International | The climate crisis and its security challenges

Despite a surprise agreement between China and the United States, which somewhat revives the projections, the results of COP26 are not up to expectations. If the objective were to resolve the climate crisis, the commitments made by the States are largely failing.

Indeed, according to the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the contributions determined by each government before COP26 would reduce 2030 emissions by barely 7.5%, while a decrease of 30% is necessary to limit warming to 2 ° C and 55% to limit it to 1.5 ° C. In addition, many countries that have made net emission reduction commitments do not appear to have a concrete plan to achieve this. This lack of ambition will come with its share of consequences, some of which relate to security.

But what about the security issues of the climate crisis?

Climate security

Over the past fifteen years, climate change has increasingly been seen as a security problem. The United Nations Security Council recognizes that it can act as a “threat multiplier” that exacerbates other factors at the heart of armed conflict. At its annual summit last June, NATO announced its goal of becoming “the international organization of reference for understanding and adapting to the impacts of climate change on security”.

While it is widely accepted that climate change has security implications, there is no common narrative or shared conceptualization or understanding. Politicians, think tanks (think tank) and academics often disagree on what constitutes appropriate responses. Moreover, these speeches did not lead to concrete actions. Information, data and analysis are available, but the shift from conceptualization to implementation is still emerging.

Can we talk about climate wars? Are there links between climate and conflicts? University research on the subject is struggling to determine the cause and effect link. What seems more promising remains the research on indirect causes (causal pathways), i.e. the effects of the climate crisis on food security, agriculture, migration, the scale of natural disasters and economic relations that could lead to instability. In this case, the climate is neither necessary nor sufficient to trigger a conflict, but the situation can escalate depending on how governments, institutions, organizations and actors respond to the climate crisis respond.

At the same time, security policy makers, practitioners and researchers are reflecting on the direct threats to military bases and strategic infrastructure, the effects on the operational environment of the armed forces and the increased (future) demands for humanitarian interventions.

With the resurgence of climate-related disasters, the military forces of multiple NATO countries are intervening more and more often.

In many cases, disasters caused by extreme weather events – or COVID-19 – have led military forces to play a supporting role in civilian crisis management: delivery of supplies, evacuation of citizens, rehabilitation of essential infrastructure and general support for response plans.

If, in doing so, the armed forces have gained valuable experience, these activities raise the question of the military mission: what is security (or national defense) in a world threatened by melting glaciers, rising sea levels and temperatures, increasing extreme weather events and declining biosphere? The safety of whom or what are we talking about?

Ethical issues

Ultimately, the responses provided can only be based on various ethical commitments. Questions related to reducing the use of fossil fuels will become central to research into climate security: preventing climate instability or conflicts necessarily involves decarbonization and the energy transition of the world economy, but these transformations are taking place. they are sources of insecurity. Especially since CO emissions₂ military forces are excluded from the COP talks … while the Pentagon emits more greenhouse gases than Portugal or Sweden!

At the heart of climate security issues are therefore significant geopolitical risks, but also the danger of widening the gap between developed countries and others. The developed countries, historically responsible for the climate crisis, are the most able to mitigate and adapt, while the countries of the “global South” have little influence on geopolitical climate issues. With limited capacities to adapt, the latter will bear the brunt of the consequences and, no doubt, will see climate security practices imposed on their territory.

For further

Read Facing Gaïa – Eight lectures on the new climate regime by Bruno Latour Browse “The UN Environment Program (UNEP)” Listen to François Bellefeuille’s podcast 3.7 planets

Read the FrancoPaix Bulletin “Climate security in the Sahel: for whom and for what? ”