Climate change and environmental degradation have become a dynamic that reshapes the scope and content of the security concept. The fact that risks such as climate-related drought, extreme weather events, water and food pressures, and infrastructure damage do not merely produce environmental consequences but also exert pressure on societal stability, economic continuity, and the governance capacity of states is making the security dimension of climate change increasingly visible. However, whether climate change should be treated as a security matter, and if so, within which framework and whose security should take priority, remains not a settled consensus but a field of debate where different perspectives coexist. For this reason, the environment and security heading, rather than departing from a single definition, offers a framework that jointly examines different approaches and how these approaches reflect on policy preferences.
Debates on the relationship between climate change and security take shape fundamentally along two main axes. The first axis hosts approaches that argue climate change should form part of the security agenda. The second axis contains views that object to bringing climate change into a security framework or that warn about the risks of such framing. These two axes constitute the background of different policy preferences, different priorities, and different risk perceptions in global climate debates.
Approaches that do not treat climate change as a security matter rest on distinct justifications that cannot be reduced to one another. First, a segment exists that views the human causes of climate change or its status as a serious threat with skepticism. This perspective rejects the security framework by questioning the magnitude and urgency of climate change. Second, an approach takes the traditional definition of security as its basis. According to this view, the security concept should remain limited to classic "high politics" subjects such as military threats, armed conflicts, and interstate tensions; carrying issues like climate change onto the security agenda weakens the meaning and functionality of the concept. Third, a critical perspective emphasizes that framing climate change as a security problem can produce negative consequences. According to this perspective, translating the climate issue into security language can lay the groundwork for the militarization of the issue, the narrowing of democratic debate, and the restriction of societal rights through a discourse of emergency measures. These three distinct lines of objection reveal the multidimensional nature of debates over addressing climate change under the security heading.
Approaches that evaluate climate change as a security matter diverge internally according to which security referent, in other words whose or what security, receives priority. The first approach proceeds from a state security perspective. Under this view, climate change can intensify resource competition, affect border security, and create conditions for interstate tensions. The sharing of water basins, energy supply security, and the impacts of climate-driven migration movements on border regions are among the topics where this approach takes concrete form. The second approach places human security at the center. This perspective focuses on the dimensions of climate change that directly affect the daily lives of individuals and communities: food security, water access, the sustainability of livelihoods, economic stability, and displacement are the core components of a human-centered security understanding. The third approach, adopting an ecocentric viewpoint, positions the integrity of ecosystems and the planet as the actual referent of security. According to this view, forests, wetlands, biodiversity, and the balance of the climate system should be treated not merely as instruments of human welfare but as values that deserve protection in their own right.
These three security perspectives do not necessarily conflict with one another; in many situations they carry complementary dimensions. However, when it comes to policy design, which security referent receives priority brings different tools, different institutional structures, and different resource allocation preferences onto the agenda. The state security perspective foregrounds the adaptation of military planning and intelligence capacity to climate risks, while the human security perspective emphasizes social protection mechanisms, food and water policies, and tools that strengthen societal resilience. The ecocentric perspective brings ecosystem protection, biodiversity, and the sustainable management of natural resources to the center of the policy agenda. This variation demonstrates that climate security debates constitute a field that requires evaluating different dimensions together rather than producing a single correct answer.
The risks that give concrete shape to the security dimension of climate change take different forms across different geographies, yet several common topics stand out. Water security constitutes one of the most critical areas in the climate-security relationship. The intensification of drought conditions, increasing pressure on water basins, and risks to the sustainability of groundwater resources can produce cascading effects across a wide field from agriculture to industry, from energy production to urban life. Because water is one of the areas where cross-sectoral dependencies are most intense, pressure on water security can rapidly generate consequences for food security, energy production, and societal welfare. Food security also stands out within this framework. The pressure of climate impacts on agricultural yields, rising production costs, and supply chain disruptions can directly affect the stability of food prices and household access to food. This picture makes the security dimension particularly prominent in countries where agriculture carries significant economic and societal weight.
Extreme weather events and disaster risks form another concrete dimension of the climate-security relationship. Floods, forest fires, storms, and heatwaves can create serious pressures beyond loss of life and property, including infrastructure damage, service interruptions, and societal recovery processes. The resilience of critical infrastructure such as energy transmission lines, water networks, transportation networks, and communication systems against these risks constitutes an important component of the security debate. Because infrastructure systems are interconnected, a disruption in one area can affect other areas in a cascading manner, making risk management more complex.
The impact of climate change on migration and displacement dynamics also forms part of the security debate. Drought, desertification, coastal erosion, and recurring disasters can permanently worsen living conditions in some regions and trigger population movements. These movements can create social, economic, and political pressures both in origin regions and in destination regions. However, the climate-migration relationship takes shape not through a linear and mechanical causality but through interaction with economic conditions, governance capacity, social networks, and existing vulnerabilities. For this reason, assessments on this topic require a multi-factor perspective that avoids reductionist approaches.
The environment and security heading also carries a regional and international dimension. Water basins, food markets, energy corridors, and migration movements produce cross-border dynamics. This situation increases the need for interstate cooperation, risk sharing, data sharing, early warning networks, and joint capacity development. The Mediterranean basin stands out as one of the regions most sensitive to climate impacts; the risks discussed in this region manifest in similar forms across different geographies of the world. Türkiye, within this broader picture, needs to evaluate both its own national security requirements and regional connections together. At the international level, climate security is debated across a broad institutional landscape from the UN Security Council to NATO, from regional cooperation mechanisms to humanitarian aid organizations; the integration of climate risks into security planning is becoming an increasingly prominent part of institutional agendas.
The environment and security heading fundamentally takes shape around the following questions: Is climate change a security matter and what are both the opportunities and risks of this framing? How do policy preferences differ depending on which security referent (state, human, ecosystem) receives priority? Through which mechanisms do climate-related risks in areas such as water, food, infrastructure, and migration produce security pressures? How do these risks distribute across society and how do vulnerabilities take shape? How can cooperation and risk sharing at the regional and international level be strengthened? This heading aims to establish a discussion ground that evaluates the security dimension of climate change without reducing it to a single perspective, by jointly considering different approaches, concrete risk areas, and policy options.
In this framework, Türkiye and the Mediterranean basin examples provide a regional context where climate risks take concrete form through their security dimension. At the same time, environment and security covers a field far too broad to confine to a single country perspective: it jointly addresses global trends, different country experiences, and international institutional developments. The goal is to enable understanding of the security dimension of environmental risks while also discussing policy options in this field within a framework that is realistic, implementable, and attentive to different viewpoints.