As it becomes more and more threatening, climate change is increasingly conceptualized in terms of security. In 2021, for example, a resolution framing climate change as a threat to international security was proposed to the United Nations Security Council. Defense organizations around the world have also started incorporating climate change in their strategic thinking. This development has been described as a “securitization” of climate change issues. Yet, security is not just a descriptive concept but also a normative one. To what extent is climate security compatible or not with another ideal prominent in climate policy, human rights-based climate justice? It is unclear. In order to understand whether they can be reconciled, a thorough conceptual analysis of climate security is needed. This analysis raises key ethical questions regarding the extension and the underlying values of climate security, as well as the legitimate means of action to promote it. Under one view, climate security is group-based, particular and related to national security. It may largely diverge from the ideals of climate justice and human rights insofar as it may justify violent means of action in order to protect the overall security of a specific nation or generation. Under another view, climate security is individual-based, universal and related to human security. While underlining the threat of climate-related violent conflicts, it largely converges with the traditional goals and cooperative modes of action of climate justice and human rights. Under this second view, climate security is subordinated but it is also parasitic to basic human rights and climate justice. In conclusion, there are good reasons to doubt that the securitization of climate policy will lead to a sharpening of human rights-based climate justice.
