“Climate change in IPCC usage refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g. using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. It refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.” When such a change was seen in the past as a purely natural event, humankind now recognizes its own influence on the Earth’s ecosystem. Since the 1970s academics and scientists are warning of a Global Warming caused by human activities by several publications like The Limits to Growth (1972). The issue became ultimately the public attention with the release of former US Presidential Candidate Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” honored with an Academy Award in 2006 and the winning of the Nobel Peace prize by IPCC and Al Gore. For the matter of easy understanding I will put Climate Change synonymous to the recent phenomenon of Global Warming. Being a huge challenge for humankind there is a lively debate about the way facing it, mainly in which category of the trilogy politicization, securitization and riskification it falls. For such a categorization it is important to ask for the nature of Global Warming, so whether it is or should be treated as a political issue, a threat or a risk. Is climate change thus governed as a threat or a risk? Can we witness a successful securitization? Or is it more convenient to classify Climate Change into the concept of riskification? After providing the reader with each conceptual framework, I will challenge the theories with the issues of Climate Change. But first and foremost it will be needed to explain the relevance of Climate Change as an issue within security studies.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Climate Change as a security issue
3. The conceptual framework of securitization
4. Securitization of Climate Change
4.1 Securitizing Moves
5. The Politicization of Climate Change
6. The conceptual framework of riskification
7. Riskification of Climate Change
8. Conclusion
Objectives & Core Themes
This academic paper aims to evaluate how climate change is framed within contemporary security studies, specifically debating whether it should be categorized under the concepts of securitization or riskification. The primary research question explores if Global Warming constitutes a political issue, a threat requiring extraordinary security measures, or a risk that demands long-term governance.
- The Copenhagen School's theory of securitization
- Climate change as an environmental security challenge
- The role of scientific epistemology and political actors
- Politicization vs. securitization of environmental issues
- The framework of riskification as a governance approach
Excerpt from the Book
Securitizing Moves
Global Warming is a global issue. But at the same time there is no international community at the same stand of a state in matters of political action which could be a convincing securitizing actor. It turned out that in the past the attempts were led by the scientific epistemology, intergovernmental organizations, individuals and marginally by states. The referent group is always either the entirety of states or the civilians of these states directly.
The scientific epistemology discovered early the dangers and threats of Global Warming, its cause and measures to face it. It addressed its concerns to the political community with the grammar of urgency and threat to humanity. They also proposed measures like the reduction of the emission of CO2 and extraordinary investments. Many securitizing moves can be found in the reports that bridge both agenda [the scientific and the political], ranging from the Club of Rome reports to the work of the Brundtland Commission.
As a consequence the United Nations Environment Programme created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 and the international political community established annual Climate Change Conferences since 1992. But this kind of institutionalization can be interpreted as a process of politicization as the Copenhagen School considered, most securitizing moves take place at that level as a result of the existence of an international environmental epistemic community that drafts and securitizes the environmental agenda.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: The introduction defines climate change and establishes the relevance of analyzing it through the lenses of politicization, securitization, and riskification.
2. Climate Change as a security issue: This chapter examines the causes and effects of global warming, highlighting its impact on political, societal, and economic security.
3. The conceptual framework of securitization: This section outlines the Copenhagen School's theory, defining security as a matter of survival and existential threats.
4. Securitization of Climate Change: The chapter explores how environmental issues are securitized and details various attempts to frame climate change as a security threat.
4.1 Securitizing Moves: This sub-chapter analyzes specific actions taken by actors like the IPCC, the Alliance of Small Island States, and Al Gore to place climate change on the security agenda.
5. The Politicization of Climate Change: This chapter concludes that most attempts to securitize climate change have resulted in politicization rather than successful securitization.
6. The conceptual framework of riskification: This section introduces riskification as a distinct approach where security practices are articulated through risks rather than existential threats.
7. Riskification of Climate Change: This chapter argues that climate change is better analyzed through the riskification framework, which focuses on long-term governance and precautionary measures.
8. Conclusion: The conclusion summarizes that while securitization has largely failed, riskification offers a more conclusive framework for managing the climate change challenge.
Keywords
Climate Change, Global Warming, Securitization, Riskification, Copenhagen School, Environmental Security, IPCC, Sustainability, Politicization, Governance, Security Studies, Existential Threat, Precautionary Measures, Anthropocene
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this paper?
The paper focuses on the academic debate within security studies regarding how to categorize climate change: as a security threat, a political issue, or a risk to be managed.
What are the central themes discussed in the work?
Central themes include the concepts of securitization, the role of environmental epitemic communities, the limits of state-level action, and the shift from "emergency" security measures to "precautionary" risk governance.
What is the primary research question?
The research asks whether it is more appropriate to classify climate change as a securitized existential threat or as a risk that requires ongoing governance and policy adjustment.
Which scientific methods or theoretical frameworks are employed?
The paper utilizes the theoretical framework of the Copenhagen School (Buzan, Waever, de Wilde) and the concept of "riskification" as proposed by Olaf Corry to evaluate environmental discourse.
What is the scope of the main body?
The main body examines the history of climate change discourse, analyzes why traditional securitization attempts have largely failed, and evaluates the benefits of applying the riskification framework to global climate policy.
Which keywords characterize the analysis?
Key terms include securitization, riskification, environmental security, global governance, and sustainable development.
Why does the author argue that climate change is not yet "securitized"?
The author argues that while climate change is debated, it lacks the "panic politics" and activation of extraordinary emergency measures characteristic of true securitization, often falling instead into the realm of long-term political negotiation.
How does the role of the "Small Island States" illustrate the limits of securitization?
Even though small island states face an existential threat from rising sea levels, their lobbying efforts demonstrate that the global political system treats these as adaptation or migration issues rather than triggering universal, high-level security responses.
What is the significance of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" in this study?
Al Gore is analyzed as a "speaker" who attempts to mobilize public opinion, yet his efforts are identified as failing to achieve securitization because they do not trigger the specific extraordinary state measures required by the theory.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Justus Lindl (Autor:in), 2014, Climate Change and Risk. Securitization and Emergency in Global Governance, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/278449
