Security For All: Demilitarizing Our Climate Narratives

Security For All: Demilitarizing Our Climate Narratives

Climate action advocates are increasingly arguing that climate change is a national security issue. This “securitization” of climate change includes e orts to highlight specific security threats posed by a rapidly warming planet, as well as a broader messaging strategy that employs metaphors of war and military action to describe the climate crisis (e.g. calling for a “wartime mobilization” to rapidly deploy clean energy technology). These approaches have gained traction with advocacy organizations, leading thinkers, and the Biden administration, particularly in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Runaway climate change does indeed present a serious threat to our safety— as military planners have acknowledged for a generation—and it is reasonable to argue that the climate crisis should be treated with the same urgency with which nation-states respond to perceived military threats. However, the national security narrative also carries significant dangers, particularly on the issue of climate-connected displacement and migration. We strongly urge fellow climate advocates to avoid any messaging that frames climate migration as a “crisis” or threat to national security. These arguments directly endanger the Black, Brown, and Indigenous peoples most impacted by climate change—especially immigrants and refugees—and only serves to embolden the bad actors that seek to do these communities harm.

This short briefing is produced by climate advocates, military veterans, defense policy thinkers, and human rights experts. It is intended to highlight the danger of making arguments for climate action based on migration, and to further identify some limitations and risks for national security framing more broadly. Finally, we o er alternative pathways for climate advocates to e ectively engage with national security issues.

The “climate migration as security threat” narrative emboldens white supremacists

The far right has long used racist pseudo-scientific conceptions of nature as a recruiting tool to link concern for the natural world to fear and hatred of Black, Brown and Indigenous peoples, and—in particular—migrants from the Global South. Climate advocacy focused on migration as a national security threat only plays into dangerous and racist narratives like the “Great Replacement Theory” (see this guide to dangerous narratives from 350.org). Ecofascism has even played a key role in radicalizing fascist mass murderers. The Utoya Island mass shooter who killed 77 people in Norway in 2011, the Christchurch terrorist who killed 51 Muslims in New Zealand in 2019, and three recent US mass shooters have all cited ecofascism among their motivations. These are not isolated incidents, they are the end result of a dedicated campaign using social media to recruit and radicalize young white men into far-right politics

As racist conspiracy theories like the Great Replacement Theory are mainstreamed by prominent figures such as Tucker Carlson, persuadable young men will either see it as the racist lie that it is, or as a credible viewpoint reinforced by moderate voices legitimizing the concern that the US will be overrun by immigrants (as a result of climate change). Climate messaging that focuses on “mass migration” as a security threat can inadvertently lend credibility to the far-right voices that exploit xenophobia and racial resentment to build political power.

1. The “Security Threat” narrative is dangerous for immigrants, refugees, and communities of color

The security threat narrative is being exploited by defense corporations to militarize our borders

It is not only the extreme right that exploits fear of climate consequences to drive an agenda that has nothing to do with climate action. Major defense contractors—already bullish about the potential for global crises to boost weapon sales—are increasingly pivoting towards raising the “threat” of climate migration in order to expand markets for their products. The global border and surveillance industry, dominated by arms manufacturers and tech companies, was worth over $68 billion in 2020 and is growing fast. Rather than advocating for adaptation and mitigation strategies, the proposed response of these corporations is weapons, walls and surveillance to control and monitor the movement of people. This is not a future dystopia; thousands of people die every year at increasingly militarized borders. Many more are trapped, imprisoned without charge or trial, abused, or denied their basic rights—including the right to seek asylum—as a result of border violence enacted by powerful states.

The security threat narrative is weaponized against climate activists and communities of color

We have already established how climate security is being used as a justification, both by extremists and by mainstream figures in defense, political, and industry circles, to justify violence and mistreatment of migrants and refugees. The expanding dragnet of surveillance and militarization intended to reinforce borders also has major repercussions beyond national borders. Police and private security forces are increasingly using military weapons and tools against domestic climate campaigners, particularly Indigenous peoples protecting ancestral lands from fossil fuel infrastructure, with associated policing, surveillance and legal barriers being established to prevent e ective climate action. Security and migration are used as justifications for aggressive policing and raids in communities of color, and for large-scale spying and privacy rights violations.

The security threat narrative has limited persuasive power

Some climate advocates have deployed climate security narratives in the hope that these arguments will bypass traditional partisan divides and persuade moderates and conservatives to take climate change seriously. But, when such messaging has been subjected to rigorous testing, the results have shown limited persuasive impact. Even studies more optimistic about the use of national security framing to motivate climate action have highlighted the danger of unintended consequences. For instance, one study concluded that certain national security frames (particularly “energy independence”) can heighten concern for global warming among conservatives, but this messaging had the opposite e ect on Democrats, resulting in less support for climate action.

Terms like “national security” activate powerful frames and references relating to war, hostile states, and terrorism that cannot simply be refitted to climate change. In fact, these types of framing can backfire by undermining existing bases of support while entrenching the belief held by those who oppose climate action that government resources would be better spent on conventional security threats.

2. National security narratives have limited persuasive power, and can even serve to undermine climate action

Climate advocates should be skeptical of military leadership and militarized solutions

Climate campaigners who rely on the national security arguments of US military leaders run the risk of their arguments only serving to advance traditional defense priorities. The US defense establishment has long taken seriously the security threat dimension of climate change, and climate advocates have celebrated publications like the recently released US Army Climate Strategy, which states that “climate change endangers national and economic security, and the health and well-being of the American people.” However, the actions proposed by military leaders do not necessarily advance meaningful climate action. In fact, past military alarm-raising on climate change has mostly served as a political cover for the massive US defense budget, nearly half of which goes to private corporations. And despite calling climate change an “existential threat,” the Department of Defense has steadfastly held the US national security apparatus blameless for climate change, ignoring its own contribution to the crisis and instead fighting to have military greenhouse gas emissions exempted from o cial reporting requirements.

Climate advocates should also be wary of militarizing the national response to climate change. While the defense community has a key role to play in addressing the climate crisis, allowing US military leadership to dictate the policy and speed of execution has grave pitfalls, not least of which is a tendency to treat all threats as military enemies. Given the horrific and racist consequences of the War on Drugs and the Global War on Terror, it should be clear why US climate advocates should strive to prevent our leaders from declaring a “War on Climate Change”.

3. There are less dangerous and more effective alternatives

There are strong climate security messages (and policy opportunities) that don’t risk villainizing immigrants and refugees

Climate change poses constant and urgent threats to people and communities in all parts of the world. We can talk about climate dangers, threats to life and public health, extreme weather events, secondary climate change factors (famine, economic pressures, conflict), and the need for emergency action, without playing into the racialized arguments of white supremacists and war profiteers. For example, sea level rises are already endangering military installations and VA hospitals, and National Guard units are straining to handle dramatically increased deployments in response to wildfires, floods, and other disasters. Pentagon spending is currently on track to reach $1 trillion by 2027, and these funds could be redirected to invest in real climate security, including enhancing disaster response capabilities, researching and deploying new clean energy technologies, and protecting endangered lands.

We can use trusted messengers that bridge political divides without invoking a militarized threat narrative

We have already highlighted the pitfalls of relying on senior military leaders to communicate the threat of climate change. Veterans, healthcare workers, and emergency personnel like firefighters and paramedics are equally trusted messengers who have served to protect their communities, are directly impacted by climate change, and can persuasively convey the dangers of inaction. Veterans in particular are highly trusted messengers who have seen the impacts of climate change firsthand. Former military service members can also speak as a directly impacted constituency, particularly the many veterans of color who live in frontline communities. Crucially, the mobilization of veterans and other trusted messengers should be structured around tackling threats to people and communities, not framing climate change as a military threat that must be defeated.

Credit: U.S. Air National Guard

photo by Senior Airman Jesse Hanson

When talking about climate consequences beyond our borders, we should talk about human consequences and common threats

Human su ering as a result of climate change should be treated as a global crisis, caused in large part by carbon emissions from the world’s major economies—a crisis that has led to multiple, simultaneous humanitarian emergencies that need addressing now. The climate movement should argue for the redirection of substantial funds—especially those funds being used to expand militarized borders in the name of climate adaptation—towards protecting people, establishing safe pathways for migrants, and enabling a just transition to post-fossil fuel economies across the globe, while leveraging all the tools of capital finance, aid, remediation, loss and damage payments and investments, among others.

One of the key risks with climate security framing is that, while it demands action, the threat narrative inherent to it leaves the choosing and planning of action in the hands of military planners, defense contractors, and bellicose politicians who do not prioritize workable and e ective climate solutions. We need more than a demand for military action. We need aspirational calls to improve people’s lives. We should o er clear solutions and alternatives—both immediate and visionary—and assert that we have the tools, ambition, and expertise to build real safeguards. If we fail to o er these solutions, reactionary voices will continue to win the day and the world will continue to grow hotter and less safe.

4. WHAT NEXT?

We hope that this short briefing can promote a deeper dialogue across organizations, and we are eager to collaborate on the development of strategic and principled climate security messaging. We want this conversation to be as big and bold as possible. If you or your organization are interested in being part of it, or you want to be put in touch with relevant experts—including veterans and defense accountability campaigners, human rights and racial and migration justice campaigners, and environment and climate activists—please contact Perry O’Brien (Common Defense) and Vivian Taylor (Climate Nexus).

Credit: U.S Army Photo by Pfc. Alexander Helman