From the perspective of a constructivist, global warming may be deemed as a national security threat. Generally, constructivism is a theory that all human knowledge, identities and institutions are the result of various social, political, historical, economic or ideological factors. Truth is relative to different circumstances. It is the job of the scholar to identify these factors to bring them to light. Constructivism is an approach. It means, for example, that when you are studying something you do not think about if it is true or not. You care more about explaining it on contingent factors as the influence of ideas, social forces, culture etc. A country’s interest in climate change and how they view the problem is socially constructed. Based on these perceptions, and greatly taking globalization into account, I believe that constructivists would consider global warming a national security threat; as well as have sound solutions on negotiating the issue. The thought of climate change as a national security threat has laid on the back-burner for many years but just now people are beginning to connect the dots between the two.
Global warming has become more than a threat to just the environment, and few negotiations have reached conclusions on how to handle the situation. Within climate negotiations there has been a lack of norms on regulating who is responsible for the situation. We all share the Earth, but is it fair to cutback currently developing countries from continuing to globalize? Are wealthier, developed countries to be blamed for the matter?
Rising temperatures are behind increasing amounts of violent storms, droughts, diseases, and displacement of people, which can all lead to security threats on communities. These threats include food shortages, loss of homes, economic loss -- all leading to the destabilization of areas around the world and can feed into possible strife or warfare. For example, the killing and displacement of thousands of people in southern Sudan has been the result of drought and the expanding Sahara desert from the north. Another example of global warming posing a security threat is the melting of the Arctic. The shrinking of the ice cap opens a shipping channel that must be defended as it opens up new pathways throughout the sea. It also gives way to undersea resources that are already being internationally competed for.
Just last year, the National Intelligence Council produced a government-wide intelligence analysis of the security implications of climate change. While many people may scoff at the idea that climate change is a threat to our national security, the analysis concluded that climate change can have significant security and geopolitical impacts on the world. We have surpassed Earth’s carrying capacity, a trend accelerating in this era of globalization; the most potent, and prosperous of human progress. Therefore, the entry of constructivists into these climate change negotiations could lead to a potential solution by discussing the current sacrifice as well as the future benefit to help us decide how to wage the war against global warming. A constructivist would look at how global warming can be understood by looking at the broader historical context of the issue and how globalization is accelerating the issue. Also, a large part of the public views climate change as an ideological issue rather than from a scientific basis. The actors involved in examples stated previously legitimize the climate change situation from an ideologically and politicized perspective. To conclude, constructivists have the best approach to the normative and social challenges posed by climate change and who is responsible for the problem.
You say, "A country’s interest in climate change and how they view the problem is socially constructed." However, environmental studies regarding climate change are backed up by scientific evidence, so how much of this problem can be socially constructed? One can argue that the degree to which climate change is/will affect us is viewed with different amounts of concern depending on a country's culture and identity. However, many scientifically established facts make it difficult to see through the fact that global warming present and influencing countries every day.
ReplyDeleteI understand your point that constructivists view a country's perception of climate change by its identity, but how would they be unique in providing a solution? You say they would discuss sacrifices and benefits to be made, but, perhaps wouldn't a liberal do that as well? Focused on the interdependence of countries, one state's sacrifice might affect another, while the benefit to one state might be a harm to another. Your point is very compelling and I believe it can be understood through more than one lens.
After thinking about it more, I also think feminists and liberals would have similar views to constructivists. However, I think that a lot of what we know about global warming from the public stance has been "socially constructed" rather than scientific. While yes, the fact that the Earth's temperature has risen has been proven scientifically, political and social interests have distorted climate change for it to benefit themselves. A constructivist focuses on this social construction. They look at how the public perceives these risks from cultural, social, and political standpoints. Therefore within constructivism, it is being understood from more than one lens. Also, it is the social construction of climate change that creates the climate policies, not the climate itself that is designing these policies. Because of these reasons, I think that while other views such as feminism and liberalism would provide good solutions, a constructivist would understand the best approach.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the arguments that you make. I also believe that global warming is an ever growing issue. I think it is a good point, and that it does affect our national security. However if global warming is such an imminent and important concern, why is there currently no “solution”? You say that constructivists could conceive a “sound solution” however you do not say what this solution is. What do you think a possible solution would entail? Perhaps the lack of resolution to this issue could be looked at through a realist point of view in that because climate change has evolved in a gradual way, it never seemed to pose an immediate threat to power, which is the basis of a state’s motivation. Since it seemed to be more of a “distant” threat, states never fully focused their attentions on this topic. A realist approach indicates that states are mainly concerned with their own well beings and this could be an explanation as to why they are not able to cooperate and find a fix to this imposing threat. It is such a broad issue that affects the entire world that no one State or non-state actor feels responsible.
ReplyDeleteI want to begin by saying I 100% agree with everything in this post, and it makes me so upset when people downplay the effects of global warming/global climate change. I think you posed some really interesting and thought-provoking questions about industrialization and developed and developing nations. Who is to blame and who is to suffer are, I think, really important questions that policymakers are struggling with in terms of drafting global environment policy.
ReplyDeleteI think constructivism is really perfect for this issue, as you said specifically in the handling of norms. That's really a strong point.