Environmental degradation will
create huge issues for the human race in the future. When resources we rely on
to survive become less and less available, politics needs to be involved in
order to prevent the degradation and protect the citizens of the world. However,
it is a very difficult issue to approach and most people don’t put
environmental degradation as a high priority issue. Some have decided to label
it as a national security threat in an attempt to receive more funding and support for
the issue but this may not be the best way to solve the problem. Since the
department of defense is not properly equipped to deal with environmental
degradation, the best way to handle this issue would be to create a department
that works with scientists and other countries’ governments to preserve the
resources we still have and find alternate renewable resources.
The department of defense is not
accustomed to dealing with an issue like environmental degradation because it
is used to working with violent threats. Although both issues can lead to humans
dying, it does not mean they can be handled the same way. Threats of violence mean that there is a specific country or group of people that is the threat. They are the enemies. This means that our country is try to gain something from this interaction and the other party will lose. Environmental issues are the complete opposite. There is nothing we are specifically up against. The gain does not come in the near future. No one is losing. Violent threats and environmental threats are very different and need to be handled in entirely different ways.
Labeling an issue as national
security catches people’s attention. It means that action needs to be taken
fast so that the issue can be fixed and the citizens will be protected. However
typical security issues are relatively short term. There is normally an end to
the situation but with environmental degradation there is no end. It is an
issue that will go on forever. As Ole Waever wrote, security issues are typically
addressed as “threat, defense, and often state-centered solutions.” Rushing to
find a solution will not be very effective. This issue requires a lot of
attention and cannot be solved quickly. The department of defense is used to
dealing with short-term problems, not long term. Having a fast state centered
solution is the wrong approach to use.
The issue is not a national problem. Environmental degradation does not only occur in certain countries. Natural disasters do not care about borders. The world needs to work together to prevent environmental degradation. This makes it a global security issue because it is transnational. If one country continues to pollute a river it will affect all of the countries that the river runs through. It cannot be dealt with as only a national security issue. It requires many countries to work together. It is also possible to view it as a human security issue because the people are who are effected. They will feel insecure when they no longer have clean water or food.
The issue is not a national problem. Environmental degradation does not only occur in certain countries. Natural disasters do not care about borders. The world needs to work together to prevent environmental degradation. This makes it a global security issue because it is transnational. If one country continues to pollute a river it will affect all of the countries that the river runs through. It cannot be dealt with as only a national security issue. It requires many countries to work together. It is also possible to view it as a human security issue because the people are who are effected. They will feel insecure when they no longer have clean water or food.
Environmental degradation should not be considered a threat to national security because the national security apparatuses are not equipped to deal with this type of issue. It needs to be handled in a completely different way from violent threats, it is long term problem that requires a long term solution, and it does not affect one country individually. The most successful way to deal with the problem will be to create a department that will work with other countries to prevent environmental degradation. It can include scientists who will attempt to find new ways to solve the problems and politicians who could work with the other countries. This will be much more effective.
I agree with you that the Department of Defense is not properly equipped to handle environmental degradation. What are ways in which to generate revenue in order to create a new department that handles environmental degradation issues? National security measures tend to be as short term as possible, and in the US environmental threats are not as potent as they are in other nations. Australia, for example, is exposed to extreme levels of UV radiation because of its close proximity to the ozone hole over the Antarctic. China has extreme levels of pollution that pose as a threat to public health. When environmental degradation threats heighten (which are likely to do in the next few decades), the problem of immediacy heightens as well. Is there a point at which environmental degradation spirals out of control and becomes a national security issue, and are there ways to avoid it without federal law?
ReplyDeleteI also agree that the Department of Defense does not have the resources needed to solve environmental degradation. Yes, the traditional definition of national security tends to be defined as short term, immediate threats that could harm the nation as a whole. I also agree that we have fewer environmental threats than other nations such as Australia or China and as a result of that we should see it more as a global security threat than a national one. This also makes sense when it is seen as a transnational issue not one that is stopped at borders. The quicker we focus on it as a transnational issue by using diplomacy and other resources to solve the conflict such as implementing renewable energy, the quicker we will not see it as a national threat. Even though it is a transnational conflict and more of an immediate threat abroad, we must take into account that depending on others may not allow the environmental threats we face nationally to be solved as quickly as we need to. We may not need to use the resources we have ourselves in order to solve the conflicts we have nationally.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your argument that environmental degradation is not a national security. We cannot jump to call it a national security, because it takes away the meaning of the term as a whole. If we allow environmental degradation to be called a national security issue, it would create a slippery slope problem, were anything that needs immediate attention and money to fund it, will be labeled a national security. Environmental degradation is a global security issue, as well as it could be argued a human security issue. It is not fair to call it a national security issue, in order to open up a gateway for funds. This diminishes the purpose of calling anything a national security issue. Also, I agree that the Department of Defense is not adequate enough to solve this issue. Throwing it in their hands can actually have a negative effect and make the situation worse. A new department or institution should be formed to deal with this issue. On the idea of generating attention to it, higher media coverage on how great of a danger is now and can be down the road would create that. It does not need the title "national security," to be important and for people to be active with it.
ReplyDeleteThe environment definitely needs major attention, essentially, people need to take climate change more seriously. I, however, would say that in some countries, environmental degradation ought to be labeled as a security issue. I think declaring it a national security issue would not only bring more funds, but it would get the issue the attention that it desperately needs. For Tuvalu, I would contend that the environmental is a huge national security issue considering if nothing is done about it, there will no longer be a nation of Tuvalu. I understand that a slippery slope will begin when we label the environment a national security issue but I think that in dire circumstances, it might be the necessary thing to do.
ReplyDeleteI think that environmental degradation can be considered a national security issue when it gets to the point that people are dying or the country is disappearing, such as in Tuvalu. However, labeling it as a national security threat will not do much within your own countries. Tuvalu can label it to be a national security threat, but what can Tuvalu do about it? They can only ask that other countries reduce their carbon footprint.
ReplyDeleteThe United States already has an agency protecting the environment (the US Environmental Protection Agency) and it already receives government funding. This agency should have much more power in helping create new policies. By listening to the scientists and politicians who focus on environmental degradation, more progress could be made without huge costs and creating new departments.
How environmental degradation can be solved depends on the type of degradation occurring. In Tuvalu, there is nothing that can really be done by their government. In China, the government can create new laws that lessen the amount of pollution. They could label it a national security threat and focus on lessing the amount of pollution as a solution. However, I still don't believe it can be solved through a department of defense. It does not need to be labeled as a national security threat to create new laws.
Federal law is not the only way to intervene. It is also possible to offer incentives to people who lower their carbon footprint or offer free solar panel instillation or a cheaper power alternative coming from wind. If there are cheap/reasonably priced options for people to use, they almost always will prefer the environmentally friendly solution.