Reference no: EM131152063

Make an argument about, you are agree or disagree with the writer.

•Framing environmental issues through a national security lens might seem natural-considering that in the most literal sense the security of a nation could plausibly be threatened by environmental problems-and even temping when considering the efficiency of the military in quashing the threats with which it engages. However, environmental concerns and security concerns differ and require different policy solutions. In this essay I will argue that securitization in general is an incorrect and inefficacious approach to environmental problems, but that this does not completely preclude the use of military in certain circumstances.

•Before we begin it is worth considering the strengths of the military, namely that military strength is the strength of war- but not of peace. While peace may be a byproduct of the militarization of nations, in that e.g. nuclear stockpiles can act as a deterrent to conflict, ultimately the military's strength lies in its ability to destroy and to subdue. Considering that the proper outcome of environmental issues is a better environment, it makes little sense in most circumstances to add destruction to destruction, hoping that the outcome will somehow amount to less destruction.

•And war is destructive. Not only as a byproduct of conflict-which can harm the environment in and of itself-but sometimes deliberately, such as when Saddam Husain set fire to Iraqi oil fields in the first Gulf War. Further, while the military might be efficacious in attack and destruction, the nature of most environmental problems is such that they are global, not localized. I.e. there is no local enemy to attack which, once gone, will alleviate the most pressing environmental concerns. If, hypothetically, the United States were to decimate China such that it was no longer an industrialized society, it would only delay-not eliminate-the threats of climate change, as the rest of the world would continue to produce pollution, albeit at a slightly slower pace.

•Environmental problems then, in contrast to national security threats, require cooperation in the form of treaties and talks between nations, increases in energy efficiency, market solutions, and behavioral adaptations. Securitization would only hamper these efforts, and in two significant ways aside from the military's destructive nature discussed above. First, by diverting funds that could be used on investments into clean technologies to military usage instead, and second by increasing tendency toward conflict, and thus reducing the potential for cooperation. On this, Daniel Duedney notes in Contested Grounds: Security and Conflict in the New Environmental Politics that nationalistic framings tend to increase an "us vs. them" attitude, and in doing so, may make countries more likely to view environmental problems in other countries as military problems even when they are not. Further, it may increase the tendency to ignore national environmental concerns, as focus would be on the problems in other countries.

•Still, military use may be justified in some circumstances, and we can turn to Robyn Eckersley inEcological Intervention: Prospects and Limits for further elaboration, where she offers an example of a potential threat on a Chernobyl like scale. That is, a nuclear chain reaction that if set off would destroy not only the local environment but may have transboundary consequences. In such a case, military intervention seems to be a just option, especially if the alternative is for a nation to suffer deleterious ecological consequences based on the actions of another nation. But the difference between a localized conflict like this, and a global conflict like climate change is that the military in such circumstances has potential for efficacy, whereas no amount of military might and no attack plan is likely to reduce global temperatures, basify the oceans to a proper pH, or restore retreating glaciers.

•In sum, while framing environmental problems as national security concerns may narrowly be efficacious in limited circumstances, the nature of environmental problems is such that they require a non-militaristic approach. While environmental threats may be threats to national security in the most technical sense, treating them as national security issues would likely do more harm than good due to the destructive nature of war, and the nature of environmental problems as global problems. As such, environmental problems require cooperation among nations and not solutions based on violence.