Nick Buxton Profile picture
Feb 28 9 tweets 3 min read
For almost 20 years, the world's most powerful militaries (also some of the biggest carbon polluters) have been pushing a narrative that climate change will need a security response. Today's #IPCCReport shows the opposite is needed 🧵
The US, UK, Australia, EU and others argue that climate change will lead to increased conflicts and migration and instability that require military readiness. Unfortunately many have bought into this rhetoric but the IPCC shows this is not confirmed by the evidence New York Times Headline: Climate Change poses a widening thr
This rhetoric has helped fuel an ever more militarised and inhumane response to refugees. Border militarisation has been prioritised over providing climate finance to the poorest countries Graphic: Seven of the world's biggest historic emitters of g
Yet #WGII report states: "Violent conflict and, separately, migration patterns, in the near-term will be driven by socio-economic conditions and governance more than by climate change."

In other words, injustice and dictators are key causes of conflict and displacement
And what are the causes of injustice according to IPCC? "Patterns of intersecting socio-economic development, unsustainable ocean and land use, inequity, marginalization, historical and ongoing patterns of inequity such as colonialism, and governance" Excerpt from IPCC report: 	 Vulnerability of ecosystems and
Of course none of these underlying causes are resolved by military or border spending. Indeed military spending is one of the 'patterns of inequity', contributing to greenhouse gas emissions, diverting resources from mitigation, and often deployed to perpetuate the injustice. Graphic of Watson Institute, Cost of War report: US military
And what does the IPCC suggest would better address displacement and conflict? Investing finance and political commitment towards fostering inclusive governance, long-term planning, peace-making, supporting displaced and vulnerable peoples. IPCC excerpt: Increasing adaptive capacities minimises the n
This points to need for different response to climate crisis than that offered by national security planners. Redressing climate injustice that has made millions vulnerable, paying the climate debt the polluting countries owe, and supporting peacemakers rather than warmongers.
For more on all these issues, have a look at this primer on climate security that I wrote that was published by @TNInstitute…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Nick Buxton

Nick Buxton Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @nickbuxton

Oct 12, 2021
1) Why are politicians, businesses and even civil society groups talking about climate change as a security issue in the run up to #COP26? I wrote this primer after 10 years of collaborative research and identify five key concerns with #climatesecurity…
2) On one level, talking about climate security makes sense. We all want security, after all. The security of a job, a home, good health, safe streets and yes a safe climate too.
3) The trouble is that security has become one of those weasel words, that means something to everybody. My litmus test is always to ask: Whose security? Who will benefit and who will lose? Security for some is often based on creating insecurity for others.
Read 11 tweets
Jan 28, 2021
Among the announcements on Biden's #ClimateDay is a prominent commitment to consider climate change "as a national security issue" as @SecDef below asserts. But is that a good thing?
It's certainly not a surprise. It was a major focus for Obama too. In fact just before he finished office, he instructed every federal department to consider climate change through the lens of climate security. Trump ended this immediately.…
Biden wants climate change to be part of national security planning, put his climate envoy @SecKerry on the National Security Council and requested a National Intelligence Estimate on the security implications of climate change. But apart from emphasis little is new.
Read 13 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!