Rethinking energy, climate and security: a critical
analysis of energy security in the US
Jonna Nyman
Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester
LE1 7RH, UK.
E-mail: Jonnaknyman@gmail.com
Understanding the complicated relationship between energy, climate and security is vital
both to the study of international relations and to ensure the continued survival of a world
increasingly threatened by environmental change. Climate change is largely caused by
burning fossil fuels for energy, but while discussions on the climate consider the role of
energy, energy security debates largely overlook climate concerns. This article traces the
separation between energy and climate through an analysis of US energy security discourse
and policy. It shows that energy security is continually constructed as national security,
which enables very particular policy choices and prioritises it above climate concerns. Thus,
in many cases, policies undertaken in the name of energy security contribute directly to
climate insecurity. The article argues that the failure to consider securing the climate as
inherently linked to energy security is not just problematic, but, given global warming,
potentially harmful. Consequently, any approach to dealing with climate change has to
begin by rethinking energy security and security more broadly, as national (energy) security
politics no longer provides security in any meaningful sense.
Journal of International Relations and Development advance online publication,
30 October 2015; doi:10.1057/jird.2015.26
Keywords: climate change; critical security studies; energy security; environmental
security; United States
Introduction
Energy supply is a matter of national security. (Bush 2006)
Producing more oil and gas here at home has been, and will continue to be, a
critical part of an all-of-the-above energy strategy. (Obama 2012d)
In the United States, energy security has long been considered an issue of national
security, and it remains centred on fossil fuel supply. However, ‘the burning of fossil
fuels to produce energy is by far the main source of anthropogenic greenhouse gas
emissions’ (International Energy Agency 2007: 28), a growing source of insecurity
for the planet. Energy security and climate change mitigation are intimately related,
Journal of International Relations and Development, 2015, (1–28)
© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1408-6980/15
www.palgrave-journals.com/jird/
and it is difficult to imagine how an approach to one can exclude detailed
consideration of the other. Any solution to climate change requires rethinking how
we use energy. Similarly, in the contemporary world a discussion of energy security
that does not consider the impact of energy choices on the climate would seem
anachronistic. However, while climate policy discussions both globally and at state
levels involve detailed discussions of energy, energy security discussions occur
largely at state level and involve little consideration of the climate.
Climate change is the biggest threat facing the world in the 21st century, and it is
time for our understanding of (energy) security to change to reflect this. This article
traces the separation between energy and climate through an analysis of US energy
security discourse and policy. It argues that the failure to consider securing the climate
as inherently linked to energy security is not just problematic, but, given global
warming, potentially harmful. As can be seen in the quotes on the previous page,
energy security is linked continually with national security and the need to secure state
energy supplies is portrayed as increasingly urgent. Securitisation theory argues that
when an issue is successfully constructed as ‘security’ in these terms it is raised above
regular politics, closing down debate and enabling extraordinary measures to deal with
it (Buzan et al. 1998: 26). Furthermore, drawing on critical security studies, this article
argues that the referent object of security is vital to the meaning of the concept itself:
the referent (the ‘thing’ to be secured) in energy security discourse is almost always the
state. The link between energy and national security enables and prioritises a continued
emphasis on domestically produced fossil fuels as central to achieving energy security
for the American state, while ignoring the impact on the climate. Moreover, despite
increasing focus on climate change, energy and climate are often treated separately as
policy issues, being institutionally separated and falling under different government
departments. In contrast, this article suggests that energy security and climate
mitigation are closely related, and that dealing with both requires fundamentally
rethinking how we understand security. Ultimately, climate change cannot be dealt
with without changing existing energy security practices.
Using the United States as a case study, this article conducts an in-depth empirical
analysis of energy security discourse and policymaking, asking: where is the climate?
It shows that despite efforts to take climate change seriously, mainstream energy
security policy discourses and practices still view climate mitigation as an afterthought
rather than an integral part of energy security. Energy security is continually
constructed in national security terms, which both enables very particular policy
choices, including continued emphasis on energy independence, and works to
prioritise it above climate concerns. This article argues that climate mitigation needs
to be an integral part of energy security because of its potential to cause insecurity.
This can also be a starting point for rethinking the link between energy and national
security. The article starts with a contextual discussion of energy, climate and
security, before outlining the theoretical underpinnings and methodological choices
made. The main body of the article presents an empirical study of the United States,
Journal of International Relations and Development
Volume 00, Number 0, 2015
2
analysing how energy security policy is constructed in a way that largely excludes
climate change, and how this works together with energy security discourses to
construct energy security as separate from climate concerns. It then discusses the
implications of these findings, making suggestions for further research.
Energy, climate and security
This section outlines briefly the history of energy security in the United States and the
academic literature on energy security. It then highlights the lack of critical conceptual
analyses of energy security, and how securitisation theory can be used to better
understand the relationship between energy and security. The existing critical studies
on energy security are then discussed, to show where this analysis fits in and what it
contributes. The final sections examine the relationship between climate change and
security, drawing on a growing number of critical works in this area and using their
insights into ‘security’ to better understand both energy security and the conflict
between security referents which underpins the separation between energy and climate.
Throughout the 19th and the early 20th century, the United States enjoyed
abundant domestic supplies of coal, crude oil and natural gas. However, since the
mid-1980s US crude oil production has largely declined while consumption continued
to rise, and the country became more and more reliant on imports. This first became a
problem during the oil crises of the 1970s, which have had a big influence on
contemporary understandings of energy security in the US; — particularly the 1973 oil
price shock, which caused massive price hikes and shortages. The effects were a major
shock to a country used to seemingly endless supplies of energy. They are continually
referred to in academic and policy writings on the subject (Bamberger 2003) and they
are the main source of the dominance of ‘secure supplies’ and ‘stable prices’ in energy
security discussions today:
We’ve talked about this since Richard Nixon. Remember OPEC, ‘73, and oil—
lines at the gas station? And every President has said this is a national security
issue, this is a crisis, we’ve got to do something about it. But we don’t do anything
about it. (Obama 2010d)
However, neither the key US energy policy acts nor key officials define the term
‘energy security’ clearly: imprecise terminology around energy security is often
exploited by political actors to promote particular policy options (Littlefield 2013).
Still, policy choices and discourses illustrate clearly the centrality of supply and
price stability.
Energy security studies is a multidisciplinary field, and in recent years some have
attempted to expand the meaning of energy security; one study found 45 different
definitions in the literature (Sovacool 2010: 3–6). Conceptualising energy security
is difficult; the concept has been called notoriously ‘fuzzy’ (Chester 2010;
Jonna Nyman
Rethinking energy, climate and security
3
Valentine 2010) and academic studies offer and debate a number of competing
definitions (Sovacool and Brown 2010; Winzer 2012). However, attempts to broaden
the meaning of energy security are much more common in environmental studies and
energy technology/policy work — see, for example, Kruyt et al. (2009). Vitally,
Kruyt et al. also note that while the literature shows a wide range of potential energy
security indicators, some of which take in climate concerns, most are not actually
used in policymaking, where emphasis remains on price and import dependency
(2009). Similarly, in the International Relations (IR) literature, energy security
remains linked closely with geopolitics and national security. Here, the state’s
security of supplies at stable prices remains at the centre of a debate dominated by
fossil fuels, particularly oil and gas.
In the vast majority of the IR and Security Studies literature on energy security in
the United States, ‘the objective of energy security is to assure adequate, reliable
supplies of energy at reasonable prices and in ways that do not jeopardise major
national values and objectives’ (Yergin 1988: 111). Within this definition, there is a
division between those who advocate a strategic, or realist, approach to dealing with
American energy insecurity, and those who promote a more market-based, or liberal,
approach.1
However, both of these approaches tend to focus on security of supply
and view energy as a national security issue: they only differ in views on how to
solve it. For the strategic approach, the focus is on securing the state’s strategic
autonomy, as ‘security necessitates reducing vulnerability to being subject to the
power of others’ (Lee 2005: 289; see also Boekestein and Henderson 2005; Klare
2008). Meanwhile, market-based approaches to US energy security focus on
ensuring economic security/stability through international energy markets. For these
authors, energy security is ‘not a zero-sum game’ (Gault 2006: 9; Bielecki 2002;
Schortgen 2006; Vivoda 2009). Over time, US energy policymaking has fluctuated
between these approaches depending on the context and political convictions, usually
involving some combination of the two (Bamberger 2003).
However, despite the range of material in the literature on energy security, there is a
lack of critical conceptual and normative analyses of energy security (Dannreuther
2010). The implicit link between energy security and the state is rarely questioned.
Meanwhile, climate change rarely warrants more than a passing comment. The existing
energy security literature is largely methodologically empiricist and positivist; in the
words of Ciută, ‘abundant analyses of pipeline politics stand in stark contrast to the
very few attempts to make sense of energy security conceptually’ (2010: 124). In this
vein, this article interrogates US energy security discourse and policy from a critical
perspective, exploring the role of ‘national security’ in maintaining the separation
between energy security and climate mitigation. Discussions on climate change tackle
the issue of energy in-depth, recognising that ‘mitigating climate change cannot […] be
successful without a radical change in the way we produce, transform and use energy’
(International Energy Agency 2007: 28). Similarly, the environmental science
literature is well aware that climate change ‘can be addressed only with large-scale
Journal of International Relations and Development
Volume 00, Number 0, 2015
4
changes to the energy sector’ (Jacobson 2009: 149). However, mainstream energy
security debates largely fail to engage with climate change. Ultimately, in the
traditional energy security literature, ‘there simply is no need to debate what energy
security is, because we know both that energy is a security issue and what security is’
(Ciută 2010: 124; Simpson 2013).
Securitisation theory argues that constructing issues as ‘security’ in this way raises
them above regular politics, closing down debate and enabling extraordinary
measures, often in the form of militarised, state-centric responses (Wæver 1995: 65;
Buzan et al. 1998: 26). Consequently, interrogating and questioning the link between
energy and security is important. While energy security is rarely fully securitised
in the United States (Nyman 2014), frequent securitising moves still have an impact
on how it is treated in policy terms and securitisation theory provides helpful guidance
on the nature of security. In suggesting that (traditional) security politics raises issues
above democratic politics and attaches a logic of war to the responses, Buzan et al.
suggest that, understood in these terms, ‘security’ is problematic, ‘negative’ and best
avoided (1998: 29). A study by Bang found that there is broad agreement in US
energy policymaking both over the idea that energy is a security issue and that energy
independence is a goal worth striving for (2010: 1646). Thus, it is argued here that the
link between energy and national security works to enable very particular policy
choices, particularly a focus on energy independence, and works to prioritise it above
climate concerns. For example, some even argue actively against coupling energy
security and climate change, arguing that the link between them is problematic as
increased focus on climate change may ‘risk’ energy security (Luft et al. 2010).
As the empirical study of the United States in the second half of this article
demonstrates, a very specific traditional, state-centred notion of national security is
attached to energy security. The central role of the state as both actor and referent
object of energy security sets it up as separate from climate change. A seminal study
by Mulligan highlights the way in which the characteristics of energy resources have
enabled this separation between energy and environment. Historically, fossil fuels
have been considered ‘property’ of the state in which they are located, ‘thus, energy
security could be provided for by military means, while also being essential for
military superiority’ (Mulligan 2010: 89). Energy security concerns emerged long
before climate was a priority, agreements remain largely bilateral, and states play a
key role in regulating markets, defining priorities, protecting and securing resources
— whether through the private sector or via state-owned energy companies. In this
way, the link between energy security and national security has become institutionalised
in policymaking processes. This, in turn, reinforces the separation between
energy and climate, and thus ‘there are limited multilateral institutions that deal with
energy security, resulting in the higher risks of fostering a zero-sum mentality and an
antagonistic attitude which can be problematic in dealing with climate issues’
(Trombetta 2008: 597). For the purpose of dealing with climate change, this link
between energy and national security is problematic.
Jonna Nyman
Rethinking energy, climate and security
5
To date, a few critical pieces examining the concept and ethics of energy security
have been published, dealing with aspects of the issues raised here. Mulligan argues
that energy security is fundamentally an ecological issue. He argues that peak oil can
‘be viewed as a serious threat to political order and human welfare, and that it
therefore is highly amenable to securitization’ (Mulligan 2011: 634). However, he
does not explain how securitising peak oil will lead to an approach to energy security
centred on human ecology. Moreover, peak oil is an international issue and is not
entrenched in national security language in the same way as national energy security
discourse. However, Mulligan’s study does suggest a potential for (energy) security
discourse to be centred around human welfare and ecology, rather than state security.
Simpson draws on critical theory to provide an important ethical focus, in a study of
large-scale energy projects in Southeast Asia. He notes that ‘while the discourse of
national energy security is employed by dominant interests, the environmental
security of the local communities can be severely undermined by a project but is
rarely considered’ (Simpson 2007: 540, 2014). Although his work focuses on energy
inequality, it has important implications for understanding the concept of energy
security more broadly — particularly for problematising the referent object of
energy security and the centrality of the state in dominant energy security discourses.
Simpson opens a space for ethical critiques of dominant energy security narratives in
noting that ‘energy security is not a desirable goal if it is only to be achieved at the
expense of some other significant environmental insecurity’ (Simpson 2013: 250).
However, the link between climate change and security is also complex. Climate
change is increasingly considered a security issue, but differs from traditional thinking
on security in that ‘the threat that we need to face is our own doing, not something that
can be pinned on an external military or a state with evil intent’ (Dalby 2009: 92).
Similarly, it is unlikely to be solved through state-centric threat/defence thinking as the
climate is international. Early debates suggested linking security and the environment
may be harmful (Deudney 1999). An in-depth discussion of the relationship between
the environment and security is beyond the scope of this article, but it is tackled in
Floyd and Matthew (2013). However, thinking about the nexus between ‘climate’ and
‘security’ is important; linking climate change with security has also been said to be
problematic as it risks militarising the responses to the issue (Floyd 2013: 280). It is
important, therefore, to clarify that while some have indeed argued that climate change
should be viewed as a threat to national security, or as a ‘conflict multiplier’ (Matthew
2013: 266), this is not the argument made here. Indeed, in recent years, the argument
that climate change increases the risk of ‘climate wars’ and conflict has lost much
appeal due to the lack of empirical evidence (Scheffran et al. 2012). However, this
debate is somewhat separate from the broader debate over the relationship between
climate change and security, where a wider notion of security is often used.
Here, I draw primarily on Dalby, but also Trombetta and McDonald. Ultimately,
the growing speed of environmental change caused by climate change has profound
implications for how we understand security. It ‘emphasises the urgency of
Journal of International Relations and Development
Volume 00, Number 0, 2015
6
immediate action to drastically curtail greenhouse gas emissions for everyone’s
security […]. This is not security understood as preparing for war with rival states,
[…] [e]nvironmental change now makes the necessity of rethinking security
unavoidable’ (Dalby 2009: 172). Rather than states securing themselves at any cost,
such a change involves putting sustainability ‘at the heart of a security strategy’,
which would also ‘require abandoning many of the traditional geopolitical premises
of security thinking’ (Dalby 2009: 158). If we look beyond the state as the referent
object of security, in this case to the climate, traditional ‘national security practices’
(Dalby 1997: 15) cannot always produce security. Securing the climate alongside
continued energy resources will, therefore, require changing both our understanding
of security and our security practices.
Moreover, Trombetta’s empirical analysis of attempts to turn climate change into a
security issue illustrates that, rather than succumbing to a traditional security logic,
such attempts have emphasised ‘the relevance of preventive, non-confrontational
measures’ and the role of and the need for actors beyond the state in providing security
(2008: 600). In practice, rather than applying traditional threat/defence national
security logics, such attempts illustrate the unfixed nature of security and security
practices (Trombetta 2008: 600). McDonald has studied the way in which different
environmental issues have been framed as security, including climate change, finding
that while security can be problematic, as securitisation theory suggests, it can also be
positive and progressive (2012). His study is of vital importance here, as it shows that
the meaning or consequences of ‘security’ or securitisation are not fixed. Thus,
following McDonald, what matters is not ‘whether environmental issues are positioned
as threats or ‘securitized’, for example, but how security itself is understood’ (2012: 7).
Thus, while constructions of energy as national security are problematic, this does not
mean that security is always best avoided. It can also be used to raise important ethical
questions about whom or what should be secured: in discussions of climate change as a
security issue, this is often the global climate or ecosystem rather than the survival of
the state. Crucially, despite the fact that some potential problems are attached to
framing climate change as a security issue, Obama has already used the language of
security explicitly to discuss climate change. What is interesting here is the way in
which he has used a very different notion of security in these cases, as will be
discussed further in the empirical section.
This article builds on existing studies to highlight and analyse the ongoing
separation between energy security and climate concerns in a case study of the
United States. The existing studies which explicitly consider the links between
energy security and climate change (e.g., see studies by Jacobson 2009; Bang 2010;
Umbach 2012; Toke and Vezirgiannidou 2013; Vezirgiannidou 2013; Jewell et al.
2014), tend to focus on energy policy, and their arguments in favour of coupling
energy security and climate change do not consider the role of ‘security’ as a concept
in maintaining this separation, which is what this analysis adds. The lack of critical
conceptual and normative analyses of energy security is problematic, though
Jonna Nyman
Rethinking energy, climate and security
7
Mulligan and Simpson provide a focus on the referent object of energy security.
However, this is the first study to date that traces energy security discourse and policy
in an empirical case study to show the connection between energy and national
security and how it works to prioritise national energy security over climate change
mitigation and enables a continued focus on fossil fuels to secure the state in energy
terms. This, in turn, has important implications for dealing with climate change,
because as understood in this case study, energy security and the security of the
climate are potentially incompatible.
This problem has multiple levels — there is a complex relationship between the
policy agendas of energy security and climate mitigation. They affect each other and so
some policy coordination is required. However, they aim to secure different referent
objects (the state and the global climate/ecosystem), and different actors are involved in
doing the securing, and so the solutions to energy and climate insecurity often conflict.
It is becoming increasingly clear that national security and its logic cannot secure the
global climate. The solutions to climate insecurity can conflict with individual states’
short-term energy security interests. Consequently, there is a need to rethink how we
understand security, to emphasise sustainability and recognise referents and actors
beyond the state to provide security on a global, regional, state and local level
(Hoogensen Gjørv 2012). If such a ‘broader understanding of security is invoked […]
then the possibilities for less violent and more constructive responses open up’ (Dalby
2009: 129). Meanwhile, an emphasis on sustainability and longer-term security could
allow climate change mitigation to become an integral part of energy security.
Theoretical framework and methodology
The theoretical framework for this article is drawn from constructivist and discursive
approaches situated within critical security studies; these are used to question the
meaning and referent object of energy security. Language is seen as constituting the
world it represents (Cienkia and Yanow 2013). Thus, discourse and policy are taken to
be co-constitutive, as ‘neither ideas nor materiality have a meaningful presence
separate from each other’ (Hansen 2006: 22). Discourses enable particular practices
and policies, while simultaneously these practices and policies then re-enable particular
discourses. Securitisation theory views security in a similar way, in suggesting that
security is a ‘speech-act’ whereby an issue becomes security when an actor labels it as
such, which in turn has specific policy consequences (Buzan et al. 1998: 26).
Consequently, the article analyses ‘how’ particular energy security discourses and
practices work to enable each other, and thus allow particular ‘possibilities of practice’
to emerge because of the reality that is constructed (Doty 1993: 304).2
As such, it links
a discussion of how particular categories of analysis and identity are constructed, in this
case the framing of energy security as national security,3
with a discussion of what
policies are made possible in the process (Doty 1996: 4). Thus, the focus is on how
Journal of International Relations and Development
Volume 00, Number 0, 2015
8
particular energy security discourses and practices in the United States constitute a
particular understanding of energy security, which works to separate it from climate
concerns. For two other studies highlighting the role of security discourse in energy
policy, see Leung et al. (2014) and Rogers-Hayden et al. (2011).
In terms of methodology, the empirical analysis focuses on energy security policy
discourses and practices from 2000 onwards, starting with the first Bush administration
and continuing on till the present day. The United States makes a particularly interesting
case study as energy has long been on the security agenda. The empirical work is based
primarily on documentary analysis of approximately 600 texts produced by the Bush
and Obama administrations. The texts chosen represent a wide range of documents,
from presidential and ministerial speeches to legislation and other documents outlining
policy. Key texts work as ‘monuments’ in that they play a central place in the policy
debate, have ‘broad reception’ and are often cited (Neumann 2008: 67): these played a
central role in the analysis and make up the bulk of the cited material. The analysis also
uses some interview data based on interviews with US energy policymakers conducted
during 2012 (see the Appendix). Interviews focused on how officials involved in energy
security policy interpret energy security as a concept. The focus is largely on the
documentary analysis, with interview data used to supplement this. Like all research,
this study has some limitations: it focuses only on the United States, on the national
level, and on a limited time period. However, the analysis still provides some important
insights. Overall, energy security discourses and practices under Bush and Obama share
a number of common themes, relying heavily on ‘conventional discourses’ (Strauss
2013) and so, in the empirical section, a thematic approach is used rather than separating
the data chronologically or by administration — where there are clear differences
between the two, this is noted. The texts were explored using discourse analysis
(Milliken 1999: 232), focusing on how energy security was constructed, what policy
priorities were emphasised, and how these discourses enabled particular practices. The
next section presents these constructions thematically, starting with discourses and then
moving onto practices, asking: where is the climate?
Where is the climate? A critical analysis of energy security in the United
States
This section presents a critical analysis of energy security discourse and policy in the
United States, showing how both the Bush and Obama administrations construct
energy as separate from climate through discourse and practice. It starts by looking at
how energy security is constructed in discourse, exploring the key themes which
emerged in the discourses analysed, before looking more specifically at what is being
secured and where the climate fits in. It then looks at what practices these discourses
make possible, focusing on energy choices, energy policy and legislation, and the
energy security policymaking process.
Jonna Nyman
Rethinking energy, climate and security
9
Energy security discourses
US understandings of energy security remain shaped by the 1970s oil crises, and the
key focus remains ‘assured access to energy, at an affordable price’ (Interview
2012b). This was clear both in the documentary analysis and in the interviews
undertaken for this research. These two components relate to national and economic
security, as states need reliable access to energy supplies at reasonable prices for
economic growth and stability, and when this fails it becomes an issue of national
security and state survival. At an extreme, energy security is considered essential for
‘maintaining national power’ (Interview 2012a).
Energy security is defined continually as a priority issue: speeches and documents on
energy security continually emphasise survival and urgency, and national security is
continually linked with energy supply and price security. When George W. Bush took
office in 2001, America was going through was he called an energy ‘crisis’ (National
Energy Policy 2001). The solutions presented emphasised the need ‘to diversify and
increase the supply of energy’, and oil and gas were seen as central to this (Bush 2001a).
Obama has continually stated that ‘American energy security’ is ‘an issue that has been
a priority for my administration since the day I took office’ (Obama 2010b). The
importance and urgency of energy security is emphasised clearly in statements like:
These are extraordinary times, and it calls for swift and extraordinary action. At a
time of such great challenge for America, no single issue is as fundamental to our
future as energy. (Obama 2009a)
He has also referred to the possibility of a future ‘crisis in terms of oil supplies’ and
its possible effect on the economy and national security (Obama 2010c). So energy is
represented as important, it is a crisis, because both national security and the
economy depend on it. The ‘threat’ usually referenced is ‘dependence’, or supply
insecurity (Obama 2011), and it is the American state that is under threat.
Another key theme in US energy security discourses is an emphasis on energy as
essential for economic security and growth. Bush repeatedly called for expansion of
‘domestic oil and natural gas production’, ‘to reduce pressure on prices’ (Bush 2008).
The focus on domestic sources of production is key here, as supply security, and thus
economic stability, cannot be left to untrustworthy ‘foreign’ states: ‘for the sake of our
economic and national security, we must reduce our dependence on foreign sources
of energy’ (Bush in White House National Economic Council 2006). Under Obama,
this focus on energy as ‘absolutely critical to our economic future’ (Obama 2009b)
continues, though clean energy also becomes considered key to growth, which will be
discussed in more detail later. The focus on ‘domestic’ sources of energy continues,
and is a key part of the energy strategy that Obama announced in 2011 (White House
2011). Throughout, the idea of domestic/foreign sources of energy is emphasised —
with the former identified as good, while the latter is identified as bad and leaving
America ‘vulnerable’ (Obama 2009e).
Journal of International Relations and Development
Volume 00, Number 0, 2015
10
American representations of energy security also emphasise the idea of strategy
and power politics, which relates back to national security, and distinguishing
‘America’, or ‘us’, from external ‘others’, who may be hostile. While more
pronounced under Bush, this continues through to Obama. It constructs energy
‘dependence’ as a threat which ‘leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to
terrorists’ (Bush 2007). Under Obama, ‘homegrown’ sources of energy, whether
fossil fuel or ‘alternative’, are said to ‘make us more secure’ (Obama 2012b).
The focus on securing ‘us’ from ‘them’ also makes competition a key part of energy
foreign policy, while other countries are considered ‘aggressive’ (Obama 2010a).
Thus under Bush, energy security was a necessary ‘priority of U.S. trade and foreign
policy’ (National Energy Policy 2001) necessitating strengthening relationships with
key producer nations, a strategy which has continued under Obama (Obama 2011).
Energy independence plays a central role in discussions about energy security
under both Bush and Obama (see also Herbstreuth 2014). In terms of priorities, it
consistently ranks higher than climate change. Energy independence is central to US
understandings of energy security, and has been promoted by every president since
Nixon. It contrasts the threat of dependence on ‘foreign oil’ with energy independence
which ‘makes our economy stronger and our nation more secure’ (Obama 2009a).
Energy independence thus works to construct a zero-sum, competitive understanding
of energy security, and has led to increased production of and subsidies for domestic
fossil fuels, particularly oil and gas. Meanwhile, it is unlikely to make energy prices
more stable because, whether or not it is domestically produced or imported, oil is still
traded openly on the world market. Overall, ‘in terms of the political debate [energy
security is] often referred to in a sense of producing more domestically’ (Interview
2012e). Under Bush, this involved increased drilling for oil and gas as well as
continued investment in coal, nuclear energy and ‘clean coal’ technologies (White
House National Economic Council 2006). Under Obama, it led to the development of
the ‘all-out, all of the above’ strategy, announced in his 2012 State of the Union, ‘that
develops every available source of American energy’ (Obama 2012a). In practice, this
was a refocus on traditional sources of energy, increased drilling for oil and gas, and
‘cleaner’ coal and nuclear, while continuing the focus on efficiency/clean energy. This
will be discussed more in the practice section.
Overall, it is the American state which is being secured in the energy security
discourses: ‘[t]he basic focus is American energy security, promoting that, protecting
that’ (Interview 2012b). The state is distinguished as that which needs to be
protected, creating clear identities and boundaries between the state, or ‘us’, as
distinguished from ‘them’, who are ‘foreign’, external, may be ‘hostile’ and may
cause ‘harm’ to the United States. Energy is constructed as important and elevated as
a national/economic security issue because it is key to maintaining ‘national power’,
and competition with others over energy is constructed as necessary. The discursive
reinforcement of national boundaries makes it actively more difficult to deal with
cross-border issues like climate change, where it is necessary to work with others to
Jonna Nyman
Rethinking energy, climate and security
11
deal with global and local insecurity, all of whom are ‘foreign’ and, therefore,
potentially hostile according to these discourses.
Meanwhile, as long as the national power of the American state is considered
central to energy security, climate change is unlikely to be considered a priority. The
environment and the climate are largely disregarded in US energy security discourse
and policymaking. In the early years, Bush questioned what he considered the
‘incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of […] global climate change’
(Bush 2001b). By 2007, his position had changed and he announced a strategy to
‘help confront climate change’, pointing to the administration’s allocation of ‘nearly
$29 billion to climate-related science, technology, international assistance, and
incentive programs’ (Bush 2007). However, much of this funding went towards
scientifically proving the existence of climate change rather than any measures to
improve the climate (Floyd 2010). In practice, figures given to ‘prove’ a commitment
to combating climate change often conflate investment in energy security and climate
mitigation (e.g., see Bush 2007; White House 2008), suggesting the vast majority of
funding was in practice allocated to energy security measures, many of which
contribute directly to climate change. For example, in a document stating that the
president takes a ‘balanced’ approach to confronting energy and climate change, it is
also announced that ‘the President […] took steps to increase domestic oil
exploration to reduce our dependence on foreign oil’ (White House 2008).
Under Obama, at least in rhetoric, clean energy is considered increasingly
important to energy and national security, largely as a route to energy independence
and economic growth. There is recognition that ‘the sources of energy that power our
economy are also endangering our planet’ (Obama 2009f). Clean energy is broadly
considered a jobs creator and a ‘potential engine for economic growth’ (Obama
2009d). Overall, the focus remains on national security and control, which clean
energy can help by improving the possibility of energy independence (Obama 2012c).
Competition over energy remains key, even with clean energy, where competition with
potential challengers like China is considered key (Obama 2010a). Thus, Obama
constructs a choice: ‘We can remain the world’s leading importer of foreign oil, or we
can become the world’s leading exporter of renewable energy’ (Obama 2009c). This
sets up a particularly strange dichotomy between oil as dirty/foreign/imported, and
therefore bad, and renewable energy as clean/domestic/good, a means to increase
economic competitiveness — ignoring increases in domestic oil production and
suggesting that the main benefit of renewable energy is as an exported good producing
economic growth.
Obama’s rhetoric did change somewhat in 2013, linking climate change more
directly to security. In noting that there is a need to ‘act before it’s too late’ on climate
change and that, therefore, he may need to act without Congress (Obama 2013c),
Obama created a sense of urgency and emergency associated with security discourse.
However, the commitment to domestic fossil fuel production was retained
with a promise to ‘keep cutting red tape and speeding up new oil and gas permits’
Journal of International Relations and Development
Volume 00, Number 0, 2015
12
(Obama 2013c). In Berlin, he called for joint action on climate change, explicitly
labelling it ‘the global threat of our time’ (Obama 2013a). He presented a new plan
‘to lead the world in a coordinated assault on a changing climate’ (Obama 2013b).
Here, energy and climate are linked directly in a way which had not been emphasised
previously, together with an emphasis on cooperation rather than competition.
However, because of the difficulties of acting through Congress, the plan centres
around the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has affected the policy
choices (for an in-depth discussion of this, see MacNeil and Paterson 2012). While it
has had little impact on oil and gas production, the use of the EPA to regulate
efficiency and set standards for emissions has had some impact on emissions
(Economist 2014). Problematically, while the change in rhetoric is significant, the
2014 State of the Union noted the continuing ‘commitment to American energy’, the
all-of-the-above energy strategy and energy independence, as well as continued
increases in natural gas (Obama 2014). Ultimately, Obama’s recognition of climate
change as a serious and joint security threat is significant, but follow-through action
has been limited — not least because of the difficulty of legislative action on climate
change through Congress. Obama has called repeatedly for Congress to end tax
breaks and subsidies for big oil companies, with little success (Obama 2014).
To sum up, even when climate and clean energy are considered, climate change is
largely an afterthought when it comes to energy security in US policy discourses. With
the exception of a few recent statements, it is still the state which needs to be secured,
whether in economic or strategic terms, and clean energy is only a priority when it fits
into this understanding of security. Energy security is considered more important for
economic and national security and, therefore, remains the policy priority.
Energy security policy
This section looks at three key areas in which the Bush and Obama administrations
practice energy security, and their impact on the climate. Firstly, energy legislation and
laws made in the name of energy security, which also often affect fuel choice and use.
Secondly, sources of energy consumption and production, and choices made in terms
of which fuels to promote via subsidies, regulation, federal grants and other measures.
Lastly, it looks at continuity and change in the energy security policymaking process.
All of these areas of practicing energy security say interesting things about the
relationship between energy security and climate change in the United States.
Producing legislation and regulations is a key part of energy security policy. This is
heavily related to energy consumption and choice, promoting and enabling particular
energy sources over others. While the energy industry in the United States is marketbased,
legislation and regulations allow the state to direct national energy consumption
and production in line with its energy security priorities. In August 2005, Bush signed
into law the Energy Policy Act of 2005, an act ‘to ensure jobs for our future
with secure, affordable, and reliable energy’ (Energy Policy Act 2005: section 1).
Jonna Nyman
Rethinking energy, climate and security
13
Again, this act aimed for energy self-sufficiency (independence) within North
America, heading these provisions under a subtitle shortened to the ‘SAFE Act’, or
‘Set America Free Act’ (Energy Policy Act 2005: title 14, subtitle B). The Act
provided tax incentives, subsidies and loan guarantees for various types of domestic
energy production, including oil, gas, coal, nuclear and renewables. It also reduced
taxes on fossil fuels and nuclear energy, increased coal production and provided
more investment into clean coal (Energy Policy Act 2005). Meanwhile, it exempted
the oil and gas industries’ use of fluids in fracking from clean air and water
legislation. The Washington Post called it a ‘piñata of perks for energy industries’
(Grunwald and Eilperin 2005).
In 2007, the Energy Independence and Security Act was introduced by the
Democrats, focused on achieving energy independence and security through efficiency
savings, mandating use of biofuels and fuel economy (Energy Independence and
Security Act 2007). The act originally aimed to cut petroleum subsidies, but this did not
pass in the Senate. Meanwhile, the environmental benefits of corn-based ethanol, in
practice the key biofuel focused on in the act, have been increasingly questioned (Gies
2010). Other legislation affecting both energy and climate worth mentioning, though
failed, include Obama’s cap and trade bill, which would have capped carbon emissions,
and his attempt to cut fossil fuel subsidies in 2012, which also failed to pass the
Congress. Under Obama, tension remains between energy and climate priorities.
During the first two years of his first administration, there was more focus on climate
change, but after the failure of the cap and trade bill and the Libyan revolution and the
spiking of oil prices that followed, the administration discovered the oil market, though
‘it’s not much of an organised approach’ (Interview 2012a). Even when he unveiled a
new climate strategy in June 2013, the plan ‘remains fatally compromised by Obama’s
unflinching commitment to the maximum possible exploitation of fossil fuels’ (Ahmed
2013). One interviewee noted that, in practical terms, climate change is off the energy
security agenda. It is assumed that ‘it will happen or get dealt with along the way to new
energy technologies’, and has become a political issue, partly because Congress is
divided on the issue. Dealing with energy security, ‘you’re not allowed to say climate
change anymore’ (Interview 2012d). Overall, the focus on energy independence has
enabled legislation to increase domestic production of energy, with a heavy emphasis
on fossil fuels.
In terms of sources of energy, political administrations tend to have clear priorities
regarding what kinds of energy they see as key to the US energy security. In terms of
consumption, Obama has placed emphasis on clean energy and energy efficiency; in
practice, changes in consumption have been minimal, as can be seen in Figure 1.
Obama has been a vocal supporter of clean energy and has pursued a number of
initiatives under the Recovery Act, including investments doubling renewable energy
generation (White House 2012; White House 2014). To a degree, this can be seen as
a success, and he has managed an increase in renewable energy production and
consumption, as well as energy efficiency. However, as can be seen in Figure 1,
Journal of International Relations and Development
Volume 00, Number 0, 2015
14
despite Obama’s best efforts to promote renewables as a key part of energy security,
fossil fuel use remains near 2001 levels, though there was a dip in fossil fuel and total
energy consumption at the height of the financial recession. A study by the
Environmental Law Institute into energy subsidies in the period from 2002 to 2008
found that ‘energy subsidies highly favoured energy sources that emit high levels
of greenhouse gases over sources that would decrease our climate footprint’
(Environmental Law Institute 2009b). Meanwhile, ‘the largest subsidies to fossil fuels
were written into the US Tax Code as permanent provisions’, while ‘many subsidies for
renewables are time-limited initiatives implemented through energy bills, with expiration
dates that limit their usefulness to the renewables industry’ (Environmental Law
Institute 2009a).
In terms of production, both Bush and Obama have promoted increased domestic
production of fossil fuels through a range of measures (see Figure 2).
Bush’s National Energy Plan (NEP) focused on increasing supply, removing
regulations to allow increased exploration and drilling, expanding coal use and
allowing increased pollution (National Energy Policy 2001). Under Bush, efficiency
standards were weakened, and there were several attempts to weaken the existing
clean air legislation to allow more coal plants to be built (Barringer 2008). The NEP
was influenced heavily by fossil fuel industries, with their recommendations
incorporated ‘often word for word, into the energy plan’ (NRDC 2002). Bang has
Figure 1 US energy consumption 1995–2013 (EIA 2014a).
Data Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Jonna Nyman
Rethinking energy, climate and security
15
also noted the role of the fossil fuel industry in preserving ‘the status quo in energy
policy’ (2010: 1647). Under Obama, focus on energy independence continues,
together with an emphasis on increased domestic production of energy. Thus far, this
has included more focus on renewables and clean energy alongside fossil fuels;
however, as can be seen in the second graph, at the time of writing this article, this
has meant little in practice. Obama’s ‘all-out, all of the above’ approach to energy has
involved a massive expansion of oil and gas exploration, drilling, production and
pipelines in the name of energy independence: ‘last year, American oil production
reached its highest level since 2003’ (Obama 2011). Obama’s approach put ‘everything
on the table’, which enabled a refocus on fossil fuels and represented a change
from previous Democratic administrations which tended to focus more on renewables
and efficiency (Interview 2012d).
US energy security discourses and practices thus far have placed little emphasis on
climate change, enabling energy consumption and production choices in the name of
energy security to continue to focus on fossil fuels through heavy federal subsidies.
Unconventional oil and gas (including use of fracking) have reduced the dependence
on imports, in some cases replacing coal (and opening up discussions about coal
exports). In part, this suggests the ‘success’ of Bush and Obama’s energy security
strategies, at the cost of climate considerations. However, what has really been
secured here is the profitability of American energy companies, economic growth
Figure 2 US energy production 1995–2013 (EIA 2014b)
Data Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Journal of International Relations and Development
Volume 00, Number 0, 2015
16
being central to national security: in practice, it has had very little positive impact on
the climate (particularly with increasing arguments in favour of exporting US coal,
oil and gas — which would mean losing the climate benefits of the domestic
consumption reduction as the fuels would simply be consumed elsewhere).
The separation between energy and climate security is also institutionally
embedded. Institutional factors in the policymaking process heavily affect how
energy security is practiced in the United States. Energy security policy is made by
the White House and the President together with his administration who set the
agenda. Meanwhile, legislation has to pass through Congress. Once the President
identifies priorities, different government departments are tasked with carrying these
out, from the Department of Energy, to the Department of State and the Department
of Transportation, as well as the EPA, which has some power to regulate greenhouse
gas emissions under the Clean Air Act since 2009 (EPA 2012). Lastly, emergency
energy security policy is made when considered necessary by the National Security
Council, usually on an ad hoc basis (Interview 2012c). While Bush produced his
NEP via the National Energy Policy task force, which was set up aside from other
institutions and tasked with developing a policy to enhance national energy security
(in consultation with the fossil fuel industry) (National Energy Policy 2001), Obama
has prioritised climate change more.
Obama has used the EPA to write regulation using existing laws to improve the
environment without involving Congress — this strategy was reiterated in his 2013
climate change plan (Obama 2013b). As noted by Bang, while combining energy and
climate resulted in more climate-friendly policy, ‘the established energy policy
majority preferred to focus exclusively on energy security issues and disregard the
effects for climate change, trying to keep it off the agenda’ (2010: 1649). Moreover,
‘the design and structure of the political institutions and their voting rules prevented
radical change away from the status quo’ (Bang 2010: 1652). When taking office,
Obama created a White House Office on Energy and Climate Change, though
funding for this was cut in 2011. He also created a Bureau of Energy Resources in
the State Department in 2011 to integrate energy security into US foreign policy. US
energy policymaking takes place in a wide variety of institutional locations, but
throughout, there is a problematic division of labour between policymakers on
energy security and on climate change. This is the case both within departments and,
to an extent, between departments and institutions (Interview 2012a). This tension
left ‘some significant hard policy choices where those two [energy and climate
priorities] were in tension’ (Interview 2012a). Within most departments dealing with
energy security, there is a division between staff dealing with energy security and
staff dealing with climate, and even during the brief existence of the White House
Office on Energy and Climate Change it dealt largely with climate issues: ‘they
didn’t do international energy or energy security at all’ (Interview 2012a). Meanwhile,
the Environmental Protection Agency is an entirely separate entity dealing
with climate regulation as best it can within institutional limitations, rather than an
Jonna Nyman
Rethinking energy, climate and security
17
integral part of the energy security policymaking process. It is worth noting that there
is more action on climate change and renewables at the state level.
The Department of Defence, meanwhile, runs its own climate change and energy
security programmes in parallel and has played an interesting role in the energy/
climate debate. In some ways, the Department could be seen as a leader on climate
change. It was one of the first institutions to speak of climate change as a security
threat and has an impressive record of investment in new energy technologies
(US Department of Defense 2010, 2014). However, as noted by Hartmann, Defence
interests have constructed climate change largely as a national security issue, in a
way which could militarise the issue and distort policy (2010). The 2010 Defence
Review talks explicitly of ‘crafting a strategic approach to climate and energy
challenges’ (US Department of Defence 2010: 3) and very much constructs energy
security and climate change in problematic national security terms.
US energy security discourses and practices work together to constitute energy
security as a state-centric issue, where the American state needs to be secured from
external threats to supplies, making domestic production and energy independence
key solutions to energy insecurity.
Theoretical and practical implications
With respect to energy security, oil (and to some extent gas) is the primary focus of
security policies in the United States. Rather than resource depletion, it is the threat
from foreign states or ‘dependence’ which is considered key, and the preferred policy
response is increasing domestic production. While energy is often constructed in
national security terms, it is rarely fully securitised (Nyman 2014). Energy security
remains central to state survival. However, the focus on energy as an urgent,
important, ‘national security’ issue enables a separation between energy and climate
concerns, allowing continued focus on fossil fuels and domestic production in the
name of economic and national security. In this way, energy security discourse and
policy practice work together to constitute a reality where energy-as-nationalsecurity
is prioritised above the security of the climate, enabling practices which are
often directly detrimental to climate change mitigation. Yet, ‘energy policy and
environmental policy are inextricably intertwined and must be addressed together
[…] [t]he prospect of climate change represents the greatest threat’ (Wirth et al.
2003: 135). The need to combine efforts on energy security and climate change to get
action on the climate is increasingly acknowledged in the literature, and studies show
that addressing energy security and climate mitigation together is both possible and
may even be cheaper (Jacobson 2009; Bollen et al. 2010; McCollum et al. 2013).
There have been (less successful) attempts to bring the issues together, as seen in the
creation of the White House Office on Energy and Climate Change. Thus, this article
argues that it is first essential to recognise that the separation between energy security
Journal of International Relations and Development
Volume 00, Number 0, 2015
18
and climate change is not superficial, but rather closely connected with the different
understandings of security which underpin them.
By showing how the link between energy and national security underpins the
separation between energy security and climate mitigation, this article opens space
for a conversation about rethinking energy security away from national security.
The few existing critical pieces which examine the concept of energy security note
the dominance of state-centric national security, and go some way towards providing
suggestions for alternative ways of framing energy security around human ecology or
justice and sustainability (Mulligan 2011; Simpson 2013). They open the space for
discussions of the ethics of energy security, particularly about who or what should be
secured. Here, the focus is on the link between energy security and climate change
and the need to deal with the two issues together. As illustrated by the empirical
analysis, this has to involve rethinking (energy) security away from narrow, national
security. Drawing on McDonald and Trombetta, this article argues that security is not
in itself the problem: security does not have to be negative. Instead, it is the link
between energy and a particular, state-centric notion of national security which is
problematic. As argued by McDonald, security means ‘different things to different
groups in different contexts’, and it can, therefore, also be positive and progressive
(2012: 11). Indeed, when Obama speaks of climate change as a security issue,
security is framed in inclusive, cooperative terms; which stands in clear contrast to
the dominant narratives on energy security.
As recognised by the Copenhagen School, security is a powerful speech-act if we
can harness its positive potential to mobilise resources while drawing on more
progressive notions of security, which are not framed in militarised, threat/defence
terms, it is possible that security can be used to bring about positive change. There is
a growing amount of work on positive notions of security in critical security studies
which can provide a base for this: McDonald emphasises emancipatory notions of
security (2012); Floyd is developing ‘just securitization theory’ (forthcoming); and
Roe is publishing a book on Positive Security (forthcoming), and Nyman and Burke
have contributed an edited volume on Ethical Security Studies (2016). These authors
all emphasise the ethical potential in security and the potential for progressive
change. Thus, while constructions of energy as national security are problematic, this
does not mean that security is always best avoided. It can also be used to raise
important ethical questions about whom or what should be secured: in discussions of
climate change as a security issue, this is often the global climate or ecosystem rather
than the survival of the state.
It thus becomes increasingly clear that any attempt to deal with climate and energy
security together has to involve rethinking the very notion of security which
underpins them. Climate change presents a global threat to the survival of the planet
and life as we know it. As noted by Dalby, this makes rethinking security essential:
traditional geopolitical state-centric security thinking simply does not make sense as
it no longer provides security in any meaningful sense (2009). The climate and global
Jonna Nyman
Rethinking energy, climate and security
19
ecosystem cannot be secured using traditional threat/defence measures. Further, as
argued by Simpson, energy security is not desirable if it causes other substantial
environmental insecurities (2013). Any rethinking of energy security away from
national security towards more positive terms has to involve an emphasis on
sustainability and a move away from securing the state in traditional state-centric
threat/defence terms which causes further insecurities. Focusing on securing global
ecosystems necessitates a shift towards renewables, which will also provide longerterm
energy security.
This has clear theoretical and practical implications. Scholarship on both climate
and energy needs to consider the relationship between the two more critically, with a
particular emphasis on the role and nature of security, to allow an integration of energy
and climate policy. The notion of security underpinning thinking on energy security has
to change to provide security in a changing world — starting with rethinking the basic
understanding and role of energy in a world increasingly affected by climate change.
In practical terms, progress on climate change requires more than integrating energy in
climate policy discussions. Any attempt to deal with the threat posed by climate change
has to begin by addressing the way in which states understand and approach energy as a
security issue. Energy security policymaking needs to deal with climate change
systematically, by rethinking energy security away from traditional geopolitical
premises and maximising domestic supply in the name of national security, to put
sustainability at the centre. Even when energy policy is made by states, it needs to
engage with climate change more comprehensively, and this may in turn work to
separate energy from national security to provide security in a more meaningful sense.
If such a ‘broader understanding of security is invoked […] then the possibilities for less
violent and more constructive responses open up’ (Dalby 2009: 129).
Conclusion
This article has argued that energy security and climate change are closely related,
and dealing with both requires fundamentally rethinking security. The growing speed
of environmental change caused by climate change has profound implications for
how we understand security. National security and its logic cannot secure the global
climate. The solutions to climate insecurity conflict with individual states’ energy
security interests. Consequently, there is a need to rethink how we understand
security to recognise referents and actors beyond the state to provide sustainable
security on a global, regional, state and local level. While this article has illustrated
some of the problems of current constructions of energy security, much more
research is needed into the details of possible alternative visions of (energy) security.
The analysis of US energy security discourse and policy presented here has shown
that energy remains closely linked with national security, elevating it above and
separating it from climate security. Energy security is constructed in zero-sum terms
Journal of International Relations and Development
Volume 00, Number 0, 2015
20
whereby strategic autonomy framed as energy independence is key, enabling
continued emphasis on domestically produced fossil fuels as the solution to energy
insecurity. Such an understanding of energy security contributes directly to climate
change and insecurity for the planet and the global ecosystem.
If we are going to take climate change seriously as a threat/security issue, then
we need to realise that one of the biggest impediments is how mainstream
approaches to energy — the main source of greenhouse gas emissions — construct
and practice energy security in outdated national security terms, largely ignoring
the impact that this has on the climate. In practice, climate change cannot be dealt
with without changing the existing energy security practices. This process has to
involve rethinking the concept of security away from traditional, state-centric
threat/defence terms which cannot provide security once the referent object is no
longer the state. Climate security discourses themselves may be a useful starting
point here, as they have ‘avoided the identification of enemies and […] involved
actors others than states, both in the securitizing moves and in the security
provisions’ (Trombetta 2008: 598), but there needs to be more research into the
possibilities of changing both security more broadly and energy security specifically,
to provide sustainable security. As illustrated by Jacobson, it is possible to
have an energy policy which does not contribute to increased environmental
change and climatic insecurity (2009). This can also be seen in Germany’s more
radical energy transition plans, which provide an interesting model (Rommeney
2013). Ultimately, climate change is the biggest threat facing the world in the 21st
century, and it is time for our understanding of (energy) security to change to
reflect this.
Acknowledgements
The article was supported by the ESRC, research grant ES/I901825/1. Thanks to Adam Quinn, Rita Floyd,
Michael Hulme, Simon Dalby, Liam Stanley and David Norman for providing comments and advice on an
earlier draft of this article.
Notes
1 Some authors position themselves in the middle, combining approaches to promote a ‘comprehensive’
approach (Jaffe and Lewis 2002; Tunsjø 2010), but still subscribe to a traditional understanding of
energy as national security.
2 The role of the relationship between discourse and practice in co-constituting energy security as a
concept logically leads to an empirical section structuring the analysis around discourse and practice to
understand the concept in the case study. There are, of course, many ways to structure such an analysis,
as the wide range of securitisation scholarship illustrates. Moreover, by going beyond the discursive
constructions to also consider practice, the article provides a deeper analysis and explanation of how the
concept of energy security has been constructed through both discourse and practice in the United
States and the implications that this has.
Jonna Nyman
Rethinking energy, climate and security
21
3 Aalto et al. provide an interesting discussion of how different actors frame energy security differently
(2014), though such an approach would not work here as the focus is on the relationship between
energy, climate and security rather than providing a survey of the energy security policy field in the US.
References
Aalto, Pami, David Dusseault, Michael D. Kennedy and Markku Kivinen (2014) ‘Russia’s Energy
Relations in Europe and the Far East: Towards a Social Structurationist Approach to Energy Policy
Formation’, Journal of International Relations and Development 17(1): 1–29.
Ahmed, Nafeez (2013) ‘Obama’s fracked-up climate strategy will guarantee global warming disaster’, The
Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/jun/25/obama-speech-climateaction-plan-disaster1,
(accessed 18 November 2013).
Bamberger, Robert (2003) ‘Energy Policy: Historical Overview, Conceptual Framework, and Continuing
Issues’, Congressional Research Service, http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL31720.pdf
(accessed 26 September, 2012).
Bang, Guri (2010) ‘Energy Security and Climate Change Concerns: Triggers for Energy Policy Change in
the United States?’ Energy Policy 38(4): 1645–53.
Barringer, Felicity (2008) ‘Decisions Shut door on Bush Clean-Air Steps’, New York Times, http://www
.nytimes.com/2008/07/12/washington/12enviro.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www (accessed
23 September, 2012).
Bielecki, Janusz (2002) ‘Energy Security: Is the Wolf at the Door?’ Quarterly Review of Economics and
Finance 42(2): 235–50.
Boekestein, Brent and Jeffrey Henderson (2005) ‘‘Thirsty Dragon, Hungry Eagle’: Oil Security in Sino-US
Relations’, IPEG Papers in Global Political Economy 21, Working Paper, 1–96.
Bollen, Johannes, Sebastian Hers and Bob Van der Zwaan (2010) ‘An Integrated Assessment of Climate
Change, Air Pollution, and Energy Security Policy’, Energy Policy 38(8): 4021–30.
Bush, George W. (2001a) ‘2001.05.16 Bush on NEP’, Office of the Press Secretary, http://georgewbushwhitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/05/20010516-7.html
(accessed 20 September, 2012).
Bush, George W. (2001b) ‘Text of Letter from George W Bush’, White House, http://www.gcrio.org/
OnLnDoc/pdf/bush_letter010313.pdf (accessed 2 September, 2011).
Bush, George W. (2006) ‘2006.04.25 Bush Discusses Energy’, Office of the Press Secretary,
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060425.html (accessed 21
September, 2012).
Bush, George W. (2007) ‘2007.01.23 Twenty in Ten’, George W Bush White House Archives, http://george
wbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/stateoftheunion/2007/initiatives/energy.html (accessed 21 September,
2012).
Bush, George W. (2008) ‘2008.07.29 Bush Energy Fact Sheet’, Office of the Press Secretary,
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080729-6.html (accessed 21
September, 2012).
Buzan, Barry, Ole Wæver and Jaap de Wilde (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis, Boulder,
London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Chester, Lynne (2010) ‘Conceptualising Energy Security and Making Explicit its Polysemic Nature’,
Energy Policy 38(2): 887–95.
Cienkia, Alan and Dvora Yanow (2013) ‘Why Metaphor and Other Tropes? Linguistic Approaches to
Analysing Policies and the Political’, Journal of International Relations and Development 16(2):
167–76.
Ciută, Felix (2010) ‘Conceptual Notes on Energy Security: Total or Banal Security?’ Security Dialogue
41(2): 123–45.
Journal of International Relations and Development
Volume 00, Number 0, 2015
22
Dalby, Simon (1997) ‘Contesting an Essential Concept: Reading the Dilemmas in Contemporary Security
Discourse’, in Keith Krause and Michael C. Williams, eds, Critical Security Studies: Concepts and
Cases, 3–31, London and New York: Routledge.
Dalby, Simon (2009) Security and Environmental Change, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Dannreuther, Roland (2010) ‘Energy Security’, in J. Peter Burgess, ed., The Routledge Handbook of New
Security Studies, 144–53, Abingdon: Routledge.
Deudney, Daniel H. (1999) ‘Environmental Security: A Critique’, in Daniel H. Deudney and Richard A.
Matthew, eds, Contested Grounds: Security and Conflict in the New Environmental Politics, 187–219,
New York: SUNY Press.
Doty, Roxanne Lynn (1993) ‘Foreign Policy as Social Construction: A Post-Positivist Analysis of U.S.
Counterinsurgency Policy in the Philippines’, International Studies Quarterly 37(3): 297–320.
Doty, Roxanne Lynn (1996) Imperial Encounters: The Politics of Representation in North-South
Relations, Minnesota: University Of Minnesota Press.
Economist (2014) ‘Curbing Climate Change: The Deepest Cuts’, Economist, http://www.economist.com/
news/briefing/21618680-our-guide-actions-have-done-most-slow-global-warming-deepest-cuts?
zid=313&ah=fe2aac0b11adef572d67aed9273b6e55 (accessed 1 October, 2014).
EIA (2014a) ‘US Primary Energy Consumption 1995–2013’, Energy Information Administration, http://
www.eia.gov/beta/MER/?tbl=T01.03-/?f=A&start=1995&end=2013&charted=12-5-4 (accessed 2
October, 2014).
EIA (2014b) ‘US Primary Energy Production 1995–2013’, Energy Information Administration, http://
www.eia.gov/beta/MER/?tbl=T01.02-/?f=A&start=1995&end=2013&charted=1-2-3-4-13-6
(accessed 2 October, 2014).
Energy Independence and Security Act (2007) Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007,
Washington, DC: US Congress.
Energy Policy Act (2005) Energy Policy Act of 2005, Washington, DC: US Congress.
Environmental Law Institute (2009a) ‘Estimating US Government Subsidies to Energy Sources:
2002–2008’, Environmental Law Institite, http://www.eli.org/Program_Areas/innovation_governance_
energy.cfm (accessed 23 September, 2012).
Environmental Law Institute (2009b) ‘US Tax Breaks’, Environmental Law Institute, http://www.eli.org/
pressdetail.cfm?id=205 (accessed 23 September, 2012).
EPA (2012) ‘Climate change: regulatory initiatives’, Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.
gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/regulatory-initiatives.html (accessed 12 July 2015).
Floyd, Rita (2010) Security and the Environment: Securitisation Theory and US Environmental Security
Policy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Floyd, Rita (2013) ‘Whither Environmental Security Studies?’ in Rita Floyd and Richard A. Matthew, eds,
Environmental Security: Approaches and Issues, 279–92, London and New York: Routledge.
Floyd, Rita and Richard A. Matthew (2013) Environmental Security: Approaches and Issues, London and
New York: Routledge.
Gault, John (2006) ‘Energy Security, Globalization and Global Security’, GCSP Policy Brief 8: 1–17.
Gies, Erica (2010) ‘As Ethanol Booms, Critics Warn of Environmental Effect’, New York Times, http://
www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/business/energy-environment/25iht-rbogeth.html?pagewanted=1
(accessed 23 September, 2012).
Grunwald, Michael and Juliet Eilperin (2005) ‘Energy Bill Raises Fears About Pollution, Fraud’,
Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/29/AR2005072
901128.html (accessed 23 September, 2012).
Hansen, Lene (2006) Security as practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War, London: Routledge.
Hartmann, Betsy (2010) ‘Rethinking Climate Refugees and climate Conflict: Rhetoric, Reality and the
Politics of Policy Discourse’, Journal of International Development 22(2): 233–46.
Herbstreuth, Sebastian (2014) ‘Constructing Dependency: The United States and the Problem of Foreign
Oil’, Millennium — Journal of International Studies 43(1): 24–42.
Jonna Nyman
Rethinking energy, climate and security
23
Hoogensen Gjørv, Gunhild (2012) ‘Security by Any Other Name: Negative Security, Positive Security,
and a Multi-Actor Security Approach’, Review of International Studies 38(4): 835–59.
International Energy Agency (2007) Energy Security and Climate Policy: Assessing Interactions. OECD
Publishing.
Jacobson, Mark Z. (2009) ‘Review of Solutions to Global Warming, Air Pollution, and Energy Security’,
Energy & Environmental Science 2(2): 148–73.
Jaffe, Amy and Steven Lewis (2002) ‘Beijing’s Oil Diplomacy’, Survival: Global Politics and Strategy 44
(1): 115–34.
Jewell, Jessica, Aleh Cherp and Keywan Riahi (2014) ‘Energy Security Under De-Carbonization
Scenarios: An Assessment Framework and Evaluation Under Different Technology and Policy
Choices’, Energy Policy 65: 743–60.
Klare, Michael (2008) Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: How Scarce Energy is Creating a New World
Order, Oxford: Oneworld.
Kruyt, Bert, D. P. van Vuuren, H. J. M. de Vries and H. Groenenberg (2009) ‘Indicators for Energy
Security’, Energy Policy 37(6): 2166–81.
Lee, Pak K. (2005) ‘China’s Quest for Oil Security: Oil (Wars) in the Pipeline?’ Pacific Review 18(2): 265–301.
Leung, Guy C. K., Aleh Cherp, Jessica Jewell and Yi-Ming Wei (2014) ‘Securitization of Energy Supply
Chains in China’, Applied Energy 123: 316–26.
Littlefield, Scott R. (2013) ‘Security, Independence, and Sustainability: Imprecise Language and the
Manipulation of Energy Policy in the United States’, Energy Policy 52: 779–88.
Luft, Gal, Anne Korin and Eshita Gupta (2010) ‘Energy Security and Climate Change: A Tenuous Link’, in
Benjamin K. Sovacool, ed., The Routledge Handbook of Energy Security, 43–55, London and New York:
Routledge.
MacNeil, Robert and Matthew Paterson (2012) ‘Neoliberal Climate Policy: From Market Fetishism to the
Developmental State’, Environmental Politics 21(2): 230–47.
Matthew, Richard A. (2013) ‘Climate Change and Security’, in Rita Floyd and Richard A. Matthew, eds,
Environmental Security: Approaches and Issues, 264–77, London and New York: Routledge.
McCollum, David L., Volker Krey, Keywan Riahi, Peter Kolp, Arnulf Grubler, Marek Makowski and
Nebojsa Nakicenovic (2013) ‘Climate Policies can Help Resolve Energy Security and Air Pollution
Challenges’, Climatic change 119(2): 479–94.
McDonald, Matt (2012) Security, the Environment and Emancipation: Contestation Over Environmental
Change, Abingdon: Routledge.
Milliken, Jennifer (1999) ‘The Study of Discourse in International Relations’, European Journal of
International Relations 5(2): 225–54.
Mulligan, Shane (2010) ‘Energy, Environment, and Security: Critical Links in a Post-Peak World’, Global
Environmental Politics 10(4): 79–100.
Mulligan, Shane (2011) ‘Energy and Human Ecology: A Critical Security Approach’, Environmental
Politics 20(5): 633–50.
National Energy Policy (2001) ‘National Energy Policy’, US Department of Energy, http://www.ne.doe.
gov/pdfFiles/nationalEnergyPolicy.pdf (accessed 21 September, 2012).
Neumann, Iver B. (2008) ‘Discourse Analysis’, in Audie Klotz and Deepa Prakash, eds, Qualitative
Methods in International Relations, 61–77, London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
NRDC (2002) ‘The Cheney Energy Task Force’, National Resources Defence Council, http://www.nrdc.
org/air/energy/taskforce/tfinx.asp (accessed 20 September, 2012).
Nyman, Jonna (2014) ‘Red Storm Ahead: Securitisation of Energy in US-China Relations’, Millennium 43
(1): 43–65.
Nyman, Jonna and Anthony Burke (forthcoming) Ethical Security Studies: A New Research Agenda,
London and New York: Routledge, forthcoming.
Obama, Barack (2009a) ‘2009.01.26 Obama on Energy Independence’, Washington Post, http://projects.
washingtonpost.com/obama-speeches/speech/51/ (accessed 20 September, 2012).
Journal of International Relations and Development
Volume 00, Number 0, 2015
24
Obama, Barack (2009b) ‘2009.02.14 Obama to Congress’, White House, http://www.whitehouse.gov/
the_press_office/Remarks-of-President-Barack-Obama-Address-to-Joint-Session-of-Congress/
(accessed 20 September, 2012).
Obama, Barack (2009c) ‘2009.03.23 Obama Remarks on Clean Energy and Technology’, Office of the
Press Secretary, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-The-President-on-Investments-in-Clean-Energy-and-New-Technologies-3-23-09/
(accessed 27 September, 2012).
Obama, Barack (2009d) ‘2009.03.24 Obama Press Conference’, Office of the Press Secretary, http://
www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/News-Conference-by-the-President-3-24-2009/ (accessed 20
September, 2012).
Obama, Barack (2009e) ‘2009.09.21 Obama in Troy’, Office of the Press Secretary, http://www
.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-on-Innovation-and-Sustainable-Growthat-Hudson-Valley-Community-College/
(accessed 20 September, 2012).
Obama, Barack (2009f) ‘2009.11.23 Obama on Education’, Washington Post, http://projects.washingtonpost.com/obama-speeches/speech/59/
(accessed 20 September, 2012).
Obama, Barack (2010a) ‘2010.02.03 Obama Addresses Governors’, Washington Post, http://projects
.washingtonpost.com/obama-speeches/speech/177/ (accessed on 3 September, 2012).
Obama, Barack (2010b) ‘2010.03.31 Obama on Offshore Drilling’, Washington Post, http://projects
.washingtonpost.com/obama-speeches/speech/210/ (accessed 20 September, 2012).
Obama, Barack (2010c) ‘2010.08.17 Obama at Seattle fundraiser’, Washington Post, http://projects
.washingtonpost.com/obama-speeches/speech/371/ (accessed 20 September, 2012).
Obama, Barack (2010d) ‘2010.09.13 Obama Remarks on the Economy’, Washington Post, http://projects
.washingtonpost.com/obama-speeches/speech/395/ (accessed 20 September, 2012).
Obama, Barack (2011) ‘2011.03.11 Obama News Conference’, Washington Post, http://projects.
washingtonpost.com/obama-speeches/speech/586/ (accessed 20 September, 2012).
Obama, Barack (2012a) ‘2012.01.24 Obama State of the Union’, Office of the Press Secretary, http://
www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/24/remarks-president-state-union-address (accessed 21
September, 2012).
Obama, Barack (2012b) ‘2012.01.25 Obama in Cedar Rapids’, Office of the Press Secretary, http://www
.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/25/remarks-president-conveyor-engineering-and-manufacturing-cedar-rapids-io
(accessed 21 September, 2012).
Obama, Barack (2012c) ‘2012.01.27 Obama in Ann Arbor’, Washington Post, http://projects.washingtonpost.com/obama-speeches/speech/907/
(accessed 20 September, 2012).
Obama, Barack (2012d) ‘2012.03.22 Obama in Cushing’, Washington Post, http://projects.washingtonpost.com/obama-speeches/speech/972/
(accessed 22 January, 2013).
Obama, Barack (2013a) ‘Remarks by Obama at the Brandenburg Gate’, White House, http://www
.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/19/remarks-president-obama-brandenburg-gate-berlingermany
(accessed 24 March, 2014).
Obama, Barack (2013b) ‘Remarks by the President on Climate Change at Georgetown University’, White
House, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/25/remarks-president-climate-change
(accessed 24 March, 2014).
Obama, Barack (2013c) ‘State of the Union’, White House, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/
2013/02/12/remarks-president-state-union-address (accessed 24 March, 2014).
Obama, Barack (2014) ‘State of the Union’, White House, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/
2014/01/28/president-barack-obamas-state-union-address (accessed 24 March, 2014).
Rogers-Hayden, T., F. Hatton and I. Lorenzoni (2011) ‘‘Energy Security’ and ‘Climate Change’: Constructing
UK Energy Discursive Realities’, Global Environmental Change 21(1): 134–42.
Rommeney, Dirk (2013) ‘Germany’s Radical Energy Plans’, China Dialogue, http://www.chinadialogue.
net/blog/6437-Germany-s-radical-energy-plans-/en (accessed 25 October, 2013).
Scheffran, Jurgen, Michael Brzoska, Jasmin Kominek, P. Michael Link and Janpeter Schilling (2012)
‘Disentangling the Climate-Conflict Nexus: Empirical and Theoretical Assessment of Vulnerabilities
and Pathways’, Review of European Studies 4(5): 1–13.
Jonna Nyman
Rethinking energy, climate and security
25
Schortgen, Francis (2006) ‘Protectionist Capitalists vs. Capitalist Communists: CNOOC’s Failed Unocal
Bid in Perspective’, Asia Pacific: Perspectives 6(2): 2–10.
Simpson, Adam (2007) ‘The Environment: Energy Security Nexus: Critical Analysis of an Energy ‘Love
Triangle’ in Southeast Asia’, Third World Quarterly 28(3): 539–54.
Simpson, Adam (2013) ‘Challenging Inequality and Injustice: A Critical Approach to Energy Security’,
in Rita Floyd and Richard A. Matthew, eds, Environmental Security: Approaches and Issues, 248–63,
London and New York: Routledge.
Simpson, Adam (2014) Energy, Governance and Security in Thailand and Myanmar (Burma): A Critical
Approach to Environmental Politics in the South, Farnham: Ashgate.
Sovacool, Benjamin K., ed. (2010) ‘Introduction: Defining, Measuring and Exploring Energy Security’,
in, The Routledge Handbook of Energy Security, 1–42, London and New York: Routledge.
Sovacool, Benjamin K. and Marilyn A. Brown (2010) ‘Competing Dimensions of Energy Security:
An International Perspective’, Annual Review of Environment and Resources 35(1): 77–108.
Strauss, Claudia (2013) ‘How are Language Constructions Constitutive? Strategic Uses of Conventional
Discourses about Immigration’, Journal of International Relations and Development 16(2): 262–93.
Toke, David and Sevasti-Eleni Vezirgiannidou (2013) ‘The Relationship Between Climate Change and
Energy Security: Key Issues and Conclusions’, Environmental Politics 22(4): 537–52.
Trombetta, Maria Julia (2008) ‘Environmental Security and Climate Change: Analysing the Discourse’,
Cambridge Review of International Affairs 21(4): 585–602.
Tunsjø, Øystein (2010) ‘Hedging Against Oil Dependency: New Perspectives on China’s Energy Security
Policy’, International Relations 24(1): 25–46.
Umbach, Frank (2012) ‘The Intersection of Climate Protection Policies and Energy Security’, Journal of
Transatlantic Studies 10(4): 374–87.
US Department of Defence (2010) ‘Quadrennial Defence Review’, Department of Defence, http://www
.defense.gov/QDR/QDRasof29JAN101600.pdf (accessed 29 September, 2014).
US Department of Defence (2014) ‘Quadrennial Defence Review’, Department of Defence, http://www
.defense.gov/pubs/2014_Quadrennial_Defense_Review.pdf (accessed 29 September, 2014).
Valentine, Scott Victor (2010) ‘The Fuzzy Nature of Energy Security’, in Benjamin K Sovacool, ed., The
Routledge Handbook of Energy Security, 56. London and New York: Routledge.
Vezirgiannidou, Sevasti-Eleni (2013) ‘Climate and Energy Policy in the United States: The Battle of
Ideas’, Environmental Politics 22(4): 593–609.
Vivoda, Vlado (2009) ‘Diversification of Oil Import Sources and Energy Security: A Key Strategy or an
Elusive Objective?’ Energy Policy 37(11): 4615–23.
Wæver, Ole (1995) ‘Securitization and De-Securitization’, in Ronnie Lipschutz, ed., On Security, 46–86,
New York: Columbia University Press.
White House (2008) ‘Fact Sheet: Diversifying our Energy Supply and Confronting Climate Change’,
White House, http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/energy/ (accessed 27 September,
2012).
White House (2011) ‘Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future’, White House, http://www.whitehouse.gov/
sites/default/files/blueprint_secure_energy_future.pdf (accessed 20 September, 2012).
White House (2012) ‘2012.03.12 A Secure Energy Future: Progress Report’, White House, http://www
.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/email-files/the_blueprint_for_a_secure_energy_future_oneyear_progress_report.pdf
(accessed 12 October, 2012).
White House (2014) ‘The Recovery Act and Renewable Energy Investments’, White House, http://www
.whitehouse.gov/recovery/innovations/clean-renewable-energy (accessed 1 October, 2014).
White House National Economic Council (2006) ‘Advanced Energy Initiative’, George Bush White House
Archives, http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/energy/energy_booklet.
pdf (accessed 21 September, 2012).
Winzer, Christian (2012) ‘Conceptualizing Energy Security’, Energy Policy 46: 36–48.
Wirth, Timothy, C. Boyden Gray and John D. Podesta (2003) ‘The Future of Energy Policy’, Foreign
Affairs 82(4): 131–55.
Yergin, Daniel (1988) ‘Energy Security in the 1990s’, Foreign Affairs 67(1): 110–32.
Journal of International Relations and Development
Volume 00, Number 0, 2015
26
Appendix
List of interviews
Interview (2012a), ‘Interview 1, July 2012’.
Interview (2012b), ‘Interview 2, June 2012’.
Interview (2012c), ‘Interview 3, June 2012’.
Interview (2012d), ‘Interview 4, June 2012’.
Interview (2012e), ‘Interview 5, June 2012’.
List of interviewees
Note: Most of the interviewees requested that no quotes be attributed directly to
them, but were happy to be listed separately as having been interviewed in an
appendix. Thus, in the text, interviewees are quoted as ‘US government official’ and
the list below presents an indication of the sources used in no particular order. Some
interviewees requested full anonymity and so are not listed; this is an indication of
interview sources rather than a complete list.
Name Institution
Robert Cekuta Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Energy Resources,
State Department
Casey
Delhotal
Director, East Asian Affairs, Office of Policy and International
Affairs, Department of Energy
DoE official Department of Energy, requested no further information shared
David
Pumphrey
Former Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Energy
Cooperation at the Department of Energy.
Robert
McNally
Served as the top international and domestic energy adviser on the
White House staff (2001–2003), then Senior Director for
International Energy on the National Security Council
Jeremy
Schreifels
Environmental Protection Agency
David
Goldwyn
State Department Coordinator for International Energy Affairs 2009–
2011, former US Government Assistant Secretary of Energy for
International Affairs
Dennis
Sherman
International energy advisor, previously in international energy
strategy for Exxon-mobil
Jonna Nyman
Rethinking energy, climate and security
27
About the author
Jonna Nyman is a Teaching Fellow in International Relations at the Department of
Politics and International Relations, University of Leicester. She works on energy
security and critical security studies, with a focus on the United States and China. She
has an article published in Millennium titled ‘Red Storm Ahead: securitisation of
energy in US-China relations’, and a forthcoming co-edited volume (with
Dr. Anthony Burke) on Ethical Security Studies, to be published by Routledge in
2016.
Journal of International Relations and Development
Volume 00, Number 0, 2015
28