Search

Who has responsibility for addressing the security implications of climate change? States and the United Nations justify their existence on the promise of providing security. Yet, although the national and international security implications of climate change are increasingly acknowledged, incorporation of climate change in national security planning or institutional arrangements is far from universal, while debates in the UN Security Council about its role in addressing climate change have been characterized by contestation. This article examines key debates about the responsibilities these institutions have for providing security in the face of the threats posed by climate change, examining the extent to which these institutions accept responsibility for providing security in these contexts. Drawing on Toni Erskine's notion of institutional moral agency, the article examines a 2017 inquiry into the national security implications of climate change in Australia, and the September 2021 UN Security Council debate on the international security implications of climate change. These two case studies explicitly focus on the question of institutional responsibility – of the Australian Government and the UN Security Council respectively – for addressing the threat of climate change. In both cases these institutions stop short of accepting responsibility for providing security in the face of climate change, with limited policy responses or institutionalization as the result. With the security implications of climate change increasingly apparent, and increasingly recognized by these (and other) actors, the failure to accept responsibility raises potentially significant questions about the legitimacy of these institutions themselves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the topic of solar geoengineering as a potential response to climate change. It explains that geoengineering involves deliberate alterations to the climate system to counteract climate change, with two main forms being carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM). While CDR is widely used and recognized as crucial for addressing climate change, solar geoengineering remains controversial. The article highlights the lack of attention and research on solar geoengineering in Australia, despite its unique climate and geography. It also discusses the international debate and research on solar geoengineering, emphasizing the need for Australia to consider the potential regional impacts and governance of these interventions. [Extracted from the article]

Is it possible to imagine the deployment of geoengineering in the service of ecological security? Ecological security––a concern with the resilience of ecosystems––appears to caution against forms of intervention that might serve to change and/or undermine the functionality of ecosystems. Yet ecosystem functionality is already challenged by processes associated with climate change, and some degree of climate change is already locked in. This paper examines this challenging but important issue. After defining ecological security and noting varied forms of geoengineering, the paper explores the opportunities for––and challenges of––imagining geoengineering in the service of ecological security, especially in the context of solar radiation management. While arguing that it is possible to conceive a role for geoengineering in the service of ecological security, this must be contingent on extensive research supporting deployment and must be tempered by restraint and a commitment to precaution, humility, reflexivity and dialogue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A brief reflection is offered on the debate with Sam Makinda about the English School (ES) and security in international relations and Makinda's second response. Makinda agrees with the claim that the ES provides a better normative framework for redressing individual suffering than that offered by traditional accounts of security.