Climate security raises questions about who is responsible for security (‘We have met the enemy, and they are us.’) which is rather different from how even earlier environmental security was often seen as a relatively local issue. From a more practical view, we were looking at climate changes for their potential to shift conditions very abruptly, and create new security conditions where none existed before.

Headline writers love to reduce the story line to ‘climate wars’ or ‘water wars.’ Short sells, dramatic sells, and conflict sells. Complexity doesn’t. Cooperation doesn’t. And again, oversimplification carries costs. The challenge is getting folks to look past the misleading but catchy title to engage and engage broadly on the diversity found under the climate and security umbrella.

The problem we face is that nuance doesn’t sell books, nuance certainly doesn’t get you on TV, and politicians and their staff don’t have time to get into nuanced arguments. I’ve been approached many times by various Senator’s staff saying ‘my boss is very interested in using the climate-security argument’. They want to use it because the concept of ’security’ brings images of soldiers – the most respected establishment in America – and it allows you to paint an enemy – after all we wouldn’t have gone to the moon if the Soviets hadn’t put Sputnik up first…This is the political and media world we live in, and you can’t ignore it. So long as politicians, the public, and the media live in the short-term, notions like climate security are difficult to get unless you make some strong and difficult to prove linkages.