Rethinking energy, climate and security: a critical analysis of energy security in the US

Abstract

Understanding the complicated relationship between energy, climate and security is vital both to the study of international relations and to ensure the continued survival of human civilisation in a world increasingly threatened by environmental change. Climate change is largely caused by burning fossil fuels for energy, but while discussions on the climate consider the role of energy, energy security debates largely overlook climate concerns. This article traces the separation between energy and climate through an analysis of the US energy security discourse and policy. It shows that energy security is constructed continually as national security, which enables very particular policy choices and prioritises it above climate concerns. Thus, in many cases, policies undertaken in the name of energy security contribute directly to climate insecurity. The article argues that the failure to consider securing the climate as inherently linked to energy security is not just problematic, but, given global warming, potentially harmful. Consequently, any approach to dealing with climate change has to begin by rethinking energy security and security more broadly, as national (energy) security politics no longer provides security in any meaningful sense.

Worlds apart, worlds together: converging and diverging frames in climate and energy governance

“…Surveys of public opinion in Western states indicate that energy security is often prioritized higher than climate change (Nisbet, 2009). This is in accordance with the established view that energy is of central importance for national security, whereas climate change is framed as more of a global environmental challenge (Bang, 2010;Nyman, 2015Nyman, , 2018. Thus, the policy gap between energy and climate change is reinforced by an attitudinal gap among the public.…”

“…Likewise, our observations corroborate past findings that positive gain frames which take energy needs seriously and emphasize remedies rather than threats have greater potential for converging climate and energy governance (cf. Koteyko, Thelwall, & Nerlich, 2010;Morton et al, 2011;Nisbet 2009;Nyman, 2015Nyman, , 2018Spence & Pidgeon, 2010;Van de Velde et al, 2010). The framing moves suggested here may not be sufficient for managing the climate-energy nexus, but they are arguably both necessary and easier to achieve than redesigning institutions and changing national interests.…”

“…First, the IPCC and IEA have become surprisingly similar in how they diagnose problems, assign blame, and suggest remedies, emphasizing growing energy demands, policy uncertainty, and insufficient investments on energy efficiency and low-carbon technology. This growing framing similarity contradicts how many observers generally perceive the gap between the wider climate and energy communities (Bradshaw, 2014;Gunningham, 2012;Heubaum & Biermann, 2015;Nyman, 2015Nyman, , 2018. While the global climate and energy communities may not have forged any closer ties in terms of governance, they are expressing their concerns and suggesting solutions in increasingly similar terms.…”

“…For example, there is no single explicit mention of energy in the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change (UNFCCC, 2015). While implications of climate change on energy security has been acknowledged in some policy contexts, it is generally a new and still underestimated observation on political agendas (Bradshaw, 2014, p. 24;Nyman, 2015Nyman, , 2018.…”

“…Past research has observed diverging interests and institutional logic in the governance structures of energy and climate change (Amen, Bosman, & Gills, 2008, p. 52). Evidently, energy supply is intimately connected to issues of sovereignty and national security (Nyman, 2015(Nyman, , 2018. Consequently, '[…] main participants [in energy politics] have largely been focusing on energy supply and demand dynamics rather than the environmental implications of fossil fuel combustion' (Heubaum & Biermann, 2015, p. 230).…”