Security Domains in Conflict?

Security is an elusive and contested concept. One entity—a person, a community, a country, or a regional grouping—might understand what constitutes its security in a way that threatens another. For example, one village's self-regarding decision to build a dam to create a reliable water supply can threaten the security of downstream communities. Or in strategic affairs, a security dilemma invariably emerges when one country's arms buildup prompts another's, which in turn escalates tensions. In these examples, the predicament is clear, yet so is the solution. By establishing frameworks for negotiation and crafting institutions, distrust can be overcome and cooperation nurtured.

But what happens when security is not about reconciling different actors' competing interests? When it is not about one's pursuit of what it deems necessary threatening another? What if a perfectly established notion of security in one domain is completely at odds with what constitutes security in another domain? A clear example of this problem is traditional approaches to energy security, which is conventionally defined as a country having enough reliable, affordable energy to ensure steady economic growth. Energy security is often associated with national security logics, as a country depends on energy to power its economy. In practice, of course, countries do cooperate with one another to obtain sufficient supplies of energy at a good price. Yet, as readers of this journal know well, such cooperation has long been heedless of the impact of greenhouse gas emissions, not to mention the greater environmental impact of unconventional fossil fuel resources, such as tar sands, when traditional sources become scarce. Put bluntly, the pursuit of energy security as conventionally understood leads to climate insecurity.

What is striking about climate security, in contrast to such domains as national security, societal security, and—yes—energy security, is that even within a discourse of securitization it has a more collective or universal ambiance. A stable climate benefits all human activities, not just one community or country. Yet if one goes so far as to make a typical securitization move on behalf of climate security—e.g., specifying climate change as an urgent threat that requires immediate attention—then the concern has dramatic implications.

All three volumes discussed here grapple with the fundamental incommensurability of energy security and climate security. They display a wide range of methodological approaches, geographical scopes, political persuasions, and levels of optimism. In terms of J. S. Mill's method of difference,¹ comparing these books is like comparing an apple, an orange, and a carrot. Still, the authors share a concern with engaging energy security within the context of a warming climate. Can the existing way of life be sustained even as transformations need to be made? How can innovation and fundamental reform be introduced and nurtured, both short term and long term? What about the demands of rapidly industrializing regions of the world?

The apple and the orange—the pieces of fruit—are Biresselioglu's study of Turkey's central role in European energy politics, and Anceschi and Symons' edited collection on Asia and the Pacific Rim. Both books emerge from Palgrave Macmillan's Energy, Climate and the Environment Series (ECES). Despite their common rubric, the two volumes are different, not least because the latter is a collection. The carrot—the vegetable—is Brown and Sovacool's book, which stands out for its firm rejection of conventional definitions of energy security, its pursuit of solutions, and its accessibility.

For his part, Biresselioglu, in European Energy Security, offers a detailed, thorough analysis of Turkey's position as an energy transfer state: it plays the central role in the transfer of hydrocarbons from the East to the EU. In so doing, it ensures its diplomatic and geostrategic importance. From the theoretical issues...