Environmental issues are often portrayed as a significant security risk and a catastrophic event that threatens all life on Earth (Žižek, 2010). The emerging discourse of a ‘climate emergency’ has sparked ongoing discussions in academia, with disagreements over the crisis itself (Albert, 2022:2). The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) conferences have seen heated debates on the implications of environmental issues for international security, with varying opinions on the links between climate change and conflict (UNSC, 2007a; McDonald, 2023a). Despite the significant securitization of environmental issues rhetorically and discursively, politicians have not translated the sense of urgency into extraordinary political actions (Buzan, Wæver & Wilde, 1998). This essay asserts that, despite the doomsday framing of environmental crises, political figures often shy away from proposing exceptional or extraordinary responses due to the risks and challenges associated with implementing such measures.
This analysis delves into the debates surrounding environmental issues and security studies by introducing literature on Anthropocene studies, securitization theory, and exceptional politics. It then delves into the reasons why such political responses are rare and why they are often avoided. Drawing from debates at the UNSC conference, the essay demonstrates that employing exceptional political practices and risk management for environmental issues would disrupt the intricate relationship between humanity and the natural world.
Environmental crises have become a prevalent theme in public and academic discourse, drawing attention to issues like global warming and ozone depletion (Veldman, 2012). The Brandt Report (1980) highlighted the irreversible degradation of the biosphere as a significant threat to global peace and survival (Brauch, 2003:81). Gorbachev emphasized the threat of global warming during a UN General Assembly in 1988, signaling a shift in humanity’s relationship with the environment (Myers, 1993:11). In the Anthropocene era, human impact on the environment has reshaped Earth, challenging our understanding of the planet (Rothe, Müller & Chandler, 2021). Securitization theory by the Copenhagen School views security issues as socially constructed ‘threats,’ emphasizing the role of discourse in shaping how issues are perceived and acted upon (Buzan & Wæver, 1998).
Around 11,000 scientists have issued warnings about a climate emergency due to rising atmospheric CO2 levels, calling for global mobilization to address the crisis (Ripple et al., 2021). Despite these urgent calls, exceptional political responses to environmental issues remain uncertain and contentious (Albert, 2022:6). The logic of security from the Copenhagen School allows for extraordinary actions that challenge normative rules, as seen in climate emergency situations (Roe, 2012:251). However, these responses are often avoided due to concerns about invoking war metaphors and risking negative outcomes, as evidenced in prominent cases like China and the US.
Although the securitization of environmental issues may warrant exceptional actions, the politicization of these issues is often confined within traditional security studies debates (Roe, 2012). Critics argue that resorting to extraordinary political responses in addressing environmental issues may lead to militarization and nationalism, deviating from the original goal of climate emergency mobilizations (Deudney & Matthew, 1999:466–468). The analysis suggests that exceptional political responses to environmental issues are fraught with challenges and complexities, leading decision-makers to opt for ordinary political measures.
