This book assesses the construction of security in the context of climate change, with a focus on the Arctic region. The theme of the book is inspired by an unresolved situation within modern society: never before has there been such consciousness of the importance of global ecology, and acceptance of climate change as a global, and man-made, security threat, requiring a human response through the traditional mechanism of the unified-state system which is maintained and supported by the current high degree of militarization. At the same time, there is a growing need for a paradigm shift in our approach to traditional (nationally-defined) security due to the combination of environmental pollution and rapid climate changes as a super âwickedâ problem.
All this makes us wonder if there are lessons learned from the environmental âawakeningââthe powerful movement which began in the 1960s and politicized the environment and pushed governments to take concerns of environmental degradation seriously. Or, from the public awareness and resistance movements in the 1980s, during the last peak of increased tension of the Cold War, against nuclear weapons and the threat imposed by the strategy of nuclear deterrence, channeled by the ânuclear winterâ scenarios anticipating a cooling of the Earth after a possible nuclear war (see Heininen in this volume). Would it be possible to establish the same kind of resistance and movements against contemporary âwickedâ problems (problems which are unsolvable due to their complex and inherently contradictory nature), in particular global warming, and also take into consideration strategic industries and energy users, such as the military as sources of pollution?
Among the fundamental questions raised in this volume are: Do individuals and states have common security interests, when it comes to the environment? If so, does environmental degradation and climate change present such common interests? Even if states take into consideration climate change as a security dimension, as it has been stated at the UNâs Security Council (see Kalliojarvi in this volume), have they reconsidered their security priorities due to climate change? If so, do they count âmilitary pollutionâ when trying to recognize different sources of pollution/pollutants? Furthermore, is international environmental risk management possible, and if so, how will it address militaries/militarization, in particular the current high degree of militarization?
Or, is there a faith in technology, such as geoengineering/climate engineering, that technology will come and save us? Could this be the reason for a delay in action by unified-states? If so, then it would be fair and ethically right, in order to have legitimacy, to have an open discussion on geoengineering as a proper and accepted method to (try to) solve the problem.
Or, is it that in light of environmental degradation, as well as in that of climate change, people must consider their own âsecurity prioritiesâ, and not accept the use of traditional military ways. Behind this is the well-known Ulrich Beckâs theory on the risk society that modern societies consciously take bigger risks concerning the environment which is clearly shown by the increasing use of nuclear power despite lethal accidents, as well as environmental degradation by the military.
Changing the Paradigm
In security studies, there are discourses, premises and paradigms of security, and changes in these premises and paradigms, as well as discussion on who the subjects of security are. In recent decades we have seen new discourses, such as on environmental and human security, and emerging shifts in premises; but not (yet) a shift in paradigms.
When it comes to the post-Cold War Arctic, there are special features of security, such as militarization, nuclear weapon structures, and significant changes in security premises from military to environmental security, parallel to the geopolitical shift from confrontation (of the Cold War) into cooperation (of the post-Cold War). This was much due to long-range pollution and nuclear safety, and the urgent need for functional cooperation on environmental protection, as is discussed in the book.
Although there has been a shift in security premises, it has not resulted in either nuclear disarmament nor a paradigm shift, yet. Due to the security dimension of pollution and climate change, as grand environmental challenges and/or wicked problems, there are on the one hand, new and more subjects of security which require a further and deeper change in problem definition on security premises, and on the other hand, consequently, a growing need for a constant shift in security paradigm(s). Correspondingly, this paves the way to argue that there is a need, even room, for a more permanent change in the problem definition of security paradigm(s), including disarmament, demilitarization and how threat/enemy pictures are constructed.
The focus of this book is climate change and global security, as cross-cutting issues dealing with environmental and human security discourses, in general and in particular in the Arctic context. The security nexus of the post-Cold War Arctic, transferring from military confrontation to cooperation to environmental security includes special features of security, such as nuclear safety (due to pollution) causing a change in security premises, and rapid climate change requiring a paradigm shift. The post-Cold War Arctic faces the âArctic paradoxâ, grand environmental challenges and wicked problems (the combination of pollution and climate change).
We ask in our publication, whether there is a need and interest to change the problem definition of security premises and paradigms? We interpret that rapid climate change and the Anthropocene are global factors, and ask whether they can promote a peaceful change, though it is not assured, and whether it would be logical to consider that? If so, that discourse includes an option of a paradigm shift. Finally, we search for arguments for, and indicators of, a paradigm shift when it comes to security in the environmental and Arctic context.
Summary of Chapters
Our questions are addressed in six chapters, in addition to the short introduction and conclusion, which each look at different aspects of climate change and global and/or Arctic security, and how they are evolving and intertwined.
Salla KalliojĂ€rvi provides a theoretical underpinning for our discussion in her chapter entitled Age of Changes: Threats of Climate Change and Its Meaning for Security. As she explains, the security implications of climate change have attracted increasing attention of academics, policymakers and security practitioners since the 2000s. Climate change is often perceived as a âthreat multiplierâ that has the potential to amplify already existing security threats from poverty to large scale displacement of people to conflicts, pushing the responsive capacities of many governments and societies to their limits. A great number of states, among with many international institutions, have identified climate change as a national and international security threat. The problematization of climate change as a security issue has not followed unitary logic, but is varying greatly in the assumptions of who or what should be secured, from what threats and by what means. The different ways of problematizing climate change as a security issue entail different sets of policy recommendations and construct different understandings of security.
KalliojÀrvi presents a poststructuralist and post-Marxist analysis of the climate security discourse, investigating what kind of security climate change is said to endanger and how the security is provided. Her analysis focuses on the discursive construction of/and transformations in the meaning of security, and argues that the prevailing understanding of security is highly centralized around the secondary implications of climate change that emphasizes the need of adaptation measures but misses acknowledging the importance of emission reductions in maintaining security. Due to its unique exposure to climate change, the Arctic is highly dependent on the security policies adopted on a global scale. KalliojÀrvi argues that the current climate security discourse is more likely to result in adaptive strategies than effective mitigation efforts that are preparing for an iceless future rather than aiming to tackle the global warming.
Sanna Kopra examines the role of China in our evolving paradigms of international security, especially with regards to the Arctic, in her chapter on China, Great Power Responsibility and Arctic Security. As China increasingly identifies itself as a great power in world politics, âChina threat theoriesâ and speculations as to whether its rising status will change discourses, premises and paradigms of international security, have grown. When it comes to the Arctic, Chinaâs growing interest in regional affairs has raised questions of its potential risks to regional peace and security. As China is now the largest carbon emitter in the world, it presents a tremendous challenge to climate change mitigation and human security regionally and globally. Based on a premise that great powers have a unique responsibility to uphold international peace and security, Kopra examines Chinaâs emerging great power status and its implications for Arctic security in general and in the context of international climate politics in particular.
Teemu Palosaari, in his chapter on Climate Change Ethics in the Arctic, looks at how the key questions of global climate change ethicsâmoral responsibility, distribution of benefits and burdens, and environmental justiceâappear in the Arctic discourse. As Palosaari describes, a significant share of the worldâs as-yet unexploited oil and gas resources are at the bottom of the Arctic Ocean. As the sea ice is melting, coastal states and energy companies are viewing these resources with interest. Using them would, however, accelerate climate change, leading to a heated debate on whether the new Arctic oil and gas reserves should be utilized or left untouched. Palosaariâs main argument is that it is becoming increasingly difficult for governments, businesses and decision-makers to ignore climate ethics in the Arctic. The way that problems and solutions regarding Arctic oil and gas are defined and promoted has global significance. Arctic glacier and sea-ice melt have both symbolic value in global climate politics as well as a direct impact on the rise in sea level around the world.
Will Greaves takes a rare and overdue look at the intersection between urban, climate and Arctic studies in his chapter on Cities and Human Security in a Warming Arctic. As he points out, humanity has became an urbanized species, with a majority of people around the world living in urban areas. In the same period, the scale of humanityâs impacts upon the natural environment, most notably through human-caused climate change, confronts people and societies around the world with fundamental challenges to their continued ability to live where and how they wish. The nexus of urbanization and climate change poses fundamental questions relating to how cities should be understood in relation to the protection of people from environmental insecurities.
Greaves develops an argument that cities and smaller urban centres are paradoxical for questions of climate and environmental security. Urbanization represents an important development for improving global environmental sustainability by reducing individualsâ carbon footprints and resource use-intensity, but are also significant consumers of resources and producers of pollution and waste that contribute to conditions of global ecological crisis. Moreover, cities simultaneously offer greater opportunities for individuals to meet their basic survival needs and can provide some resilience for people in the face of natural disasters. However, many cities are also vulnerable to disruptions caused by climate change, and face growing challenges as a result of changing ecological conditions. Thus, cities are paradoxically implicated in both securing people against climate change while making them more reliant upon industrial processes and systems that directly contribute to climate change. This argument is developed through examples from urban communities in the circumpolar Arctic region, which is not only a highly urbanized space, but also the global region experiencing the fastest and most acute impacts of climate change.
Heather Exner-Pirot explores more traditional concepts of security as applied to the Arctic in her chapter Between Militarization and Disarmament: Challenges for Arctic Security in the Twenty-First Century. The period of regionalization that the Arctic has enjoyed since Gorbachevâs famous Murmansk Speech in 1987 has brought stability and peace. Ironically, however, it has not led to disarmament, despite the initial premise of developing the Arctic region into a âZone of Peaceâ, with an Arctic Council focused on demilitarization and arms control issues. Exner-Pirot asks why issues of militarization have fallen so far off the Arctic statesâ political agenda.
Her chapter provides an historical overview of disarmament and demilitarization discussions ...