Muhammad Hamza Chaudhary
Environmental insecurity, as one of the most pressing, complex, and multipronged issues of existential importance, has started to broader its canvas. The reciprocity of multiple climate insecurities, that form a never-ending cycle, has started to ring alarms across the world. The lack of understanding in addressing these calamitic insecurities has caused our planet to bleed, while the earth’s agony is heard from its distressed echoes.
As the world moves towards the ‘climate endgame’ and its devastating aftershocks, the looming threat of certain insecurities tighten their grip over our planet. As the world is kept hostage of these socially-constructed threats, it has started to form a vicious cycle of the interplay between climate, water, food, and resource insecurity.
According to some reports, scientists have warned that earth is on a brink of an irreversible climate catastrophe. The state of climate degradation on earth, has compelled the international community to ponder over their choices. As the era of ‘global boiling’ has begun, the exacerbation of our existing socio-political fault lines continued to loom over like a ticking time-bomb.
As environmental insecurity has a deeper connection with human and societal security, this correlation helps us in understanding the multifaceted dynamic of this non-traditional security issue. In addition, environmental insecurity inevitably fuels a quake that manifests itself in our dented socio-political fault lines. Therefore, the recontextualization of certain security issues has become a necessity for an effective governing mechanism besides educating the world on its evolving dynamics.
The idea of introducing ‘environmental security’ to the world, arose from the Copenhagen Security School (CSS), which highlighted this aspect as a key security issue in the world of non-traditional security issues. As the Copenhagen School has an overemphasis on human and societal security, it often views every threat as an issue of national survival. Environmental insecurity, in a recontextualized environment, can address such issues as security concerns rather than limiting them to climate-induced disasters.
The reframed context of environmental insecurity, as an issue of national survival, can adapt to the ever-evolving dynamics that tends to shift with each passing year. The focus on human and societal security will bring individual autonomy, traditional social order, and interdisciplinary approaches into play. As we enter into new environmental dynamics, the dire need for a multilevel governance grows. Environmental governance is a prerequisite towards sustainable climate practices and innovative perspectives.
Environmental sovereignty, as closely related to state sovereignty, highlights the dire need of an effective local governing mechanism, sustainable practices, and perseverance of climate justice. The combination of mounting climate insecurities has created a buzz around the world. The devastation and catastrophes marked by climate disasters has caused havoc to run amok the inhabitants of this planet.
Likewise, as mentioned above, the Copenhagen School focuses on institutionalism, global environment governance, and agreements for agenda-setting tables to have an environmental consensus. This showcases a vision for joint effort to solve issues of national, international, and transnational importance.
Environmental conferences, agreements, and treaties have bounded the world to abide by some climate laws but the determinants of each state vary because their dynamics are different. As the entire idea of climate commitment is very procedural and progressive in nature, it will take us another decade to fully realize what lies ahead. The alarms that have been ringing and the distressed voices that echoes during climate insecurities, should remind us of the graves we have dug for our future generations.
The Frankfurt School or the Critical Security School (CSS), has a very pessimistic view on bridging the world on climate security issues. As the Frankfurtian way of viewing non-traditional security issues is to attach them to armed conflicts and national security, this approach lacks practical recommendations and reasonability. The overemphasis on theory and less on practice, apart from its cynical, hyper-skeptical, fatalistic, and critical nature, showcases that it lacks solution-centric approaches and considers non-traditional security threats, that does not involve military, as a hoax.
Thus, the Frankfurtian way of viewing environmental insecurity is not applicable in a heavily globalized world. The mockery of climate change has been taking place for decades, and with the passage of time, it got further demonized. As the weaponization of environmental insecurities is a harsh reality, often done in the pretext of climate security or policies by right-wings, it justifies the pessimism and disillusionment people have started to feel towards it.
Climate Fatalism, as a nail in the coffin of a dying planet, is a belief that human beings are powerless and climate change is inevitable. In contrast with climate deniers, fatalism brings a devastating wave of hopelessness and despair, especially for those who are working their lives out in mitigating the ‘doomsday’ of climate cataclysm.
The WWІ is called “the war to end all wars”, but the war with environmental insecurities will end all wars, leaving us with a soulless planet with its last distressed echoes.
To sum up, the need of a collective yet a comprehensive ‘plan of action’ is already in play. However, the lack of penalties on non-compliance should be fixed, otherwise, all of our efforts will go in vain.
The global community does realize the threats climate insecurities can bring, but the short-termism, cognitive dissonance, climate illiteracy, and non-compliance of states is potentially creating a ‘climate apocalypse’ for us in a blink of an eye.
Author is a student of International Relations at University of the Punjab, Lahore.
Email: hamzachaudhary217@gmail.com
envreview.com 