Security Concerns get Top Billing in Climate and Energy Debates

Published: April 3rd, 2011, Last Updated: April 4th, 2011

If you google climate change and threat multiplier, you'll notice that national security shows up prominently as a motif. That's because the term "threat multiplier" has become popular shorthand in military and security circles when discussing climate change. The thinking in the Pentagon, for example, is that more extreme weather associated with global climate change will disrupt access to food, energy, and water resources in unstable countries. The equation was formulated in this 2007 think tank report by a group of retired U.S. military generals:

Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world.

Since then, the security community has pretty much owned the "threat multiplier" coinage. But the larger umbrella term giving "threat multiplier" agency has come to be "climate security," an emerging climate/energy nexus of concerns that I have reported on. Lately I have noticed the theme of "security" being embraced outside military circles, as well.

For example, this nugget in a story over the weekend in The Seattle Times caught my eye:

Monika Zurek, program officer in Agricultural Development at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, called climate change a "threat multiplier," because it hits the most vulnerable in the world who subsist largely on farming.

A Cambodian woman harvests rice in a field which has undergone the "System of Rice Intensification," a process of planting and crop monitering developed to help rice fourish in drought and other extreme climate conditions. Credit: oxfam/flickr

This seems part of a larger trend to securitize related climate issues. Witness the term "food security," which has become increasingly associated with global warming. Then there is "energy security," which President Obama has been trumpeting, most recently in his speech last week (but here, the idea is to avoid using climate change as the main rationale, which some prominent observers believe is not a wise strategy).

Indeed, the "security" trend seems well underway, with the emergence of another concept called "sustainable security." In light of all these conceptual, political and policy developments, perhaps it's time to ask if "security" as the focal point in climate and energy debates will be sustainable?

Posted in Impacts, Projections, Climate, Extremes, Food & Agriculture, Policy, Weather, Extreme Weather, United States, Frontier Earth

« Frontier Earth

Comments

By charlie
on April 4th, 2011

Funding, funding, funding.

Outside limited DOD grants for solar, biofuels, etc, I don’t see DOD spending a lot of money on this. Much easier ways to waste money in a budget cutting era.

What it revealing is as a prequel to “Inconvenient Truth”; really, the fear of bangladeshi masses getting on cargo ships and taking over the west while Bengal drowns its very very unlikely.

By Michael Tobis
on April 4th, 2011

“Security” is just the Republican word for “Sustainability”. Think about it. They really mean just about the same thing.

I guess “sustainable security” is the bipartisan word. Maybe “secure sustainability” would have been better?

By Pascvaks
on April 4th, 2011

Easy to be confused by “Pro” Speak, when MD’s, Generals, Politicians, Auto Mechanics, Investment Bankers, Weather Forecasters, Rocket Scientists, etc, etc, talk about “Threat Multipliers” they’re talking about apples, oranges, tangerines, appricots, grapes, peaches, etc, etc, etc. Not to worry! The “Threat Multiplier” we need to be concerned about is the opportunist and scam artist out to take advantage of our ignorance about “Climate Change” and rip us off. There are so many of these people out there trying to do just that that the multiplier effect of the threat to us is very real. (See? It all depends on what you mean )

By Jeff Norris (Beaumont CA 92223)
on April 4th, 2011

Quoting from the article at sustainable security about Contemporary Conflict Resolution the authors argue that “The social cost of mitigation and adaptation is far lower than the cost of unrestricted climate change. The problem is that different individuals, interest groups and states perceive very different costs and beneﬁts(sic), and institutions capable of balancing global costs and beneﬁts do not yet exist” (p. 297).
No mention of possible prevention, so I guess we have passed the tipping point.
Regarding security as a focal point I believe it is a valid narrative but based on previous Global Threat Multipliers ; Global Terrorism, AIDS in Africa, Communism it has selective appeal.
Here is a scary thought. Using Climate Change to justify a “New Imperialism” type policy. The motto would be Saving the Third World from itself.

By Sashka (New York, NY)
on April 4th, 2011

Security could (and should) be a sustainable point in energy debates. But climate shouldn’t be and most likely won’t be.

Name (required):

Email (required):

City/State/Zip:

Enter the word you see in the image below: