions such as who is in need of being secured, from what threat, by what actors and by what means [7][8][9]. For instance, in the field of securitization of water resources, geopolitical uncertainty is added to model and data uncertainty [10][11][12].…”

Climatizing the UN Security Council

“…These scholars have identified two dominant narratives: (1) the role of climate change in causing conflicts and (2) the threat that climate change poses to various dimensions of human security (food, health, etc.) (Hardt 2017;Lucke et al 2014;McDonald 2018McDonald , 2013Oels 2012;Rothe 2016;Trombetta 2008). Most of this work relies on securitization theories to capture the way climate change has been discursively framed as a security threat.…”