The securitization of climate change in the United States - Diva Portal
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
The securitization of climate
change in the United States
- A case-study of the Biden-Harris
administration’s first hundred days
in office
ANNA SÄLL
Spring 2021
Master’s Thesis in Political Science
Department of Government
Uppsala University
Supervisor: Hans Blomkvist
Page count: 55
Word count: 18 412Abstract
The Biden-Harris administration’s discussion of climate change is analyzed during the
transformative time of the administration’s first hundred days in office. The theoretical
framework of the Copenhagen School of Security Studies (CS) is used to develop the coding
frame to perform a qualitative content analysis of empirical material consisting of speeches and
other documents of the administration. Several securitization moves have been identified and
climate change has been presented as a security issue and an existential threat by the Biden-
Harris administration. A wide range of referent objects are identified, which is the people and
things presented to be threatened by climate change. The whole world, ecosystems, the
American people and future generations are a few of the identified referent objects.
International and national solutions are presented, though the solutions are not interpreted as
extreme measures as discussed by the CS. Therefore, this study supports the critique of a too
narrow definition of securitization by the CS.
Keywords: Climate change, Security, Securitization, Copenhagen School of Security Studies,
United States, President Biden, Vice-President Harris, Special Envoy for Climate Kerry
11. INTRODUCTION 3
1.1 PURPOSE AND RESEARCH QUESTION 4
1.2 LIMITATION 5
1.3 DISPOSITION 5
2. BACKGROUND 6
2.1 CLIMATE AND SECURITY 6
3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 8
3.1 SECURITIZATION – COPENHAGEN SCHOOL OF SECURITY STUDIES 8
4. PREVIOUS RESEARCH 12
4.1 THE SECURITIZATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE 12
4.2 SECURITIZATION OF CLIMATE IN THE UNITED STATES 14
5. METHODOLOGY 16
5.1 ANALYTICAL TOOL – QUALITATIVE CONTENT ANALYSIS 16
5.2 CODING FRAME 18
5.3 EMPIRICAL MATERIAL 20
6. ANALYSIS 23
6.1 CLIMATE CHANGE AS AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT 24
6.2 REFERENT OBJECTS 32
6.3 PRESENTED SOLUTION 37
6.4 CONTRIBUTION TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF SECURITIZATION THEORY 43
7. CONCLUSION 46
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 47
REFERENCES 47
21. INTRODUCTION
“I think in many ways that we autistic are the normal ones and the rest of the
people are pretty strange. They keep saying that climate change is an
existential threat and the most important issue of all. And yet they just carry
on like before. If the emissions have to stop, then we must stop the emissions.
To me that is black or white. There are no grey areas when it comes to
survival. Either we go on as a civilization or we don’t. We have to change.”
– Greta Thunberg1
The citation of the Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg is from a speech held at the
Parliament Square in London, October 2018. Greta, then at the age of 15, clearly states that the
climate change is about the survival of the human civilization. Her disappointment in the world
leaders’ action to deal with the existential threat of climate change is crystal clear. That climate
change will cause severe consequences around the world is no news for the world leaders. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a special report in 2018 on the
impacts of global warming at 1,5 °C above pre-industrial levels. The climate models presented
in the report predicts at high confidence that there will be an increase in the mean temperature
in the ocean, on land and that there will also be hot extremes. The risk for heavy precipitation
and droughts is at medium confidence at 1,5°C, but is predicted to be much higher at 2°C of
global warming. This is just two of many predicted impacts of global warming. Impact on
biodiversity, water supply, food security and loss of species are some of the additional predicted
consequences of climate change. One of the conclusions made in the IPCC report is that the
need of adaptation to climate change will be higher at a 2°C than at 1,5°C of global warming.2
There is no lack of knowledge of the impacts of climate change.
Approximately one year before the IPCC released the report and Greta held the cited speech in
London, President Trump announced that the United States was going to leave the Paris Climate
Agreement, a promise that was fulfilled in 2020. 3 The existential threat of a changing climate
was not only opposed, President Trump did not acknowledge the existence of climate change
itself. From the end of January 2021 there is a new administration in the United States and
1
Thunberg, No One Is Too Small to Make a Difference, 7f.
2
IPCC, ‘Global Warming of 1.5 oC’.
3
BBC News, ‘Climate Change’.
3President Biden has another approach to the climate than his predecessor. During the first day
in office President Biden signed an Executive order to reenter the Paris Agreement,4 and the
climate is one of the Biden-Harris administration top priorities.5
To have the United States, one of the great powers in the world, onboard the Paris Agreement
is crucial. Leaders’ discussion of an issue will determine the actions taken to handle it, in this
case how to tackle climate change. The theory of securitization argues that speaking of an issue
as an existential threat will have a great impact on political action. When an issue is accepted
to be a matter of national security, leaders will be able to take actions that wouldn’t be possible
if the issue wasn’t considered as a threat to national security.6 One recent example of
extraordinary actions legitimized by a security threat is how states have handled the COVID-
19 pandemic. No citizen would accept lockdowns if they did not consider it to be a matter of
their own and others protection from the virus. To study if the climate is presented as a security
issue is of interest since a securitization would legitimize extreme action.
1.1 Purpose and Research Question
The purpose of this thesis is to study if the Biden-Harris administration talks about the climate
and climate change as a possible security threat during their first one hundred days in office.
The first one hundred days of a presidency is commonly considered as a benchmark of the
president’s efficiency in office. Therefore, it is of interest to study how the administration
chooses to discuss the climate during this transformative time. Climate change is a global issue
and policy must be handled at an international level to make an impact. Though, changes has
to be implemented nationally as well as at local level. The aim of this paper is to study how the
Biden-Harris administration discusses the climate issue as a matter of security in an
international setting as well as nationally. The United States’ position of power internationally
and its capability to affect the global discourse on climate and security, not at least as one of
the five permanent members of the United Nations’ Security Council, makes the Biden-Harris
administration and the United States an interesting case to study. The analytical framework of
this thesis is developed within the Copenhagen School of Security Studies (CS). By applying
the theoretical framework of the CS on statements and other empirical material of the Biden-
4
The White House, ‘Paris Climate Agreement’.
5
The White House, ‘Priorities’.
6
Warner and Boas, ‘Securitisation of Climate Change’, 204f.
4Harris administration through a qualitative content analysis this thesis will analyze the
following research question:
Is the Biden-Harris administration aiming to securitize the climate change during
the first hundred days in office and if so, how?
This thesis, by studying the particular case of the United States and the Biden-Harris
administration will contribute to a further understanding of securitization theory at the same
time as knowledge on the discussion of the climate issue in the United States is generated.
1.2 Limitation
This paper will analyze the Biden-Harris administration’s securitization moves on the issue of
climate change. As will be described in detail in the chapter on the theoretical framework a
successful securitization requires the acceptance of the audience, which is not analyzed in this
paper. Therefore, no claim will be made on a successful securitization of the climate change in
the United States. The conclusions drawn from the analysis of the empirical material will be on
if and how the Biden-Harris administration speaks of climate change as a matter of security,
referred to as securitization moves.
1.3 Disposition
A brief background on the development of the climate security nexus can be found in the
following chapter. In the third chapter the theoretical framework of this thesis, the CS, is
described in detail. Previous research on securitization and climate change is discussed, as well
as previous studies on the case of the United States in chapter four. The methodology, analytical
tool and selection of the empirical material is discussed in the fifth chapter. In chapter six the
analysis of the Biden-Harris administration’s securitization moves is performed. In the last
chapter the conclusions of this paper is presented.
52. BACKGROUND
2.1 Climate and security
Historically, climate has been seen as relatively constant at the same time as environmental
threats like storms, earthquakes, floods and other natural disasters have occurred regularly. The
view of the climate as something constant and as a background factor is no longer the reality.
The development over the last century with human activity triggering climate change resulting
in an increase of ecological threats. 7 Given the observed impacts of climate change there has
been an increase to treat the climate change as a security risk.8 The United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) describes the climate security nexus as impacts of climate change mainly
on human security. Furthermore, to maintain international security and peace and the security
of the state is also considered to be related to the climate security nexus. There is no empirical
evidence on causal or linear effects of climate change on conflicts according to the UNDP.
Though, in some contexts there is a correlation between conflict and climate change. In these
contexts climate change is considered as a risk-multiplier since the change of climate can
intensify the drivers for both conflict and violent extremism.9 The narrow definition of security
as strictly military has been disputed since the 1980’s and the climate security nexus contributes
to extend the concept of security. 10 In 1983 Ullman wrote a journal article Redefining Security,
criticizing the narrow definition of security.11 The article influenced the security debate and
contributed to broaden the definition of security. 12
This broader definition of security has developed over the years and in April 2007 the
interlinkages between climate and security was discussed in the United Nation Security Council
for the first time. Since then several briefings and open debates on climate has been on the
council’s agenda. 13 The adoption of climate change at the Security Council’s agenda contributes
to the linkage between climate change and security in international politics. Furthermore, the
Security Council as the only United Nation body that could adopt binding measures for the 193
Member States gives the council a special status. As article 24 of the Charter of the United
Nations describes the council’s function and power, “In order to ensure prompt and effective
7
Buzan, People, States & Fear, 117f.
8
Mobjörk et al., ‘Climate-Related Security Risks: Towards an Integrated Approach’, 1.
9
UNDP, ‘UNDP Climate Security Nexus and Prevention of Violent Extremism’, 3f.
10
Diez, von Lucke, and Wellmann, The Securitisation of Climate Change, 1.
11
Ullman, ‘Redefining Security’.
12
Diez, von Lucke, and Wellmann, The Securitisation of Climate Change, 1f.
13
Climate Diplomacy and Adelphi, ‘Climate Security at the UNSC - A Short History’.
6action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary
responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying
out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.”14 To bring
climate to the council’s agenda could increase climate action to prevent the threat of climate
change to international security. The German thinktank Adelphi has studied the security
council’s action on climate and security. They argue that the growing recognition of how
climate change affects security should be reflected by increased action in the Security Council.
However, the action and attention in the council is limited due to the polarized dynamics within
the Security Council.15
In the beginning of 2021 the UNDP together with Oxford University published a survey on
public opinion on climate change. It is the World’s largest study of this kind with 1.2 million
respondents from 50 countries, the United States was one of the selected countries. 72 per cent
of the respondents in high-income countries, including the United States, said that climate
change is a global emergency. 64 per cent of the respondents in all 50 countries said the same
thing. Almost six out of ten of the respondents who said that climate change in a global
emergency would like the response to include everything necessary and urgent. 16 The report
was published at a time when many countries were in the process to update their Nationally
Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement. The result of the survey is a
clear call for the world leaders to step up their ambitions on the climate issue.
14
United Nations, ‘Charter of the United Nations and the Statute of the International Court of Justice’, Article
24.
15
Vivekananda, Day, and Wolfmaier, ‘What Can the UN Security Council Do on Climate and Security?’, 12.
16
UNDP, Cassie Flynn and Eri Yamasumi and University of Oxford, Professor Stephen Fisher, Dan Snow, Zack
Grant, and Martha Kirby Browning, ‘The Peoples’ Climate Vote’, 6f.
73. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The theoretical framework that will be used in this thesis and that is highly associated with the
concept of securitization is the Copenhagen School of Security Studies (CS). The process of
securitization which is defined by the authors of the CS, will be described in this chapter.
3.1 Securitization – Copenhagen School of Security Studies
The CS associated with the authors Buzan, Wæver and de Wilde analyzes the concept of
security and develops the framework of securitization. The authors distinguish between
different kinds of security as for example social security and international security. It is the later
that is of interest for the CS. International security is analyzed in a traditional military-political
understanding of security, where international security is about survival. If an existential threat
occurs, international security might be endangered. The existential threat legitimizes
extraordinary measures to deal with the threat.17 Within the CS the concept of national security
is discussed in relation to international security. Buzan argues that the term of national security
is preferable to approach international relations to both peace and power, that is commonly
used.18 Furthermore, there are different levels and sectors of analyzing security and existential
threats.19 The levels of analysis goes from the macro level including the international system to
the micro level which is the individual.20 Buzan et.al. analysis security in five sectors, the
military, the environmental, the economic, the societal and the political sector. 21 Security in the
environmental sector discussed by the CS will be described further in this chapter, at the same
time as the concept of security and securitization is specified.
The CS argues that security is not objective, though an issue can be “presented as an existential
threat”.22 When the CS discusses security they use the term referent objects, which is defined
as “things that are seen to be existentially threatened and that have the legitimate claim to
survival”.23 Depending on which sector and level that is analyzed the referent objects will differ.
The authors argue that plenty of referent objects can be identified in the environmental sector.
The survival of different species and habitats is concrete examples of referent objects in the
17
Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde, Security: A New Framework for Analysis, 21ff.
18
Buzan, People, States & Fear, 25f.
19
Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde, Security: A New Framework for Analysis, 21ff.
20
Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde, 5f.
21
Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde, 21ff.
22
Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde, 24.
23
Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde, 36.
8environmental sector. Though, not all referent objects in this sector are as concrete. The climate
or the biosphere are examples of more diffuse referent objects within the environmental
sector.24 To study the securitization of an issue the referent objects, what should be protected
from the existential threat, can be identified. How referent objects will be analyzed in this thesis
will be further discussed in the chapter on methodology.
Security is described as a move beyond politics or as a special kind of politics. The CS argues
that issues can be located at a spectrum of nonpolitical, political and security issues. Issues can
also be moved along the spectrum, through a speech act. The environment and the climate has
moved along this spectrum from belonging to the nonpoliticized category to be moved to a
political or a security issue. 25 This movement is referred to as a securitization move. In other
words, a securitization move is when a referent object is presented to be existentially threatened
through the discourse. A securitization move does not immediately lead to a successful
securitization of the issue. This means that it is possible to observe a securitization move in a
discourse, but the issue is not fully securitized. The component that is needed for an issue to be
securitized according to the CS is that the audience accepts it as a security issue. Without the
acceptance by the audience there might be securitization moves without securitization. When
the audience accept the issue as a matter of security, it is securitized.26 For an issue to be
successfully securitized three components or steps are needed, first an existential threat, second
an emergency action and third effects on the relations between the audience and the people or
person who securitizes the issue because of breaking free of the rules of politics.27 The CS also
refers to the grammar of security which is described as three stages. The first stage is the
including of an existential threat within a construction of a plot, second there is no way to avoid
the existential threat and finally that there is a way to handle the existential threat. 28 The process
of securitization of an existential threat is defined as a discursive construction 29 and is referred
to as a speech act within language theory. 30 When a threat is discursively constructed as
existential, extraordinary means are legitimized. Securitization can in this way be interpreted
as an extreme variant of politization of an issue.31 Extreme actions legitimized to tackle an issue
24
Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde, 23.
25
Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde, 24.
26
Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde, 25.
27
Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde, 26.
28
Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde, 33.
29
von Lucke, Wellmann, and Diez, ‘What’s at Stake in Securitising Climate Change?’, 858.
30
Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde, Security: A New Framework for Analysis, 26.
31
Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde, 23.
9through a securitization of the issue is at the core of the CS. The securitization move of an issue
from politics to security, through the speech act, is illustrated in the picture below. When the
issue is successfully securitized and has been moved to the right hand side of the threshold, the
issue is framed to be beyond politics as described before. At this stage extreme measures are
legitimized and actions that would not be accepted without the securitization move is possible.32
Furthermore, the CS describes to accept securitization or to securitize as a political choice. 33
Figure 1. Securitization move
The speech act must of course be performed by one or several actors. When actors declare the
referent object as existentially threatened, they are called securitizing actors.34 A securitizing
actor can both be one single individual or a group of people.35 The CS further refers to
functional actors who might affect dynamics within the sector where the securitization is
analyzed. An example of a functional actor described by Buzan et.al. is a factory that pollutes
the air or water. They do not try to securitize the issue but they still affect the environment.
According to the CS these three types of units, referent objects, securitization actors and
functional actors can be included in the security analysis of the speech act. 36 In the case of
securitizing actors it does matter who the person or group are, since who is speaking about
security will affect if the audience accepts the issue as a matter of security, in other words some
kind of acknowledgement and leverage is necessary.37
32
Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde, 24.
33
Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde, 29.
34
Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde, 36.
35
Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde, 40.
36
Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde, 35f.
37
Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde, 33.
10It should be noticed that the authors of the CS argue that securitizing issues should be
considered as negative. This is because a securitization is described as a failure of normal
politics. Even though they acknowledge the use of securitization, of for example environmental
issues, in the short run to give the issues attention, they argue that it is optimal to desecuritize
in the long run.38
As described the acceptance of the audience is the difference between securitization moves and
a successful securitization. The CS has been criticized for not developing the concept of the
audience.39 Therefore, to study successful securitization the audience must be specified.
Though this thesis will not further develop this concept of audience since the purpose is to study
the administration’s securitizing moves. Furthermore, the CS has been criticized for being stuck
in a theoretical discussion even though the developed concept of securitization does imply for
empirical research. 40 As will be discussed in the next chapter other writers have used the
framework to preform empirical research.
38
Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde, 29.
39
Balzacq, Léonard, and Ruzicka, ‘“Securitization” Revisited: Theory and Cases’.
40
Diez, von Lucke, and Wellmann, The Securitisation of Climate Change, 11.
114. PREVIOUS RESEARCH
The CS and its theoretical framework of securitization has been subject to a comprehensive
academic discussion during the last twenty years. Balzacq and Guzzini has descried a broad
theoretical discussion on what kind of theory securitization is and presents that the framework
of securitization embraces different kinds of theorizing, including empirical theorizing. 41
Securitization has also been argued to be a causal mechanism. 42 However, this broad theoretical
discussion will not be fully covered in this chapter. In this chapter the discussion at the
theoretical level will be presented briefly with a focus on previous research on securitization of
climate change. Furthermore, the theoretical framework of the CS has been used in empirical
research and this chapter will present previous research on the securitization of the climate in
the United States.
4.1 The Securitization of Climate Change
As described in the background climate and the environment has been seen as constant
historically. Though, a move has been experienced for environmental issues, from not being
considered as a political issue to being on the political agenda and also to becoming an issue
about security.43 According to the writers of the CS the climate security is about maintaining
the achieved levels of human civilization. 44 Even though the attempt to securitize the climate
change began later than other issues, 45 empirical studies on securitization of the environment
has become more frequent over the last years. 46 The great interest in securitization of climate
change and the environment has been explained by the way it challenges the theoretical
framework.47 The writers of the CS acknowledged that even if policy included securitization
moves, the issues of climate and environment were not securitized. This is because the threats
seems to be to distant and the politics therefore do not include a sense of panic to act in the near
future.48 Furthermore, the referent object can be paradoxical. This implies that if the referent
object of the civilization should be saved from the existential threat of climate change, at the
same time as the action to tackle climate change might also negatively affect the civilization
41
Balzacq and Guzzini, ‘Introduction: “What Kind of Theory – If Any – Is Securitization?”’
42
Guzzini, ‘Securitization as a Causal Mechanism’.
43
Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde, Security: A New Framework for Analysis, 23.
44
Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde, 76.
45
Balzacq, Léonard, and Ruzicka, ‘“Securitization” Revisited: Theory and Cases’, 511.
46
Balzacq, Léonard, and Ruzicka, 507.
47
Balzacq, Léonard, and Ruzicka, 511.
48
Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde, Security: A New Framework for Analysis, 82f.
12itself.49 This paradox is also discussed by Trombetta who has analyzed the discourse of climate
change. She argues that there is two overlapping securitizations connected to climate change.
The first acknowledges the threat of climate change and the second identifies politics to tackle
climate change as a threat. She exemplifies the second approach with the United States’
withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol because it was considered as a threat to the national
economy. In relation to this discussion Trombetta also quotes George Bush, who said “the
American lifestyle is not up for negotiation”.50
Trombetta argues that the normative suggestion by Wæver “less security, more politics” is
problematic in relation to climate change, since serious and urgent issues are at risk of being
marginalized and depoliticized. Furthermore, she refers to the intention to talk about security
in the environmental sector as a way of prioritization 51 and the securitization of the
environmental sector, as a nontraditional sector, can transform the logics of security.52 In her
own words, “the securitization of the environment, it is argued, is transforming existing security
practices and provisions.”53 In this way the fixed practices of the CS is questioned. According
to Trombetta actors attempt to securitize this non-traditional security issue is about prioritizing
the issue. The extreme and urgent measures to tackle the threat which are argued by the CS,
does not have to be necessary.54 The conclusion of her analysis on climate security, despite the
lack of extraordinary measures in the policy debate, is that there is a securitization of climate
change.55 On the other hand Scott argues, in an article from 2008, that since the introduction of
climate security in the United Nations Security council in 2007 there was a reduction of treating
climate change as a matter of international security in the diplomatic circles. This was explained
by the council taking global lead on the issue. 56 However, in a later study of Diez, Von Lucke
and Wellman on the discursive framing of climate security, it is argued that there is big
differences between and within countries on how climate and security is debated. 57 Warner and
Boas also argue that there is a lack of extreme action to tackle the climate change even though
it is often described as a security threat. By studying two empirical cases in the United Kingdom
and in the Netherlands where securitization moves has been observed, they find that
49
Balzacq, Léonard, and Ruzicka, ‘“Securitization” Revisited: Theory and Cases’, 551.
50
Trombetta, ‘Environmental Security and Climate Change’, 596.
51
Trombetta, 589.
52
Trombetta, 590f.
53
Trombetta, 585.
54
Balzacq, Léonard, and Ruzicka, ‘“Securitization” Revisited: Theory and Cases’, 511f.
55
Trombetta, ‘Environmental Security and Climate Change’, 598.
56
Scott, ‘Securitizing Climate Change: International Legal Implications and Obstacles’.
57
Diez, von Lucke, and Wellmann, The Securitisation of Climate Change, 3.
13institutional securitization may backfire and create what they call a ‘policy boomerang’. This
means that there is no call for action to tackle the existential threat,58 or in their own words
“both cases furthermore illustrate that security language does not necessarily help to increase
the urgency of climate action”.59
4.2 Securitization of climate in the United States
The Biden-Harris administration is not the first administration in the United States that has put
the climate change on the political agenda and the securitization of climate change in the United
States has been analyzed before. Diez, von Lucke and Wellmann describes securitization moves
of the climate change in the US until around 2015. The authors criticize the CS for having a to
narrow definition of securitization, which prevents the framework from capturing the
securitization of non-military and non-western contexts.60 They developed a framework from
the CS that distinguish between risk and security at different levels, territory, individual and
planetary. They argued that to introduce the terms ‘risk’ and ‘threat’ in the analysis would better
capture the securitization of climate and the normative implications.61 In their analysis they
found that the debate in the United States on climate security can be divided into two parts. The
first included a broad debate on environmental security during the 1980’s and 1990’s. Later in
the mid-2000’s the debate was instead focused on climate change. 62 The arguments that had
dominated the debate in the United States in the 1990’s was mainly on planetary and individual
climate risks described as a global and distant risk. 63 The second phase was more influenced by
territorial danger and the planetary level was no longer as prominent in the discourse. 64
Thomas studied the securitization of climate change of the United States’ Military in 2003-
2013. The conclusion made of this analysis is that there was no intention of the military to
securitize climate change in a way to put pressure on politicians to take extreme actions. Only
in the case of the Arctic a discourse on “climatization of the security field” could be observed
to some extent.65 In an article written by Schäfer, Scheffran and Penniket the securitization of
climate change was analyzed through a cross-national analysis of media reporting in nine
58
Warner and Boas, ‘Securitization of Climate Change: How Invoking Global Dangers for Instrumental Ends
Can Backfire’.
59
Jeroen and Ingrid, ‘Securitisation of Climate Change: The Risk of Exaggeration’, 215.
60
Diez, von Lucke, and Wellmann, The Securitisation of Climate Change, 7.
61
von Lucke, Wellmann, and Diez, ‘What’s at Stake in Securitising Climate Change?’
62
Diez, von Lucke, and Wellmann, The Securitisation of Climate Change, 41.
63
Diez, von Lucke, and Wellmann, 45.
64
Diez, von Lucke, and Wellmann, 47ff.
65
Thomas, The Securitization of Climate Change, 258.
14countries, including the United States. Their results showed an increase in climate change
securitization in the United States and other studied western countries, with a focus on energy
and national security in the western countries. 66
The presented previous research in this chapter on the securitization of climate change in
general and in the particular case of the United States will be further discussed in relation to the
empirical analysis of this thesis. This discussion will contribute to further understanding of
securitization theory and climate change.
66
Schäfer, Scheffran, and Penniket, ‘Securitization of Media Reporting on Climate Change?’, 76–96.
155. METHODOLOGY
In this thesis the theoretical framework of the Copenhagen School of Security (CS), described
in the previous chapter, will be used to study if the Biden-Harris administration aims to
securitize the climate change. As described in the introduction, this thesis will not make any
claim on successful securitization of the climate change in the United States, since the
acceptance of the audience is not analyzed. However, possible securitization moves of the
Biden-Harris administration will be analyzed. To perform a critical analysis on political
messages of the administration during its first hundred days in office the following section will
develop the analytical tool. The analytical tool enables the study of political texts and statements
in a systematic manner. 67 To critically analyze political messages it is possible to focus on the
political actors who are speaking the political message or to focus on the idea itself. 68 The
interest of this study is to analyze the Biden-Harris administration’s discussion of the climate
hence the political actors will be in focus for the selection of the empirical material. Documents
and statements of the Biden-Harris administration will be the empirical resource to perform a
qualitative content analysis. Before the empirical material is described in detail, the analytical
tool that will be applied in this thesis will be presented and discussed.
5.1 Analytical tool – qualitative content analysis
The analytical tool used in this paper is developed from the theoretical framework of the CS.
This paper will perform a qualitative content analysis of speeches, statements and other relevant
documents of the Biden-Harris administration. The selection of the empirical material and
whom are considered to speak for the Biden-Harris administration will be further discussed in
the following section. To study a text using qualitative content analysis is described as active
reading of the empirical material. Operationally this can be done by asking questions to the text,
that the researcher can answer with help of the text. 69 Qualitative content analysis is a suitable
analytical tool to answer the research question since it enables to perform a critical study of a
relatively large empirical material. Furthermore, qualitative content analysis is suitable for
answering question about how a certain issue is described within a context. It is not as usable
to answer questions about why or to claim causality.70 Since this paper aims to analyze how
climate change is described by the Biden-Harris administration to answer the question if there
67
Beckman, Grundbok i Idéanalys: Det Kritiska Studiet Av Politiska Texter Och Idéer, 9f.
68
Beckman, 17.
69
Esaiasson et al., Metodpraktikan: Konsten Att Studera Samhälle, Individ Och Marknad, 212.
70
Esaiasson et al., 212.
16is an aim to securitize the issue, a qualitative content analysis is suitable for this purpose. As
stated before, possible securitization moves will be analyzed in this thesis, no claim about a
successful securitization will be made. To make conclusions on a successful securitization the
acceptance of the audience must be analyzed. The acceptance of the audience is not captured
with this method, though it is not the purpose of this thesis to do that kind of analysis. To study
the discussion of climate change and the possible securitization moves by the administration a
qualitative content analysis on the administration’s statements will be useful. It should be
noticed that the authors of the CS means that several methods can be used to study
securitization.71 Discourse analysis have been dominant, though there has been a call for other
approaches including content analysis and ethnographic research.72
Boréus and Bergström describes content analysis in their book Analyzing text and Discourse,
Eight Approaches for the Social Sciences. Content analysis is traditionally divided into
quantitative and qualitative analysis. A quantitative content analysis measures and counts the
frequency of something in the text. For example, by studying how frequent a specific word, like
climate, is used the researcher gets indications how climate is considered outside the text as
well. Qualitative content analysis, the analytical tool of this paper, is used to analyze texts as
well, though in contrast to the quantitative version nothing is counted. 73 Schreier acknowledges
that there are similarities between qualitative and quantitative content analysis. This can be
considered as expected since the qualitative analytical method was developed from the
quantitative content analysis. Though, Schreier argues that the qualitative content analysis, due
to its special features, should be considered as a method apart from the quantitative version.
One thing that distinguish the qualitative from the quantitative content analysis is that the first
is traditionally used to analyze data and the second is commonly considered as a tool to collect
data.74 According to Schreier “qualitative content analysis is a method for systematically
describing the meaning of qualitative data”.75 Qualitative content analysis enables a systematic
description of the meaning of a text through a coding frame that is developed from both theory
and the empirical material. In other words, the coding frame is to some extent data-driven. The
coding frame is tested and improved on the same empirical material that will be analyzed in
contrast with the coding scheme in quantitative content analysis that is tested on a different
71
Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde, Security: A New Framework for Analysis, 177.
72
Balzacq, Léonard, and Ruzicka, ‘“Securitization” Revisited: Theory and Cases’, 519.
73
Boréus and Bergström, Analyzing Text and Discourse: Eight Approaches for the Social Sciences, 24.
74
Schreier, ‘Qualitative Content Analysis’, 172.
75
Schreier, 170.
17empirical material. 76 A combined approach, deductive and inductive, is recommended by
Boréus and Bergström to develop the analytical tool.77 In qualitative content analysis the coding
frame consists of a main category and some subcategories. It is also possible to identify
multiple main categories, which is defined as “those aspects of the material about which the
researcher would like more information”.78 In this research three main categories are identified,
a potential existential threat, referent objects and proposed solutions. These main categories of
analysis are developed from the theoretical framework of CS. Before discussing the main
categories further a definition of subcategories is in place. In the coding frame subcategories
are developed to enable a specification of the empirical material with respect to the already
identified main categories. One criteria for subcategories is mutual exclusiveness within each
main category.79 In other words, an analytical observation cannot be interpreted as more than
one subcategory within the same main category. Main categories is required to cover one single
aspect of the empirical material, this is called the requirement of unidimensionality. Finally, the
requirement of exhaustiveness should be met, which implies that the categories in the coding
frame covers all relevant aspects of the empirical material. 80 These requirements of the coding
frame will be further discussed for this particular analysis.
5.2 Coding frame
The three identified main categories, a potential existential threat, referent objects and proposed
solutions will be studied by analyzing the following questions. (1) Is the description on climate
change developed by the Biden-Harris administration constructed to include existential threats?
(2) Which referent objects can be identified? (3) Is a possible solution presented? This thesis
will analyze the empirical material using these questions to answer the research question if the
Biden-Harris administration is aiming to securitize the climate change during the time period
of interest. By developing the coding frame with a combined approach, using both the
theoretical framework and the empirics, the requirement of exhaustiveness is met. Which means
that the main categories and the subcategories of the coding frame covers all relevant aspects
of the empirical material.
76
Schreier, 172.
77
Boréus and Bergström, Analyzing Text and Discourse: Eight Approaches for the Social Sciences, 28.
78
Schreier, ‘Qualitative Content Analysis’, 174.
79
Schreier, 174.
80
Schreier, 174.
18The main category of potential existential threats has two subcategories that is quite straight
forward. An empirical observation can either belong to the first subcategory if the climate
change is described as an existential threat or to the second if it is not described as an existential
threat. The observations to answer the first question will in other words be divided into positive
or negative. The criteria of exclusiveness for the subcategories in the main category existential
threat are therefore met. An empirical observation will be interpreted to include an existential
threat if the climate change is literally described as a threat of existence or by using synonyms.
These synonyms for an existential threat could be if climate change is presented to negatively
affect people’s ability to eat and drink or if climate change is presented as a security threat.
Furthermore, when speaking about climate change as an existential threat it can be described
as an emergency or as a crisis. If there is a critical time component included the interpretation
of climate change as an existential threat is strengthened. If the climate change is described as
an existential threat only once by the Biden-Harris administration it would still mean that the
administration has spoken of climate change as an existential threat. However, the securitization
move in this case cannot be considered to be strong. If climate change is described as an
existential threat frequently it should be interpreted as a stronger securitization move.
Therefore, several observations need to include existential threats to be interpreted as
systematic securitization moves.
Referent objects are at the core of the theoretical framework of securitization. As described in
the chapter on the theoretical framework, there is a wide range of referent objects that can be
securitized within the environmental sector. In this particular case referent objects are the things
that should be protected from climate change. To answer the question which referent objects
that can be identified, four subcategories are developed. The different levels of analysis
described by the CS is used to develop the subcategories. The first subcategory is the global
level which means planetary survival and includes for example the survival of human
civilization or the survival of ecosystems. The second subcategory is the national level, which
is interpreted as the survival of the United States as a nation, national institutions or the
American people. The third subcategory is groups of people, for example children, elderly or
the people of Florida. The fourth and final subcategory is the individual level and includes the
protections of individual things or people against climate change. With these four subcategories
the criteria of mutual exclusiveness and exhaustiveness are met.
19The answers to the last analytical question on the main category of proposed solutions are
divided into two subcategories, international and national solutions. The climate change is an
international issue and needs international solutions and cooperation. The United States as one
of the main global powers is an important actor to affect the international cooperation on climate
change. Therefore, the United States’ international politics to tackle climate change and
proposed international solutions are of importance. Furthermore, to tackle climate change there
must be changes at the national level, which is acknowledged in the Paris Agreement.
According to the agreement countries shall submit their national plans to reduce emissions of
greenhouse gas, these plans are called nationally determined contributions (NDCs). 81 Solutions
at the national level proposed by the Biden-Harris administration will be captured by this
second subcategory. These two subcategories covers the Biden-Harris administration’s
possibility to take political actions at home and abroad. Therefore, no residual category is
needed in the study of possible solutions and the requirement of exhaustiveness is considered
to be fulfilled. Table one summarizes the described analytical questions, main categories and
subcategories.
Table 1. Coding frame
Analytical question Main categories Subcategories
(1) Is the description on Potential existential threat (1) Existential threat
climate change developed by described
the Biden-Harris (2) No existential threat
administration constructed to described
include existential threats?
(2) Which referent objects Referent objects (1) Global level
can be identified? (2) National level
(3) Group level
(4) Individual level
(3) Is a possible solution Proposed solutions (1) International solutions
presented? (2) National solutions
5.3 Empirical material
As described in the introduction of this chapter, the political actors of the Biden-Harris
administration will be in focus to answer the research question. According to the actor centered
approach the empirical material will be selected based on identified actors who are a part of the
administration or a spokesperson of the same. These identified actors are legitimate
representatives for the Biden-Harris administration and therefore possible securitizing actors.
81
UNFCCC, ‘The Paris Agreement | UNFCCC’.
20As described in the chapter on theoretical framework, a securitizing actor is an actor that declare
the referent object as existentially threatened. This implies that a possible securitizing actor in
this case has some sort of power and legitimacy to talk about climate change on the behalf of
the administration. Only people that legitimately can speak for the Biden-Harris administration
and the government of the United States can be interpreted as securitizing actors in this sense.
With these criteria on administration’s representatives, several people are of interest as possible
securitizing actors. The empirical material is collected from the formal channels of the
administration, for example the White House official website. The selection of the channels is
based on where statements of possible securitizing actors is published.
President Joseph R. Biden is of course one of the most important actors among with Vice
President Kamala Harris. President Biden announced early that a new post would be introduced
in the administration, the United States Special Presidential Envoy for Climate. John Kerry, the
former Secretary of State under President Obama, is the United States Special Envoy for
Climate. In his capacity of Secretary of State, Kerry was the one who signed the Paris Climate
Agreement in 2015 and during his work in Congress he has repeatedly linked climate and the
environment to security. 82 The present Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, the Secretary of
defense Lloyd J. Austin III, the National Climate advisor, Gina McCarty and the National
Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, are also possible securitizing actors. The American
ambassador to the United Nations is of interest as a possible securitizing actor since the
ambassador speaks for the United States in the United Nations. During the time period of
interest the United States had two ambassadors. Richard M. Mills Jr. was acting ambassador
from 20th of January until 25th of February when the nominated ambassador Linda Thomas-
Greenfield was accepted. Formal groups can also be considered as securitizing actors, which
adds the United States National security council to the list of possible securitizing actors.
Different kinds of documents are used as empirical material. Speeches and formal statements
made by the identified securitizing actors are analyzed. Executive orders by the president will
also be a part of the empirics, both in terms of the order in itself and the presidential statement
in conjunction with the order. The administration’s press briefings will be analyzed, which are
published as written text at the White house website. It also occurs that the administration
publishes fact sheets on certain issues. When climate is discussed in these, they will also be
82
Diez, von Lucke, and Wellmann, The Securitisation of Climate Change, 43.
21analyzed since it is a product of the administration. The administration also publishes readouts
after bilateral calls to world leaders, which will be included in the empirical material.
Statements of the State department on climate will also be of interest. Readouts from the
National security council will be analyzed in this study. The Special Envoy for Climate is
invited to attend at the council when appropriate.83
Some high level meetings at the international level will be object for analysis. The United
Nation Security Council is an important institution in terms of international security issues and
climate and security has been on the council’s agenda several times. The United Kingdom
hosted an open debate on “Maintenance of international peace and security: Climate and
security” during its presidency in February 2021. Due to the rotation of the presidency in the
council the United States led the council during March 2021. The United States hosted an open
debate on Food Security during its presidency. The statements of the United States in both
debates will be analyzed as a part of the empirical material in this paper. President Biden hosted
a high level summit on climate change during 22-23 of April. To host a high level meeting of
this kind can be interpreted as an act of global leadership on the issue. How the possible
securitizing actors presents climate and security during the summit is an important empirical
material to answer the research question. All statements of the United States at the Leaders’
Summit on Climate will be analyzed, which adds Ambassador Katherine Tai, Secretary of the
Treasury Janet L. Yellen and Director of National Intelligence, Avril Haines as possible
securitizing actors. The setting of the high level meeting was opened and could be viewed
online.
83
The White House, ‘National Security Council’.
226. ANALYSIS
The inauguration of the 46th President of the United States, President Biden took place the 20th
of January 2021, just weeks after the storming of the Capitol in early January. The 20th of
January was also the first day in office of the Biden-Harris administration and it’s from this
date and one hundred days forward that the administration will be analyzed. Already before
president Biden took office it was clear what his intentions was on the climate issue. In his
campaign he promised to reenter the Paris climate Agreement during his first day in office, a
pledge that was fulfilled the 20th of January 2021.84 The inaugural address of President Biden
held at the stairs of the Capitol was clearly marked by the riots two weeks earlier. Though, the
attack on the United States’ democracy was not the only challenge that the President addressed.
This is a time of testing. We face an attack on democracy and on truth. A
raging virus. Growing inequity. The sting of systemic racism. A climate in
crisis. America’s role in the world. Any one of these would be enough to
challenge us in profound ways. But the fact is we face them all at once,
presenting this nation with the gravest of responsibilities. Now we must step
up. All of us. It is a time for boldness, for there is so much to do. And, this is
certain.85
The climate is presented as a crisis among others in this citation from the President’s inaugural
speech. In a presidential proclamation published the same day the climate crisis was described
to be with force and fury.86 The plot of several challenges that needs to be addressed by the
administration corresponds to the Biden-Harris administration priorities. Seven policy areas are
identified by the administration as immediate priorities. The climate is found on second place
just after the COVID-19 crisis. This is said about the prioritized climate “President Biden will
take swift action to tackle the climate emergency. The Biden Administration will ensure we
meet the demands of science, while empowering American workers and businesses to lead a
clean energy revolution.”87 The administration is determined to take action and the use of the
term climate emergency demonstrates the seriousness and urgency to deal with the climate
84
The White House, ‘Paris Climate Agreement’.
85
The White House, ‘Inaugural Address by President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.’
86
The White House, ‘A National Day of Unity’.
87
The White House, ‘Priorities’.
23change. Though, to be able to analyze if the administration aims to securitize the climate change
we now turn to the first analytical question on existential threats.
6.1 Climate change as an existential threat
The climate was described as a crisis within President Bidens inaugural address that has been
cited. However, to say that something is a crisis is not enough to be interpreted as a securitizing
move. To analyze the administration’s possible securitization moves the first analytical
question will be discussed. Is the description on climate change developed by the Biden-Harris
administration constructed to include existential threats? How the Biden-Harris administration
talks about climate change as an existential threat will be presented in the following segment.
It should be noted that observations that contradicts this description has not been identified.
As noticed the first day in office was quite busy for the Biden-Harris administration. President
Biden did not only speak at the inauguration ceremony and reentered the Paris Agreement, he
also issued several executive orders. One of these was an Executive Order on Protecting Public
Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis.88 In this
executive order the climate change is presented as a threat that the administration has to take
action against. Section six of the executive order revokes the permit of the Keystone XL
Pipeline decided by President Trump in March 2019. Climate change and its effects on the
economy is one of the arguments for this political action. It is described that costs related to
climate change have increased over the last four year period. Furthermore, the urgency to
combat climate change has increased due to effects related to the climate has harmed
Americans’ safety, health and security.89 The paragraph on climate change in the sixth section
finishes with the following sentence “the world must be put on a sustainable climate pathway
to protect Americans and the domestic economy from harmful climate impacts, and to create
well-paying union jobs as part of the climate solution.”90 The oil pipeline is not in line with the
sustainable pathway for the climate described by the administration and the permit is therefore
revoked. It should also be noticed that the quote that Americans and the domestic economy
should be protected from harmful climate impacts indicates that climate is presented as a threat
to both the American people and the economy, though it is not described as an existential threat
in this particular example. One week after this executive order President Biden issued another
88
The White House, ‘Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science
to Tackle the Climate Crisis’.
89
The White House, sec. 6 (c).
90
The White House, sec. 6 (c).
24executive order, Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad.91 This
executive order took further steps to describe the climate change as an existential threat. Before
signing the executive order President Biden said “that’s why I’m signing today an executive
order to supercharge our administration ambitious plan to confront the existential threat of
climate change. And it is an existential threat”.92 In this quote President Biden clearly states
that the climate change is considered to be an existential threat. He exemplifies the existential
threat by climate change with natural disasters in the United States in recent years, the wildfires
in California, hurricanes and tropical storms along the east and gulf coast, historic floods and
severe droughts.93 In the executive order a whole-of-government approach to tackle the climate
crisis is presented as an action to deal with the climate crisis that threatens the “ability to live
on this planet”.94 Even if the exact words “existential threat” is not mentioned in the executive
order, it refers to a threatened ability to live on this planet, which is interpreted as a synonym
of an existential threat. This is further strengthened by the president’s remarks before signing
the executive order. At the same occasion President Biden introduces Secretary Kerry as
“speaking for America on one of the most pressing threats of our time”95 referring to the threat
of climate change.
In conjunction to these executive orders Special Envoy for Climate John Kerry and National
Climate Advisor Gina McCarty participated in a press briefing. During the briefing McCarty
said that the climate crisis is identified by the President as an existential crisis that is interrelated
to three other crises. Therefore, President Biden is addressing all four, including the climate
crisis.96 McCarty did not specify which these other four crisis are during the press briefing,
though she probably referred to the global COVID-19 pandemic, American economy, racial
equity and the climate crisis which are prioritized by the administration.97 Kerry talked about
the climate in the same manner, “the stakes on climate change just simply couldn’t be any
higher than they are right now. It is existential”. Kerry also mentions during the same press
briefing that President Biden makes climate central to national security preparedness, as well
91
The White House, ‘Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad’.
92
The White House, ‘Remarks by President Biden Before Signing Executive Actions on Tackling Climate
Change, Creating Jobs, and Restoring Scientific Integrity’.
93
The White House.
94
The White House, ‘Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad’, Sec. 201.
95
The White House, ‘Remarks by President Biden Before Signing Executive Actions on Tackling Climate
Change, Creating Jobs, and Restoring Scientific Integrity’.
96
The White House, ‘Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jen Psaki, Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John
Kerry, and National Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy, January 27, 2021’.
97
The White House, ‘Priorities’.
25You can also read
