While reading this week’s reading assignments, I began to truly understand what we spoke about on the first day: that no one considers environmental security the same way. Once I understood this aspect, I then asked myself: if no one really considers environmental security in the exact same way, isn’t that the reason–or at least a component of the reason–why not much effective climate change policy has been enacted? I kept this question in the back of my mind while going over the readings.
Since the idea of environmental security is a relatively new area of scholarship, there is guaranteed contention. Such contention especially is rooted on what politicians, scientists, and everyday citizens should consider a security threat. As Rita Floyd mentioned, securitization needs to be perceived as “existentially threatening” by a “suitably powerful securitizing actor”–such as presidents, prime ministers, etc.–in order to be accepted by the public. Ultimately, it is the public’s opinion that truly makes a difference. From the readings, while I did come to understand that not everyone considers climate change in the same way, depending on where they live, their occupation, or health (etc.), I did also see that this is the excuse we have been using for decades. The argument over what exactly is considered an environmental security threat is, in my opinion, is holding us back from taking substantial steps toward mitigating our current situation and achieving better climate policy in the future.
That being said, I do not altogether agree with Mr. Benjaminsen’s article “Is Climate Change Causing Conflict in the Sahel?”. While he does make an important point that scarce resources are not the only reason for conflict in the world, I don’t agree that those who do believe such a fact are ignoring other root causes of global conflict. It is my opinion that yes, historically, root causes of conflict were rooted in politics, however the world is changing and that climate change–which is a contributor to resource scarcity–has become a new root cause of conflict. While not explicitly mentioned in the readings for this week, there are case studies of conflict arising as a result of climate change, be it from sea level rise, food scarcity, migration, or countless others, that outnumber Benjaminsen’s argument that most conflicts result from political and historical dispute. I am not saying that his argument is not well-founded and that there are no conflicts that do not directly result from climate change, however it is my belief that the effects of climate change are related to almost every global conflict today. Climate change may not be a root cause is every conflict, however it still plays a significant role, which will only increase in the future without proper policy in place.
Overall, I believe that climate change should be considered a non-traditional security threat and should be included in the umbrella term “security threat”. As Floyd mentioned, the nature of human security can (I think it should) be about both “freedom from fear and freedom from want”. As we move into a more climatically threatened future, this will only become more relevant, as fear and want increase as our resources decrease.