Anthropogenic climate change from the perspective of securitization theory: The climate security discourse of the United States of America (2009–2022)

In the 21st century, one of the greatest threats facing the earth is climate change. The adverse impacts of climate change on various values have been transcend the borders and bring with them multi-dimensional security threats. This situation has necessitated analysing the changing climate challenge in the context of broadened understanding of security. Climate change, which indicates to a non-military dimension of security cannot be considered within the framework of an objectivist approach that prioritizes the survival of nation-state. This situation, which constitutes the origin of the Copenhagen School makes it possible to evaluate environmental problems such as climate change and global warming by the means of sectoral analysis. Moreover, the main arguments regarding the environmental sector illuminate the link between climate change and security. It is essential that all nations contribute to local and global action to combat a changing climate. Due to its position as a global power and historical responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions, it is crucial that the United States of America (USA) leads the efforts to fight against climate change. The local efforts and international position of the USA in the combat against climate change have mainly directed by American presidents' attitudes toward climate change. The securitization theory which was originally developed by Copenhagen School has been provide a theoretial framework for American presidents' preferences to construct climate change as an urgent security threat. The process, which is based on a subjective approach, is revealed through the speech act performed by the securitizing actor; it includes discursive elements of the linguistics. The purpose of the study is to theoretically analyze the moves towards the securitization of climate change by the American presidents between 2009-2022 and to idenfity similarities and dissimilarities within the climate security discourse. In the meantime, it is thought that the study will be beneficial in terms of elaborating the changing climate and security link and constituting a framework for the historical development of the American presidents' climate security discourse.