ENERGY SECURITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE: A tenuous link

Abstract

Rising concern by many around the world about global warming has brought with it attempts to broaden the definition of energy security and use security/energy security arguments as yet another tool to advance economic policies aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions. The terms climate change and security/energy security are being increasingly tied together and discussed in similar contexts, creating the impression that there is a direct and inextricable link between the two. Furthermore, this alleged linkage suggests that climate policy and energy security share a common solution: moving to a low carbon economy. This linkage has become an article of faith among government officials, pundits, and academics creating fertile ground for a new school of thought within the energy security community, one which promotes a broader definition of energy security. Those who view climate change as a global security threat of equal urgency to the current energy security challenge demand that the potential national security consequences of climate change be fully integrated into national security and energy security strategies, and that energy security solutions should only be applied if they also address climate change concerns. As we will argue in this chapter, the link between climate security and energy security is moretenuous than one may think. Energy security and greenhouse gas reduction have many complementarities, but there are alsomany trade-offs between them, and contrary to popular belief, it is not self-evident that climate change will necessarily lead to energy insecurity, or vice versa. It is also incorrect to contend that we may be able to achieve both reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and improvement in energy security with one strike. In fact, too much emphasis on one could compromise the other. The first section of this chapter attempts to encompass what energy security is, making the case thatwhile consumers, producers, and transit states might have a different outlook on energy security, they all conform to the purist definition of energy security, the one that emphasizes availability and affordability of fossil fuels, which are currently the primary sources of energy used throughout the world. The second section is about what energy security is not. We argue that factoring climate change into the energy security debate is based on flawed logic, selective information, and weak conjunctions. We will show that those who try to make the linkage between energy security and climate change deliberately highlight the potential negative impact of climate change on energy security while failing to account for the potential positive impact. They also ignore the negative impact climate policy might have on energy security in some parts of the world. Worst of all, they repeatedly and manipulatively masquerade climate change solutions as energy security ones.