The issue of environment and its linkage with national security has been an enduring debate in the domain of security discourse. The association of environment with national security polarized the group of scholars. One group recognizes the association and the other derecognizes. However, presently, the issue of climate change is facing the same problem. Though climate change is a new phenomenon in the scientific, political and economic, and security discourses than environmental security, the two are interlinked. However, the common problem of the two, as recognized by a few scholars, is that any association of environment or climate change with national security will bring militarization of the issue and an overwhelming role of state. However, this paper argues that climate change needs to be linked with national security and its negative repercussions can be minimized with the democratic engagement of civilian and military officials, political and non-political people, and state and non-state actors. Nevertheless, it exacts change of mindset to concede the new climate change threats, urgent reform of military institutions and active engagement of people in the climate change decision-making process.

With the rise of ‘political war’ in the form of conflicting and competing ideologies (such as fascism, communism and liberal democracy) and interests—which was evident during the World War II and the Cold War—the issue of resources or environmental security was relegated ‘to a minor consideration in conflict discourse.’1 However, lately, the buzz of ‘climate security’2, ‘water war’3, ‘alliance for global water security’4, or ‘environment as a hostile power’5 has germinated a sense of ‘neo-security dilemma’6 at the national and international levels. Climate change has been adduced as the preeminent problem of the present ‘global environmental change’. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the present climate change problem is anthropogenic in character and it projects an ominous prefigure unless effective actions are carried out.7 Although, Mearsheimer argues that climate change or global warming is a ‘second order’ problem,8 the catastrophic nature of climate change is considered as a ‘strategic issue’ or a first order problem.9 So, the potential manifestation of climate change menace to national security is a shared predicament of present political, security and scientific establishments. However, some scholars lacerate the intersection of environment and national security due to the fear of disdainful posture towards real environmental problems and drifting into militarization of environment.

However, before elaborating the debate on environment and security intersection, it is a prerequisite to clarify some of the subtle conceptual misgivings. The first section unfolds the independent and interdependent relation between environmental conflict and environmental security. The second section explains the independent, but inseparable relation between environmental security and climate change. The linkage between national security and climate change is covered in the third section of the paper. The fourth section covers the two responses of the association of climate change with national security, and the final section uncovers the linkage between climate change, national security and democracy to attenuate the fear of militarization of environment; and an attempt is made to link climate change with national security through democratic process.

International Relations Journal, Climate Change, National Security, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Environmental Conflict, Environmental Security, Complementary, Not Synonymous.