So, finally, it seems that the government of the United States is one step from recognizing Climate Change as a National Security threat. I read first this (uncritical) article from the New York Times. The highlighted comment came from a retired general, and goes as follows:
“We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we’ll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or we will pay the price later in military terms... And that will involve human lives.”
The expected reaction appeared in the Foreign Policy blog of Stephen Walt. After reading the whole report that originated the news, and reviewing some other interesting opinions, he closes with:
But the more closely you look at the report, the clearer it is that the actual national security implications of climate change are modest, at least for the United States. The likely demands on U.S. military forces will be for humanitarian relief, not for the protection of vital U.S. interests. I have no problem with humanitarian relief, by the way, but let's call it what it is -- a form of global philanthropy -- and not try to sell it as a defense of the American people.
I just want to add that, if you follow the quote carefully, this whole case may be an interesting start for a new paper, since it turns upside-down the conspiracy arguments behind securitization: it is not the case of the human security zombies rushing after the Department of Defense money but, on the contrary, the soldiers behind their share for that big new thing.
I may come up with an abstract soon...