Understanding Security in the Context of Climate Change

The word “security” often evokes images of military forces, national borders, and territorial defence. But in an era of rising temperatures, melting glaciers, and extreme weather events, security has taken on an entirely new meaning. Climate change is not just an environmental issue-it is fundamentally reshaping how nations, institutions, and individuals think about safety, stability, and survival. Understanding security in the context of climate change requires us to look beyond traditional state-centric models and recognize the interconnected threats facing humanity today.

The traditional concept of state security 🔗

Historically, security has been understood primarily in terms of protecting a nation’s territory from external military threats. Governments built armies, negotiated alliances, and invested in defence systems to safeguard their borders and sovereignty. Within this framework, the state serves as the primary guarantor of safety, providing citizens with protection against foreign aggression and internal disorder.

Traditional state security also encompasses ensuring the basic requirements for citizens’ survival: access to food, shelter, clean water, and sustainable livelihoods. Political systems function to maintain economic wellbeing and ensure the proper distribution of natural resources. A secure state, under this definition, is one where citizens can meet their fundamental needs without fear of deprivation or external interference.

However, this narrow interpretation of security-focused on military power and territorial integrity-has proven insufficient for addressing the complex, transboundary challenges of the 21st century. Climate change does not respect national borders. A drought in one region can trigger food crises across continents. Rising sea levels threaten island nations regardless of their military strength. The traditional security paradigm, while still relevant, cannot fully capture these emerging threats.

Human security: a paradigm shift 🔗

The United Nations Development Programme’s 1994 Human Development Report marked a turning point in how the international community conceptualized security. This landmark publication introduced the concept of “human security,” fundamentally redefining the focus from protecting states to protecting people.

The seven dimensions of human security 🔗

The 1994 Report identified seven interconnected dimensions of human security:

Economic security addresses threats like unemployment, income inequality, and lack of social safety nets. Even in developed countries, job insecurity remains a significant concern affecting millions of people.

Food security focuses on both physical and economic access to adequate nutrition. Climate change directly threatens food security by disrupting agricultural production and supply chains.

Health security encompasses threats to life and wellbeing, including inadequate access to healthcare services and the emergence of new diseases.

Environmental security deals with ecosystem degradation, pollution of water, air, and soil-areas where climate change poses perhaps its most direct threats.

Personal security protects individuals from physical violence, whether from the state, other states, or criminal elements.

Community security safeguards cultural identity and the integrity of communities, which can be disrupted by climate-induced displacement.

Political security ensures that people live in a society that respects their basic human rights.

What makes this framework revolutionary is its recognition that these seven areas are deeply interconnected. Environmental degradation can lead to food insecurity, which can trigger economic collapse, which can cause political instability. The report emphasized that human security concerns affect both wealthy and developing nations, with job losses and environmental degradation being common threats across economic boundaries.

IPCC’s climate security warnings 🔗

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has played a crucial role in connecting climate science to security concerns. Established in 1988 by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization, the IPCC produces comprehensive assessment reports on climate change, its impacts, and potential responses.

Evolution of IPCC assessments 🔗

From its earliest reports, the IPCC has warned about the security implications of unchecked greenhouse gas emissions. The First Assessment Report (1990) established the scientific foundation for understanding how human activities were warming the planet through increased greenhouse gas concentrations.

The subsequent assessment reports have grown increasingly urgent. The Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), completed in 2023, represents the most comprehensive scientific assessment of climate change to date. Drawing on contributions from hundreds of scientists across multiple working groups, it documents the devastating consequences of rising emissions across the globe-from destroyed homes and lost livelihoods to fragmented communities.

The IPCC’s findings directly connect to security concerns. The reports highlight how climate change threatens human wellbeing and planetary health, with impacts including sea-level rise, more frequent extreme weather events, and disruptions to food and water systems. These are not abstract environmental concerns-they are direct threats to human security in all seven dimensions identified by the UNDP.

Key findings on emissions and warming 🔗

According to IPCC Working Group I, emissions from human activities have already caused approximately 1.1°C of warming since the pre-industrial period (1850-1900). The reports confirm that strong, rapid, and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are necessary to limit climate change and its security implications.

The IPCC has made clear that without immediate and deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, it will be impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Every increment of global warming intensifies multiple and concurrent hazards, threatening food production, water availability, and human settlements.

The architecture of international environmental agreements 🔗

Recognizing the transboundary nature of environmental threats, the international community has developed a series of agreements aimed at addressing environmental security concerns. These treaties represent collective efforts to manage shared risks through international cooperation.

The Vienna Convention and Montreal Protocol 🔗

The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, adopted in 1985, served as a framework for international cooperation on atmospheric protection. While the Vienna Convention itself did not impose concrete reduction targets, it laid the groundwork for what would become one of the most successful environmental agreements in history.

The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, signed in 1987, became the first international treaty to achieve universal ratification. The Protocol phases out the production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances, protecting human health and the environment from harmful ultraviolet radiation. With the 2016 Kigali Amendment addressing hydrofluorocarbons (powerful greenhouse gases), the Montreal Protocol now serves as both an ozone protection and climate treaty.

Framework Convention on Climate Change 🔗

The 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, established the overarching framework for international climate action. The Convention’s ultimate objective is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at levels that would prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system.

While the UNFCCC did not set legally binding emission limits, it established the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities,” acknowledging that while all nations share responsibility for addressing climate change, developed countries should take the lead given their historical contribution to the problem.

The Kyoto Protocol 🔗

The Kyoto Protocol, adopted in 1997 and entering into force in 2005, was the first international treaty to set legally binding emission reduction targets. Under the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, the Protocol mandated that 37 industrialized nations plus the European Community reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5 percent below 1990 levels during the first commitment period (2008-2012).

The Protocol introduced innovative market-based mechanisms, including emissions trading and the Clean Development Mechanism, allowing countries to meet their targets cost-effectively while promoting sustainable development in developing nations. However, the Protocol’s effectiveness was limited by the non-participation of major emitters, including the United States.

The Paris Agreement 🔗

The Paris Agreement, adopted in December 2015, represents the current cornerstone of international climate governance. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, which only required developed countries to reduce emissions, the Paris Agreement calls on all nations to take climate action.

The Agreement sets long-term goals to substantially reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, aiming to hold global temperature increase to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels while pursuing efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C. The Agreement operates on a five-year cycle, with countries submitting increasingly ambitious Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) outlining their climate action plans.

A key innovation of the Paris Agreement is its framework for transparent monitoring and reporting. Countries communicate their actions to reduce emissions and build resilience, creating accountability through regular reviews and a global stocktake process to assess collective progress.

Connecting climate and security 🔗

The evolution from traditional state security to human security-and the development of international environmental agreements-reflects a growing recognition that climate change poses fundamental threats to human wellbeing and global stability.

Climate-related security threats manifest in multiple ways. Water scarcity and agricultural failures can trigger migration and conflict over resources. Sea-level rise threatens the existence of small island states and coastal communities. Extreme weather events can overwhelm infrastructure and governance systems. These impacts do not affect all populations equally-vulnerable communities, often those least responsible for emissions, face the greatest risks.

The international agreements discussed represent humanity’s collective response to these shared threats. From the Vienna Convention’s framework approach to the Paris Agreement’s universal participation model, each treaty builds on lessons learned and reflects evolving understanding of both the scientific and political dimensions of environmental security.

Looking forward 🔗

Understanding security in the climate change context requires integrating environmental, economic, social, and political considerations. The traditional focus on territorial defence remains relevant, but it must be complemented by attention to the broader factors that determine human wellbeing and stability.

The IPCC’s warnings continue to grow more urgent, while the gap between scientific recommendations and actual emissions reductions remains significant. The success of international agreements depends not just on their design but on implementation, compliance, and the political will of nations to prioritize long-term collective security over short-term individual interests.

Climate security is not a future concern-it is a present reality affecting communities around the world. The frameworks and agreements discussed here provide tools for addressing these challenges, but their effectiveness ultimately depends on the choices made by governments, institutions, and individuals.

What do you think? How should traditional security institutions adapt to address climate-related threats? And how can the concept of human security help bridge the gap between environmental science and policy action?

References

1. https://hdr.undp.org/content/human-development-report-1994
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_security
3. https://www.ipcc.ch/
4. https://www.wri.org/insights/2023-ipcc-ar6-synthesis-report-climate-change-findings
5. https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/reports
6. https://www.ipcc.ch/2021/08/09/ar6-wg1-20210809-pr/
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Sixth_Assessment_Report
8. https://www.epa.gov/ozone-layer-protection/international-treaties-and-cooperation-about-protection-stratospheric-ozone
9. https://ozone.unep.org/treaties/montreal-protocol
10. https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/marking-kyoto-protocol's-25th-anniversary
11. https://www.britannica.com/event/Kyoto-Protocol
12. https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/paris-agreement