The questions were asked by Felix Kösterke.

What does climate security mean? How are security and the climate crisis connected?

Claudia Detsch: Both topics are very closely interwoven. This was clear to see at the Bled Strategic Forum under the motto “Solidarity for Global Security”. This year alone, there have been several panels dedicated to climate change and its impact on human security. People would have been astonished by this ten years ago. The situation has clearly changed. A few weeks before the conference, Slovenia was hit by massive floods, which are still a major issue owing to the immense damage. Enlightening people about what climate change means for human security is no longer necessary. The panel I moderated at the forum also included Ann Linde, who then held the OSCE Chairmanship as Foreign Minister of Sweden, when the topic of climate change was put on the agenda as a security risk there. The US is another example. Whereas the Republicans often continue to refute or ignore climate change, the military have now said: this will be one of our most urgent security challenges in the future.

When discussing this issue in the past, it often related to topics such as the water problem in the Middle East or conflict surrounding land use in Africa. Even the Europeans had less of an eye on Europe.  Here, too, it is now clear that climate security poses a huge challenge. And we’re not just talking about weather phenomena such as floods, forest fires, droughts; there are many more second-level issues. Food security is a major theme alongside water supply, political stability, and our relationship with other regions around the world. Many experts consider it highly likely that climate change will lead to large-scale migration movements towards Europe. That could put pressure on state structures or incite right-wing populism. These are secondary effects.

Global trade relations will be affected by climate phenomena as well. We only need to look at the political situation in many resource-rich countries to imagine how their stability could be undermined by the economic repercussions of climate crises. Again, Europe, with our global economic relations, would be massively affected by this. The extent to which climate, geopolitics, and security are interlinked, is therefore an irrefutable fact.

You addressed the motto of the Bled Forum “Solidarity for Global Security”. Is there currently a danger of Germany and Europe focusing too much on themselves and global solidarity falling by the wayside?

Claudia Detsch: I would actually view it the other way around to some extent. I believe the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the realisation we gained from it, shed even more light on how much we depend on the countries of the so-called Global South. When it comes to a diversification of raw material supplies etc., we completely rely on these countries. At the same time, many people in Europe were irritated by the fact that many countries in the South perceived the war differently to us. Many of these countries don’t participate in our sanctions. Here, we need to listen better. Solidarity is not a one-way street. “The West” is often uninterested when crises and conflicts occur in other regions around the world – that is what we often hear. Local FES colleagues from other regions also point this out to us. These are unpleasant truths. The question is, have we drawn the right conclusions, and are we already implementing them in practice? We talk a lot about relations on an equal footing. However, I think there is also a good deal of mistrust as to whether it will extend beyond lip service this time.

A second point: we had the pandemic with its economic implications, we’re providing military and financial support to Ukraine. We still have high levels of inflation. Governments have attempted to cushion a rise in energy prices for the population and the economy. We need to invest heavily in order to actually become climate neutral. All this requires financial resources. We also face the danger that the promised financial support for the energy transition and climate adaptation in the so-called Global South fails to materialise. That would be fatal, since it will once again give rise to what I already explained: being rhetorically ahead of the game, but falling short on a practical level. That is the danger.

What are the current trends in climate foreign policy and climate security policy?

Claudia Detsch: On the one hand, there is clearly the club governance. The UN mechanisms are partially blocked by the principle of unanimity. We increasingly seek pioneering alliances and think that if such alliances produce good results, then others will follow. This is currently being intensified again by climate partnerships and partnerships for a fair energy transition. But, of course, we have only just begun. It depends on what happens in the coming years. Promises need to be kept and that also applies to financial pledges and to the necessary technology transfer. For instance, the partnership with Indonesia demonstrates the different views on how the specific implementation should look. The crux will be the practice. In my opinion, forging such partnership puts us on a good path, yet simply concluding them does not bear much fruit. Over the coming years, we need to prove with the implementation that promises are actually fulfilled.

Can the increasing geopolitical competition therefore be viewed as an opportunity, since some states could be courted and cooperation could thus become more equal?

Claudia Detsch: I believe for many states, such as in Asia, Africa and Latin America, the current situation also affords an opportunity. They’re in high demand. It is perfectly clear that our energy transition in Europe and also in the US can only succeed with the appropriate raw materials from these states. They can practically have their pick of partners. And that’s why I think they’re in a more comfortable geopolitical situation in this respect. For us in Europe, the situation is a bit more ambivalent, I would say. We wanted to initiate the energy revolution with natural gas as a technology to bridge the gap. This would have been simpler and more cost effective. But it is more difficult now. That is clear, for instance, from the current debate surrounding industrial policy. 

Meanwhile, there is also a danger that the good approaches we had over recent years will be reduced to nothing due to growing tensions and geopolitical conflicts. Cooperation in dealing with security risks posed by climate change is one example here.

In recent weeks, your project has launched a series titled “Keep Cool and Change Course”. In what ways do you argue that we need to change our approach?

Claudia Detsch: Our campaign mainly focuses on addressing doubts among the population. Can we get this done? Won’t it be far too expensive? No stone will be left unturned. We want to raise awareness and say: if we do nothing, then everything will collapse and that would be even more expensive. Doing nothing is really not an alternative because the consequences would be enormous. We want to clearly demonstrate the impact for all of us in our daily lives and the effect on work, transport, housing etc. using a few examples. I believe it is important to be honest here and not to promise everything under the sun. It will be demanding and it will be expensive. But it will be less demanding and less expensive than doing nothing. While also illustrating that there will be positive effects, too. For instance, we need to rebuild our cities to enable them to better cope with extreme weather phenomena and to produce fewer emissions. This could ultimately make them greener and more liveable. And, of course, measures that we target for climate policy reasons need to be closely intertwined with measures for greater social justice. Otherwise, none of this will work. These are not isolated adjusting screws: this now affects each and every one of us and naturally people are also anxious. It is absolutely imperative that those on a lower budget are not left in the lurch. Otherwise, social injustice would further increase and the whole thing will blow up in our face.

But perhaps here too there is a connection to the central point of the “Zeitenwende”. Realities need to be acknowledged. This is uncomfortable and calls for resolute action.

Claudia Detsch: That is true in any case. I think this really is the major challenge now. We’re always talking about the multi-crisis. People are exhausted. Yet we don’t have time to catch our breath, we need to go full speed ahead. Climate change is manifesting itself ever more dramatically; you only have to look at the plethora of reports on floods, forest fires, and heat records in recent months. It’s enough to make your head spin. The challenge of remaining honest on the one hand, while providing a positive vision on the other, is colossal. If people feel like these changes are unjust, then they won’t back them. However, if they equally gain the impression that it could be something positive, that it changes something for them and they can influence things on the ground, then we set something positive in motion.

When we talk about necessary action, where should the focus lie?

Claudia Detsch: We need to do both – take countermeasures while also preparing ourselves. We actually have to adapt to climate change and the rise in temperature by rebuilding our infrastructure and making it more crisis-proof, for example. The population also needs to be better prepared to deal with potential disasters. The issue of disaster prevention has long been neglected in Europe. This comfort zone has now disappeared and will not return for a while. At the same time, we also need to maintain momentum in efforts to prevent emissions.  After all, a temperature rise of 1.7 degrees or 3.4 degrees still makes a huge difference. Here, we face equally great challenges on two fronts. We need to do both, simultaneously, and under extreme time pressure.