Dr. Ashok Swain is a professor of peace and conflict research at Uppsala University in Sweden and founding Editor-in-Chief of the journal, Environment and Security. An expert on environment, development, and security issues, Swain has long had an eye for recognizing emerging security challenges. In his new book, Climate Security, Swain explores climate change’s connection to some of the key issues driving today’s security discourse, including the role of misinformation in hindering climate action, climate’s role in the growing displacement crisis, and how climate-driven shifts in territory and resources are reshaping geopolitics. Swain gave us a sneak peak of the book’s key insights, including the potential for a new international governance framework to address climate-related security risks.

ECSP: Walk us through how you came to write Climate Security. How did you choose which aspects of climate and security to focus on?

Swain: Climate change has become a central issue on the global stage, but progress in addressing this challenge has been highly unsatisfactory. Climate-induced disasters are becoming more frequent and severe and emissions continue to rise, despite decades of international agreements, scientific warnings, and policy discussions,

The book was born out of a desire to bridge that alarming gap between political rhetoric and real action. We must present the climate-security nexus in a way that is both accessible and compelling—and helps the readers grasp the critical survival challenges facing humankind​.

I say “critical” because climate change is not only an environmental issue. It interacts with security issues as it reshapes economies, displaces populations, and fuels conflicts.

So Climate Security looks at how apathy and misinformation fostered by political and economic interests have hindered real action to meet the challenge. It assesses the role of armed forces in exacerbating (and mitigating) climate risks, and how rising seas, melting glaciers and shifting rivers are redrawing geopolitical boundaries. The book also addresses the security impacts of water conflict and cooperation and climate migration—as well as how climate stress is undermining governance and political stability​.

The goal of the book is not only to highlight problems. I want to offer a framework for urgent policy action.

ECSP: You have argued that researchers who avoid a framework that views climate change as a national security imperative leave the issue on the sidelines of politics and policy. Why are climate and security so inseparable? 

Swain: Framing climate change as a national security issue has sometimes led to misguided policy measures. Yet the urgency of the crisis demands that it be recognized as such so that the political class may take extraordinary measures required for climate mitigation and adaptation. Without elevating climate change to a national security priority, governments may not respond with the necessary urgency, or allocate sufficient resources to combat its effects​.

One challenge is that a national security framing often leads to a militarized response, rather than comprehensive global cooperation. For instance, climate-induced migration is increasingly seen as a security threat rather than a humanitarian crisis. The result is restrictive border policies rather than investments in adaptation and resilience for vulnerable communities. Additionally, some governments prioritize short-term national interests—such as protecting critical infrastructure—over long-term global climate action​.

Yet the unprecedented threats posed by climate change—including food and water insecurity, to economic instability, and geopolitical tensions—make it essential to treat it as a national security issue. It is a framing which can galvanize political action, secure funding for large-scale mitigation efforts, and push governments to integrate climate risk assessments into their defense and security strategies. National security institutions already have the mechanisms to coordinate large-scale emergency responses. Incorporating climate change into their mandate ensures that governments will act decisively, rather than reactively​.

Balancing the security narrative with a commitment to climate justice and multilateral cooperation is crucial. By doing so, climate change can be both a national security imperative and a collective global responsibility​

ECSP: Climate Security begins with an examination of misinformation’s role in fostering political apathy toward climate change. What are your key insights on this challenge? Where do you see opportunities to counter climate misinformation? 

Swain: Misinformation plays a crucial role in shaping public perception and policy inertia on climate change. It is spread both unintentionally (misinterpretation of data) and deliberately (disinformation campaigns by vested interests such as the fossil fuel industry). In the latter case, fossil fuel companies have historically sought to undermine climate regulations​, and funded think tanks and research institutions to cast doubt on climate science and downplay the urgency for action​.

One key example is the promulgation of a “techno-optimism” narrative which suggests that future technologies, such as carbon capture and storage, will solve climate change without requiring immediate action. This viewpoint leads to complacency and delayed policy responses.

Countering misinformation requires a multi-pronged approach. We must strengthen public trust in climate science through transparent communication, and regulate social media platforms to curb the spread of false climate narratives. Enhancing climate literacy in education systems another essential task. And, finally, we must hold corporations accountable for spreading misleading information​.

ECSP: You observe that climate change will alter territories and borders. Can you walk us through the different ways this might play out—as well as any specific hotspots?

Swain: Climate change actively redraws global political and geographic boundaries. Rising sea levels threaten to submerge entire islands and coastal regions, which leads to the displacement of populations and disputes over maritime borders. The river courses which serve as natural borders in many regions also are shifting due to climate-induced floods and droughts—potentially triggering new territorial conflicts​.

In the Himalayas, for instance, accelerated glacier melting is affecting river flows, altering border landscapes, and exacerbating geopolitical tensions between India, Pakistan, and China. Melting glaciers in the Alps have led to territorial adjustments between Switzerland and Italy. In Africa and Asia, shifting rivers have historically caused border disputes. Climate change is expected to intensify these tensions​.

International frameworks must be strengthened to address the legal and political ramifications of these territorial shifts before they create conflicts. Diplomatic agreements and early-warning mechanisms will be crucial in managing disputes over climate-altered borders​.

ECSP: If you could implement one policy intervention that might better address the links between climate and security, what would it be?

Swain: One high-impact policy intervention would be to establish a Global Climate Security Council (GCSC) under the United Nations. Yet to be effective, this council must not only be advisory. It must be constituted democratically, and endowed with enforcement powers to ensure that climate threats are treated with the same level of urgency as traditional security threats​.

Current policy is founded on voluntary commitments that are often disregarded. So this GCSC would function as a decision-making body to compel nation. to take decisive action on climate mitigation and adaptation. It should have binding authority to enforce climate security measures, particularly on emissions reduction, adaptation funding, and disaster preparedness. And while existing international climate agreements depend on goodwill and non-binding pledges, a GCSC would impose real consequences for non-compliance, including financial penalties and trade restrictions for countries that fail to meet their obligations​.

To ensure legitimacy and fairness, the GCSC must be structured to prevent a few powerful nations from dominating decision-making. Unlike the current UN Security Council, which is heavily influenced by geopolitical rivalries, the GCSC should have equal representation from developed and developing nations. This democratic framework would ensure that climate-vulnerable countries—who bear the brunt of climate change—have a strong voice in shaping policies. Civil society actors, scientific experts, and indigenous representatives should also be part of any new council in order to foster inclusive and equitable decision-making​.