As a climate-conscious student born and raised in Nebraska, I am constantly on the lookout for new ways to communicate the seriousness of climate change to conservative friends and family back home. A few years ago, when the Department of Defense released a report that named climate change as a threat to national security, I thought I’d finally found the issue that would appeal to the red-blooded, real Americans from my home state.
Recognizing an opportunity to convince Nebraskans to care about climate change, I researched the so-called “securitization argument” on climate change while in Paris over the past two weeks for COP21. After hours of interviews with academics, activists and politicians, I’ve realized that employing this argument as a strategy to rally Nebraska conservatives is actually quite problematic.
Climate change is undoubtedly a destabilizing economic, political and social force. However, the only economic, political and social consequences of any true import have thus far been felt far from my home state of Nebraska. For instance, Syria’s drought caused a mass migration of 1.5 million people, increased unemployment, and — according to some political scientists — created the dismal economic conditions that contributed to civil war and extremist terrorism.
On the other hand, Nebraska has yet to experience any drastic price hikes or serious competition over water resources. As a state with strong financial and infrastructural resources and no coastlines, Nebraskans are not vulnerable to displacement from climate change. With irrigation and ample agricultural subsidies, it is unlikely that Nebraskan farmers will ever have to leave their homes and move to Omaha in search of an income, as was the case in Syria. In fact, the only way Nebraska has experienced the national security impacts of climate change is by allowing Syrian refugees to cross its borders.
If I use the securitization argument to scare Nebraskans into caring about climate change, what I’m really doing is using climate refugees to scare Nebraskans into caring about climate change. This is this a gross dehumanization of people fleeing civil war. Stating that climate change creates refugee crises for Europe and America makes innocent human beings themselves the negative consequence of greenhouse emissions. It portrays refugees and climate migrants as a burden on nations receiving them. This is not a fair representation of people who are the innocent victims of climate injustice or civil unrest.
Furthermore, linking climate change to national security may not be a convincing argument for conservative audiences. When Obama links the two, conservative pundits like Bill O’Reilly spin it unforgivingly. “The Middle East is aflame,” O’Reilly said last May, “[yet] the president is urging the Coast Guard and other military branches to contemplate climate change.” While it wasn’t a fair representation of Obama’s speech or his policies, O’Reilly successfully sent the message to his conservative audience that Obama isn’t a serious politician.
Using the securitization argument as a reason to act on climate change offends people on both the political left and right. For liberals, the argument is dehumanizing and inappropriate if not navigated carefully. For conservatives, it sends the message that liberals don’t understand the gravity of national security concerns.
Instead of using the securitization argument to convince conservatives to care about climate change, those who care about the political and social ramifications of climate change should focus on how to better equip people and nations to respond to regional conflict and climate-induced displacement.
Ultimately, I did not learn many new strategies for how I might convince Nebraskans to care about climate change while at COP. Instead, I am leaving Paris with a more informed perspective on the human consequences of climate change. I will take with me the voices of those working to provide humanitarian aid and legal protection to displaced persons, refugees and victims of climate-induced conflict.
One voice in particular is that of Zita Holbourne. Zita is an activist and artist working for people displaced by climate change. After an interview, I had the great honor of being one of the first to hear her poem “Crimes Against Humanity,” which she had written two days earlier at the conference. With her permission, I have transcribed it below.
Crimes Against Humanity
They describe mass migration as a disaster
Work to ensure no happily ever after
Poor humans surviving a refugee crisis
They need to open up their minds and understand this
People have been migrating since the start of time
The desire to stay alive is not a crime
Can’t be free without justice and equality
Food, water, shelter, warmth and security
Our basic needs not desires of the greedy
They denigrate and label them poor and needy
Calling them a drain on the economy
Scapegoating is the cause of austerity
Say the country’s full up so they can’t come in
Judge them by their faith and color of their skin
Endorse occupations and cause climate change
Then have the audacity to act like it’s strange
When people are forced to flee war and poverty
Failing to recognize their own hypocrisy
All around people are literally dying
While governments and media keep on lying
Lacking in compassion and integrity
Investing in borders rather than humanity
MPs vote for bombs but not for ending poverty
Investing in war but not in healthcare or equality
Claim to combat terror but disregard the human cost
No minute silence or national flag for those lives lost
Until these crimes against humanity cease
Until we have freedom there will be no peace.
Zita Holbourne
Dec. 4, 2015
Contact Grant Glazer at agglazer ‘at’ stanford.edu.