There’s a lot of enthusiasm to view climate change as a security issue. I wrote about why that’s dangerous: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-27/making-climate-a-national-security-issue-downplays-human-cost

First, in case it needs saying: it’s perfectly rationale for security folk to treat climate change seriously. But in late 2020 “elevating” climate change to a security issue, and portraying that elevation as the sign that we are taking CC seriously, should set off alarm bells.

I had intended to write a thread but fell asleep - it was a late at night here and now it’s a heatwave & I don’t feel about tweeting but here’s a TL;DR:

When any powerful actors are responding to climate change (eg finance, military/security), consider: is it about managing/responding to impacts, or cutting emissions?
If it’s the former - as most climate/security framing is - you always need to ask: who is prioritised?

Climate impact responses are not inherently equitable or fair. They have to be very consciously made so, or they will perpetuate and enhance existing inequality.

Maybe it needs repeating, but not all “action on climate change” should be uncritically welcomed. Building walls against people escaping hostile, heating/inundated places... that can be labelled climate action, or can arise from it.

The nice thing about activities that cut emissions is that they have positive externalities. Doesn’t mean they don’t create winners and losers, or have other harms! But responding to climate impacts doesn’t have those positive externalities. It’s 100% political choices.