In an increasingly unpredictable world of pandemics, conflict, and disasters, climate change is often at the center of conversations about the instability of global affairs. From California wildfires to droughts across East Africa, the role of climate cannot be ignored in any analysis of global unpredictability. And citizens around the world know it. Growing global public support for governments to aggressively act on climate change has led to an increase in policy action on climate issues. A climate security framework provides an example of one key lens to confront global climate change challenges. Climate security has emerged in recent years to make the case for climate change as a geopolitical risk and security threat multiplier. Seeing climate change through this lens should motivate countries to act immediately on climate for the sake of national security. The growing relevance of this framework cannot be denied, seen in discussions about many of the world’s most pressing current affairs, such as the climate security elements of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Yet climate security remains underutilized, even by other climate professionals. Indeed, some climate activists have actually critiqued, even shunned, the call to bring countries to act on climate through the lens of national security, arguing that confronting climate for the sake of each country’s security is counterproductive and distracts from an overall vision of climate justice. In deep recognition that the climate community must be open to new ideas and collaborations across different disciplines to better inform policy decisions on climate adaptation and mitigation, reimagining a climate security approach that incorporates justice should be possible. The reality is that there is validity and truth in both views. Climate insecurity does exist—and is quickly becoming one of the key approaches in which global governments choose to invest to address climate change. Yet climate security will not reach its full potential to adequately help in addressing the climate crisis if justice and equity are not considered in its recommendations. It is necessary to consider climate justice considerations into any response on climate change for such response to effectively serve people and the planet in mitigating climate risks. A climate security lens that neglects climate justice considerations does so by underestimating or ignoring security risks that populations face that compound with and shape climate risks such as colonialism and racism, as well as running the risk of decentering the true security priorities of the most vulnerable people. Climate security analysis infused with the participatory input from the most climate vulnerable populations could lead to more rapid uptake of the field into mainstream climate thought. Engaging people in climate change adaptation and advocacy activities in communities that have experienced long-term security risks and instability is essential, and climate security advocates can ensure that climate initiatives confront the security challenges they aim to solve.

The Power of Now

In some ways, global leaders have struggled to find the right framing that reflects real understanding of the urgency of the moment. Framing climate as a security threat at the United Nations Security Council was rejected by major countries such as Russia, China, and India, who argued that the Security Council was not the right place to discuss climate change or climate justice. There also has been pushback around framing disasters that Africa has faced as the consequences of climate change, as scientists and Africans have claimed that political decisions, and not climate, have worsened the impact of extreme weather events. For example, scientists hit back at the idea that the famine in Madagascar was the first famine ever caused by climate change, pointing to poor urban planning and high population density as playing driving roles. African citizens have also pushed back against the notion of framing issues as climate-induced, instead publicly advocating for their local leaders to invest in stronger resilience measures. The question that must be answered: how can practitioners communicate climate risk to skeptical audiences? Those who believe in pursuing climate action often make the case that acting now to embrace adaptation strategies will prevent the world from feeling the full brunt of climate change in the future. Yet playing the “long game” holds little appeal for those who face a presence of poverty, disenfranchisement and lack of representation. Climate security interventions must explain how they will reduce the risks that vulnerable communities are facing today—including housing insecurity, public health crises, unemployment, poverty, and systemic violence. Proponents of climate security also must acknowledge that people want safe, resilient, and vibrant communities. They should not be afraid to get political, and support local calls to ensure climate adaptation works for everyday people. Why would people buy into a framework or project that claims to address their community’s climate risks, yet fails to address endemic problems that wreak havoc on their daily lives? Centering the needs of the people even when those needs do not directly correlate to climate action is not only a more effective path, it is a necessity. Climate security strategies must incorporate immediate and local concerns in order to gain buy-in.

 “Threat Multiplier” or “Vulnerabilities Maximizer?”

Climate change is considered a “threat multiplier” that increases the likelihood of political instability, conflict, terrorism, and social unrest. In 2021, the United States Department of Defense identified “climate change and extreme weather events” to be a top challenge in the management and performance of their activities. With the perpetual focus on incoming climate threats, climate security approaches should seize the opportunity to address how climate change multiplies existing vulnerabilities for marginalized populations. In places from New York City to Lagos, for instance, the lack of safe and affordable housing in low-income urban areas that can stand up to extreme weather events such as flooding and extreme heat is a present and future concern. Confronting and remedying such existing vulnerabilities should be central to any climate security initiative. When non-governmental organizations or governmental agencies hold workshops on climate adaptation with communities without basic access to resources such as electricity, healthcare, and employment, they run the risk of being relatively unhelpful—or even unnecessary. The risk of climate security initiatives operating in such a way can be seen in places like South Sudan, where the country did not have the capacity to administer COVID-19 vaccines due to imploding climate security risks through massive flooding that had not been previously addressed.

Prioritizing Participation

Participatory sessions in which community members express what they value in secure communities can be a key component of climate security interventions. Participatory and community-based research in environmental justice “emphasizes community involvement in determining the issue addressed through the research, the design and process of research, and action to effect change as a part of the research process.” What is the weight of climate change in community members’ lives? What impacts on their security do they feel need to be addressed? Participatory climate security initiatives can address broader concerns that international agendas prioritize climate over the real needs of populations. One serious critique of the climate movement has been that it is elitist, and comprised only of people with enough leisure time and security can engage in climate activism. Many also have pointed to the climate movement’s erasure of Global South voices. This cannot continue to happen if climate security programs are to be successfully implemented. Indeed, these programs should be led by people indigenous to the target place of any given climate intervention. Climate security advocates also must be honest about why high climate-risk countries experience more climate insecurity than other nations. Many of the countries deemed high-risk have deep histories of colonialism, resulting in inequitable and unfair trade flows of natural resources, ethnic conflict due to arbitrary post-colonial borders, and other long-standing oppression. These conditions have hampered countries’ abilities to have the systemic and financial capacity to respond effectively to the climate crisis. Climate security analysis which is devoid of discussion about how systemic racism, colonialism, and oppression increase the vulnerability for a given population’s exposure to climate threats is not grounded in the realities necessary to meaningfully address these risks. In a world where the ability to convince the public of the importance of a topic can drive or kill action, climate security advocates should revitalize how they communicate their important message: climate security must be incorporated into climate change approaches. A focus on how climate security must evolve from articulating mostly academic and theoretical advantages of using this lens to how this lens will best serve the real needs of people struggling to adapt to climate change in this moment is important. Ensuring the climate security framework is fit for purpose to serve those most vulnerable to climate risk is a critical endeavor. Approaches to climate security that considers intersectional elements such as power and gender can be seen in the rising field of environmental peacebuilding, but more is needed. A combination of implementing interventions that reflect climate security researchers’ analytical frameworks with an acknowledgement and centering of everyday people’s needs for security could prove to be a powerful praxis.