Political Science

Curbing the disastrous effects of global warming has been one of the loudest calls of the Obama administration as well as the United Nations. The United States has been one of the most visible advocates of climate change policies in the international community, but it is also the most criticized. After its refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol which would require it to drastically cut its greenhouse gas emissions, many countries - particularly those in the developing world - cried hypocrisy. Climate talks on December 2009 took place in Copenhagen, Denmark, but so far, the same misgivings and criticisms have been lodged against the agreements made. Without a doubt, global warming has very disastrous effects that could cause great instability to the global community. In 2008, the CNA Corporation, a think tank funded by the Pentagon, concluded the global warming is a dangerous threat multiplier for the United States (Walsh, 2008). In other words, global warming is considered a threat to national security.

Research Question
This paper aims to explore, using three theoretical approaches  Realist, Pluralist, and Marxist  this research problem Why does global warming threaten the national security of the United States

Hypotheses
Realist theory in international relations posits that states are essentially in constant competition over one another (Burchill, 2005). To ensure its survival and sovereignty, the state will pursue its own self-interest. This means that the relations of nations are determined by the military and economic power. The disastrous effects of global warming  tidal waves, massive floods, and droughts  imperil a states resources and could affect how nations interrelate with one another.

The pluralist view in international relations holds that instead of unilateral actions of the state, cooperation and interdependence must be explored in order to achieve peace among nations.  It also holds that a states internal political doctrine must be reflected in its foreign policy (Burchill, 2005). For instance, its stance on global warming must be coupled with tackling the issue of climate change abroad. This view supports current efforts to come up with treaties that will impose sanctions upon nations who do not abide by international agreements.

Marxist theory regarding international relations suggests that the globalized capitalist order has merely created a world wherein a group of industrialized countries exploit the resources of Third World countries for their own profit. When critiquing environmental treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol, Marxists argue that rich industrialized countries, which are the worlds major polluters as well, are required to cut only 5.2 of their greenhouse gas emissions, below 1990 levels. Rich countries could not be forced to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and can even purchase so-called right to pollute credits from countries (Beams, 2009). In other words, climate change policies that have been drafted are clearly corporate-friendly and prejudiced against poor nations.

Based on these perspectives, it is posited that

Hypothesis 1 (Realist approach)
Refusal to accommodate the influx of refugees fleeing poverty and hunger in developing countries will cause security threats to the United States.

Hypothesis 2 (Pluralist approach)
Economic sanctions and military actions imposed upon non-cooperating states with regard to global climate change policy will cause security threats to the United States.

Hypothesis 3 (Marxist approach)
Perceived unequal and exploitative climate change policies fueling the revolutionary and anti-imperialist movements in Third World countries will cause security threats to the United States.