CHAPTER-1

INTRODUCTION
Climate change, in which man-made global warming is a major
factor, will likely have dramatic and long lasting consequences
with profound security implications, making it a challenge the
United States must urgently take up. The security implications will
be most pronounced in places where the effects of climate
change are greatest, particularly affecting weak states already
especially vulnerable to environmental destabilization. Two things
are vitally important: stemming the tide of climate change and
adapting to its far-reaching consequences. This project examines
the destabilizing effects of climate change and how the military
could be used to mitigate global warming and to assist at-risk
peoples and states to adapt to climate change, thereby promoting
stability and sustainable security.
Traditionally, national security is defined in terms of the ability of
the state to protect its interest from external aggressions and
these interests are broadly defined as territorial integrity,
sovereignty and independence of the nation (Walt 1991:213). One
can see a paradigm shift in the security concept of the nation
states after the emergence of non-traditional security aspects like
climate change, biodiversity, food security, health security,
transitional crimes etc. (Brown 1996:31). It was the international
conference on the relationship between the Disarmament and
Development convened by United Nations General Assembly in
1987 that the concept non-traditional security aspects came into
prominence. Three years later in 1990, United Nations Human
Development Report considered economic crisis as one of the
crucial non-military threat to the society. This heralded a vibrant
discussion on the non-traditional security aspects concerning the
security of nation states.

The concept of securitizations finds place in the Copenhagen

school led by Barry Buzan , Ole Weaver and Jaap de Wilde. They
says: as result of speech act- the process in which an issue is
discussed in the public domain which gradually gains attention
and finally perceiving the problem as a national or international
agenda for security. Accordingly any problem can be transformed
to existential threats which needs an energy attention. A kind of
political manipulation is essential in the process of securitization
to convince the concerned actors (Government, NGOs and other
non state actors etc.) to securitize the issue. Thus, the followers
of the Copenhagen school are of the opinion that the security is a
speech act since the process of securitization task is facilitated
by stake holders. The stakeholders include politicians, NGOs,
Government, media, lobbyists etc.
Buzan categorized the security aspects into different layers like
political security, military security, societal security and
environmental security. He is of the opinion that decisions of the
center always affect the periphery and environmental security is
not an exception. One can see this contrast when the rich nations
pledge only paltry emission cuts till 2020. As per the report of
United Nations Framework Convention on climate change, the
developed countries have committed to reduce Greenhouse Gas
emissions by a meager three percentage from 2013 to 2020
(UNFCCC 2011:5). The review shows that countries have
collectively committed to a reduction expected of the developed
countries so as to keep temperature from rising more than two
degrees above the per-industrial era-a tipping point that leads to
dangerous climate change. Ironically it is these rich countries
which are compelling developing countries to drastically cut down
the rate of GHG emissions.
Environmental issues are becoming a regular feature of centreperiphery dialogues and tensions. The centre encroaches in the
policies and developmental process of the periphery in the name

of environmental security. At the same time the periphery has

been blaming the industrialized centre for creating problems in
the first place. The North-South debate is all about these
differences. The principal of common but differentiated
responsibilities is the underlying factor of North-South debate
( Kyoto protocol 1997).
The global trends in the climate change shows that during the last
150 years the global average surface temperature have increased
by 0.76 degree Celsius (IPCC 2007:10). Along with this the
average global temperature has increased from 04 degree
Celsius to 0.8 degree Celsius over the past 140 years. National
oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in their report dated 2
August 2013 says that 2012 was one of the ten warmest years.
Even though there are substantial evidences show that climate is
changing in its varying degrees, there are skeptics who say that
there is no proof regarding the human activities leading to climate
change. They say that climate change is a part of the natural
world order and there is nothing to worry about it. The problems
of AIDS, poverty, spread of nuclear weapons require more
attention than the issues of climate change. The mainstream view
represented the inter-Governmental panel on Climate change and
UNFCCC states that their main aim is to gather maximum
scientific data to deal with the aftermath of Climate Change.
In the above mentioned geo-political situation the study would
like to analyze the impact of climate change and the role of the
south in the on going debate on climate change with special
reference to India.
India is perceived as one of the most obdurate opponents of an
effective global climate regime that would also impose
responsibilities for early mitigation efforts on emerging
economies. The government has untiringly repeated the mantra
of common, but differentiated responsibilities (for reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions) and it has also talked of the necessary

transfer of new and additional financial resources and technology

on concessionary terms if cooperation on emission abetment was
to be expected from it and from other developing countries. This
hardline stance has come under increasing attack, specially since
the Copenhagen summit in late 2009. Opposition was articulated
not only by developed countries, most prominently from European
Union member states and the United states, but also by poorer,
developing and island states as well as interest groups and social
movements inside India. As a result the country staunch
opposition to compromise international level has slightly eroded;
India offer voluntary mitigation commitments for the first time (at
Copenhagen), much to the chagrin of leftist and ultra-nationalist
forces in the country. An even sharper turn taken by the Indian
government is manifested in the domestic initiatives it has made
to reduce Indias carbon footprint by formulating new pro-active
climate change strategies, including efforts to
1) Lower the energy intensity of industrial production and of
household appliances and building;
2) Increase the share of renewable energies in the total energy
consumption; and
3) scale up afforestation rates (see below).
This is accompanied by the proliferation of new environmental
acts, the launching of official missions and institutions at every
political level, and juridical activism in environmental matters,
most prominently on the part of the Supreme and Higher Courts.
If we simply took a headcount of new legislative actions and
institutional innovations since about 2006, India would count
among the countries most concerned about the state of the
environment (see below).
This charge of tack with regard to international climate policy and
the big shift with regard to eco-friendly domestic policies can be
explained by learning effects- namely , a serious reappraisal of

official strategies through the acknowledgement , in stages, that

India will be harder hit by global warming than most other
economies and will have to save energy anyway because of
mounting shortages and growing import dependence. These
learning effects may have been strengthened by
1) Discussion with partners from emerging economies and other
developing countries in the last three climate summits;
2) the desire to be perceived as a responsible global power by the
international
community,
deserving
therefore
better
representation and a greater say in international organizations,
reinforced by the feeling of progressive isolation in the
negotiation process;
3) the strengthening of environmentally friendly group within
India.
Before I enter into the analysis, it is necessary to present a brief
recapitulation of the official position of the Indian government
with regard to climate mitigation responsibilities and its empirical
foundation. This will help us understand why Indias previous
hardline position lost adherents and it will also assist us in
gauging the extent to which the Indian government has moved
toward a more climate-friendly position. Then we will review the
slow erosion of this position with regard to international;
commitments and analyze the initiatives and actions the
government has taken on the domestic front , thereby also
confronting the remaining shortcomings and deficiencies in I
implementation of legislative and institutional activism. Finally,
we will enumerate and assess the weight of cause for
1) the relative shift in Indias position on global greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions from the Copenhagen summit onwards and

2) the more pronounced domestic activism. This will include

speculations about the remaining roadblocks for even more
proactive climate policies.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This research work tried to answer a few prominent questions,
which often arise in the minds of the students of the international
politics and environmentalists. The questions like what is
securitization of climate change? Why climate change is a
national security in recent times? What are the root causes of the
shifted of the security concept? Is climate change is a driven
factor behind the security of a nation? What are the impacts of
the climate change in India? What is Indias position in the climate
change negotiations? How India stand in dealing with the climate
change problems? Ho climate change becomes a major security
concept now?
LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature has identified multiple connections between climate change and
security. The general discourse on climate change is very complex and there are
evidences for both securitization and climatization. First, a broader overview of
existing perspectives within the"environmental security literature is
provided. Second, more in-depth knowledge is provided by looking
at previously conducted research relating to the discourse and practices
surrounding climate change. Overall, the literature review provides the basis on
which to build this research, and simultaneously locates it within the existing body
of literature.

4.1 Climate Change and Security Where Are the Links?

Several links between climate change and security have been established within the
environmental security literature. Climate change commonly is seen to threaten
national and human security directly or through secondary impacts, e.g., causing
resource scarcity. Gemenne, Barnett, Adger and Dabelko (2014: 4) identify four
key areas of investigation within the literature on climate change and security:
violent conflict, forced (mass) migration, reversed causality, and risks to human
security. These themes often can be found within the political
discourse as well.

First, probably the largest body of research has been done on the connections
between climate change and violence. Specifically this type of research considers
if and how climate change may increase the risk of violence as well as the
potential mechanisms through which climate change may increase that risk
(Gemenne et al. 2014: 4). While some scholars have made strong claims about
causal connections between climate change and increased risk of violent conflict
(e.g., see Hsiang and Burke 2014), others remain critical to that connection and
have found little evidence to explain convincingly the relationship between climate
and conflict (see Gleditsch 2012). Thus, instead of portraying climate change as a
direct cause of conflict it has often been referred to as a threat multiplier
instead (Barnett 2013: 198). This body of research is connected closely to
the environmental conflict thesis, by Thomas Homer-Dixon. A
commonly featured theme is resource scarcity as a key driver for various conflicts.
As natural resources are seen to decrease, civil strife and the likelihood for violent
conflict could increase (Floyd 2008; see also Homer-Dixon 1999).

Second, another focus within the "climate security literature is on

forced (mass) migration as a result of a changing climate, but also how
climate-induced migration might cause and spread violent conflict. Major
decreases in living conditions or loss of territory due to rising sea-levels could

trigger mass migration in various regions. Similar to the first body of literature,
climate change is considered a substantial threat to the security of states and
people. However, some scholars point out that a clear-cut connection between
climate change, migration and violent conflict is hard to establish empirically (e.g.,
see Gemenne et al. 2014: 4).

Third, a lot less attention has been paid to reversed causality where conflict is a
powerful driver of vulnerability to climate change (Gemenne et al. 2014: 4).
While it remains contested to which extent climate change can directly or
indirectly cause violent conflict, some scholars are certain that it is violent conflict
that renders people more vulnerable and exposed to climate change (see Barnett
2006) This body of literature considers that this reversed causality applies to
migration as well, as migration actually is an important mechanism of adaption to
climate change (see Tacoli 2009).

Lastly, another main area of investigation has evolved around the risks posed by
climate change to human security. The causal connections between climate change
and human security increasingly are considered and some studies have concluded
that climate change poses risks to livelihoods, communities, and cultures
(Gemenne et al. 2014: 4; see also Barnett and Adger 2007). Human health and
security can be affected directly or indirectly byvarious impacts of climate change,
such as more intense natural disasters, decreasing natural resources, loss of
geographical space etc. A common critique to this human security approach,
however, is that it is too all-encompassing and offers little advice on realizable
policy-making(Floyd 2008: 57). Floyd (2008: 58-61) identifies another, yet rather
small, discussion within environmental security that focuses on environmental
peacemaking or environmental cooperation and explores the possibilities of joint
environmental action to foster international cooperation. The idea of environmental
peacemaking or environmental cooperation certainly provides a starting point for a
counter-discourse to the securitization of climate change and might open up space
for a "de-securitization of the matter (Floyd 2008: 58-61).

4.2 States, Discourse and the Climate-Security Nexus

When it comes to the overall debate on climate change or the environment in

general, Gemenne et al. (2014: 2) point out an important factor that hampers a
constructive debate on the most critical aspects of a continuously changing climate
and environment. This factor is that the debate often has been phrased in an
environmentally deterministic way in which environmental issues are portrayed as
the driver for various social outcomes, despite a lack of
an empirical understanding regarding the links between climate change and
security (Gemenne et al. 2014: 2). The remainder of this section is organized to
frame the literature in the current academic debate on climate change and security.

Another insightful and important contribution on securitization and policy advice

regarding climate change comes from Brzoska (2009). Drawing on insights from
the Copenhagen School, he explains that securitization can lead to all-round
"exceptionalism in dealing with the issue which promotes, among other
things, an increased reliance on security experts, military and police (Brzoska
2009: 138). Additionally, he points to the fact that while there is no necessary link
between higher military expenditure and a lower willingness to spend on
preventing and preparing for climate change, both policy areas are in competition
for scarce resources (Brzoska 2009: 138). Thus the portrayal of climate change
and the policies connected to it determine the overall approach of states, i.e. a
traditional security approach versus more sustainable approaches. Furthermore,
similar to Gemenne et al. (2014), Brzoska (2009: 138) contends that the
acceptance of the security consequences of climate change as an intractable
problem could well reduce efforts to find peaceful solutions to the risks and
dangers associated with it.

Nevertheless, it also needs to be pointed out that not all scholars agree with this
notion"securitization. As an example, some argue that with new
understandings of security, new logics and actors enter the field which in

turn transform traditional security policies, making the Copenhagen Schools

notion of securitization a matter of the past, mainly relevant to
the Cold War (Trombetta 2008: 539; see also Brzoska 2009: 138-139). The Paris
Schools idea of the climatization of the security field entails such an
understanding. Instead of a mere securitization of climate change, there seems to
be a reflexive relationship between the security field and climate change, meaning
that certain security strategies are applied to climate change, while climate policies
alter security practices (Oels 2012: 185).

Testing the securitization hypothesis, Brzoska (2009) investigates whether the

portrayal of climate change as a threat necessarily leads to policy advice that relies
on traditional security approaches. In order to do so, he analyses four different
studies on the impacts of climate change with broad and narrow understandings of
security. Despite focusing on different referent objects of security (state and
individual) all four studies regard climate change as a great, if not the greatest
danger for international peace and security in the 21st century (Brzoska 2009:
139). Yet, Brzoska (2009: 144) finds that only one of the four studies explicitly
concluded that greater military preparedness is needed as a
response to climate change in order to combat the outbreaks of violence
and other serious effects associated with climate change. The other three studies
did not give such recommendations and rather focused on multiple mitigation and
adaptation strategies. One of these studies directly suggested making cuts in
military spending to free financial resources for adaptation, while the other two
warn[ed] against falling back towards the use of traditional security policy
(Brzoska 2009: 144). However, Brzoska also acknowledges that in contrast to these
studies, a securitization of climate change may very well be at
work on the international level, as for example both NATO and the EU
have prioritized climate change as a top threat to security.

Similar to Brzoskas research, Detraz and Betsill (2009) have

examined how the connections between climate change and security generally
have been understood and whether there have been any major discursive shifts in

public discourse. In their study, Detraz and Betsill (2009) conducted a discourse
and content analysis of the UN Security Council debate on global climate change
in 2007. They found that the debate mostly has been framed in a way that they call
environmental security. Thus, most states expressed their
concern about the negative security implications of environmental degradation
for human beings, representing a human security understanding of climate change
(Detraz and Betsill 2009: 2 It should be noted that this particular study was
conducted by a think tank of the US Navy306). Even though 85 percent of the
speakers acknowledged a link between climate change and armed conflict, they
mainly did so in a broad understanding of security instead of a narrower national
security understanding. Moreover, the speakers remained divided on whether the
UNSC is the right forum for discussing climate change. Detraz and Betsill (2009)
then compared the discourse employed at the 2007 UNSC debate to earlier debates
and documents on climate change, e.g., by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC). They found that the environmental security
perspective was largely the dominant one. In comparison, relatively
little evidence was found for a narrower traditional security understanding, which
they calenvironmental conflict (Detraz and Betsill 2009).
According to Detraz and Betsill (2009), climate change commonly has been
understood to increase human vulnerabilities and affect human security. However,
they do not rule out the possibility of a future discursive shift to an
environmental conflict understanding of climate change a shift
they would consider counterproductive. While the findings Detraz and Betsill
(2009) provide detailed insight into the discourse on climate change, they do not
connect discourse and practice.

In another study, Brzoska (2012) creates a clearer link between discourse and
practice when analyzing the discourse on climate change in various states White
Papers and nationaldefense documents. Using the terms environmental
securityand environmental conflict from Detraz and Betsill (2009),
Brzoska (2012) also finds that the broader environmental
securityperspective represents the most common way the links

between climate change and security are understood. A few states, such as
USA, UK, Finland, Russia and Australia, see climate change as a potentially large
or very large threat and add to the broader human security understanding also a
narrower national security understanding, i.e. the environmental conflict
perspective (Brzoska 2012). Yet, a clear majority of states do not
seem to adopt such a perspective, but rather they estimate that climate change
threatens the lives as well as livelihoods of individuals. Accordingly, disaster
management, to ensure human security, represents the dominant focus of policy
measures within the security documents. Other policies suggested by the various
documents include adaptation, crisis management, conflict prevention, and in very
few cases enhancing military capabilities (Brzoska 2012). Even though many of
the proposed policy measures, such as disaster management and conflict
prevention, make room for active involvement of the armed forces, Brzoska (2012)
concludes that there are generally few suggestions for a clear role of thearmed
forces in regards to climate change. Brzoska (2012) provides in-depth knowledge
of national understandings of and approaches to climate change. However, an
analysis of how different policy fields incorporate climate change and security
remains open.

Regarding the practical approaches to climate change, Oels (2013) has found that
traditional risk management based on prediction and risk management through
contingency are the dominant risk managing approaches. The traditional risk
management approach aims to [r]educe risks to a tolerable level defined
by science and technology (Oels 2013: 19). This type of risk management
represents the risk of climate change as knowable, calculable and controllable,
while aiming to reduce possible vulnerabilities of some social groups (Oels 2013:
19). Rather than reducing risks to a safe level, the risk management through
contingency approach aims to [m]obilise and empower people to adapt to radical
contingency, which includes capacity building, data-mining and surveillance
(Oels 2013: 19). Climate change is presented as an uncertain, hard to predict, and
inevitable risk which calls for preparedness and resilience. Furthermore, Oels
(2013: 21) finds that besides mitigation, which focuses on the control of
greenhouse gas emissions in order to preventdangerous climate change

levels, adaptation has become a rather dominant approach to

responding to climate change. The adaptation approach aims to manage the
impacts of climate change and considers certain impacts of climate change as
inevitable. Oels (2013) argues that adaptation or security concerns have not
replaced mitigation, but instead adaptation and security emerge alongside
mitigation (Oels 2013: 21, emphasis in original). Based on the dominant
approaches to climate change and the risk management practices, Oels (2013)
concludes that there are only very few suggestions for conflict prevention
strategies, and no evidences for securitization of climate change, at least in
the way the Copenhagen School understands securitization. The links between
climate change and security should rather be understoodsclimatization, evident in
the policy fields of defense, migration and development.

On a more general level, various scholars have warned about the linking of
theenvironment to security. Even though the securitization of the environment and
climate change raises awareness and attention paid to the issue, it also can backfire.
For example, Deudney (1999) claims that securitizing environmental change is in
fact counterproductive to developing effective solutions for a sustainable future,
and that we should abandon the security framing of environmental concerns
entirely. Moreover, scholars within theenvironmental security field, especially
those dealing with ecological security(meaning the environment is the
referent object to be protected from harmful practices) warn that a traditional
security approach and even our general anthropocentric view on the environment is
he wrong way to deal with environmental concerns, as this type of approach tends
to neglect the root causes of climate change (see Barnett 2013; Detraz 2012).

4.3-Securitization of climate change by Taylor and Francis

This book provides the first systematic comparative analysis of climate security
discourses.It thus closes an empirical gap in the literature, in which securitisation
studies focus either on the global level or on single-country cases and do not
reconstruct detailed securitisation dynamics. The comparative framework
presented here allows conclusions to be drawn about the conditions and

consequences of successful securitisation based on empirical and comparative

analysis rather than theoretical debate only. The authors focus on which climatesecurity discourses have been dominant, which actors have been involved, which
political consequences have been legitimised and what role the broader context has
played in enabling the specific securitisations. By including industrialised
countries (USA, Germany) and emerging economies (Mexico, Turkey) as well as
climate vanguards (Germany, Mexico) and laggards (USA, Turkey), the book
generates insights into how securitisation processes play out in different contexts
and at the same time address the 'Western bias' in securitisation and environmental
studies .
As a basis for research, the authors develop a new and systematic theoretical
framework that distinguishes between different referent objects of securitisation
(territorial, individual and planetary) and between a security and risk dimension.
This framework clarifies and summarises the ever-increasing literature on different
forms of securitisation and the relationship between security and risk. On the one
hand, the book thus introduces order into a currently rather confusing debate. On
the other hand, this framework allows the authors to operationalise different
conceptions of securitisation and thus to trace these in the empirical studies. The
book further contributes to securitisation theory by not only addressing the two
different logics of security and risk, but by also re-defining and mapping the
relationship between politicisation and securitisation.
This study uses actor analysis, discourse analysis of the most relevant reports on
climate change and security, expert interviews, and the analysis of parliamentary
debates and newspaper coverage. This systematic methodological approach
enables the authors to trace securitisation processes and to come to detailed
insights about how the dominant climate-security discourses have translated into
concrete policies. On this basis, we can also assess these consequences from a
normative perspective. In addition, the book generates insights into the conditions
for success or failure of securitisation by including the role of specific actors as
well as the wider context. Thus, the approach contributes to the literature on
climate change as well as to critical security studies in general and encourages a
more empirically and comparatively focused research agenda in both fields.

4.4--Climate Change and the Environmental Conflict Discourse

It explores how discourses about environmental conflicts have evolved and

whether and how they have contributed to transforming security provisions and
politics. It shows that the conceptualization of environmental security and the
influence of the realist understanding of security have shaped the debate about
environmental conflicts. Despite this initial framing, the debate has evolved and
has contributed to bringing about a transformation of security practices in which
preventive measures have gained relevance, even if traditional security narratives
have reappeared, especially in the recent debate on climate change. This process is
described through two dynamics: the securitization of climate change and the
governmentalization of security. This chapter shows that the transformation of
security practices can be conceptualized, adopting a broader understanding of
securitization (see chap. 8 by Brzoska; chap. 9 by Oels; chap. 13 by Karafoulidis).

4.5-Climate change, human security and violent conflict

Jon Barnett , W. Neil Adger b

Climate change is increasingly been called a security problem,

and there has been speculation thatclimate change may increase
the risk of violent conflict. This paper integrates three disparate
but well founded bodies of research e on the vulnerability of local
places and social groups to climate change,on livelihoods and
violent conflict, and the role of the state in development and
peacemaking, to offer new insights into the relationships between
climate change, human security, and violent conflict. It explains
that climate change increasingly undermines human security in
the present day, and will increasingly do so in the future, by
reducing access to, and the quality of, natural resources that are
important to sustain livelihoods. Climate change is also likely to
undermine the capacity of states to provide the opportunities and
services that help people to sustain their livelihoods. We argue
that in certain circumstances these direct and indirect impacts of
climate change on human security may in turn increase the risk of

violent conflict. The paper then outlines the broad contours of a

research programme to guide empirical investigations into the
risks climate change poses to human security and peace.
4.6-Climate change and threats to human security by Narottam Gaan
Publishing date-(2014-6).

The Westphalian paradigm of state as a hard shelled political and territorial

boundary to impregnate all those who have been walled in as citizens with an
impenetrable security shield is no longer impervious and insensitive to the volley
of threats hurled at them by the emerging non-traditional and non-state sources.
One of such sources of threats remaining menacing to the people is the climate
change with its apocalyptic consequences not centuries ago foreseen or predictably
crafted within the contours of state security and its associated military
establishment. The utter inadequacy and increasing irrelevance of weapons
however lethal and sophisticated may be, in the face of climate change has
challenged the narrow, reductionist, linear and one directional state centric security
but also has laid the building block for redefining security that moves beyond the
state down to the level of every single individual that can be comprehensively
christened as human security. Yet one could argue with equal plausibility that the
wrong end of a smokestack can be as much of a security threat to humans as the
barrel of a gun. This book compiled of a sheaf of articles written from various
perspectives mostly focuses on the threats the climate change poses to human
security.

4.7- Climate Change Sustainable Development In India by

Jamil Ahmed publishedin the year 2013.

Global climate change, being caused primarily by the building up

of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere, is a serious
environmental concern for the world community. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established in
1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), concluded in its
Fourth Assessment Report, released in November 2007, that the
fact of global warming is unequivocal and there is enough
evidence to indicate that this is due to anthropogenic reasons.
Recent years have been the warmest since 1860, the year from
when regular instrumental records are available. India has always
been subject to a large degree of climate variability. This is likely
to be accentuated by climate change. As a part of voluntary
actions to address climate change related concerns, India
launched National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) on
June 30, 2008. It stresses the need to maintain a high growth rate
for improving living standards of the vast majority of people of
India and at the same time to reduce their vulnerability to the
adverse impacts of climate change. This book is an attempt to
explain the impending perils of climate change and underscore
the need for timely remedial measures to deal with the emerging
crisis. Contents: 1. Global Climate Change: Evidence, Causes and
Consequences 2. Indias Approach to Climate Change 3. Climate
Change, Indian Agriculture and Food Security 4. Energy
Consumption and Climate Change 5. Climate Change and
Uncertainty of Water Availability 6. Air and Noise Pollution 7.
Protection of Indias Biological Diversity 8. Disaster Mitigation and
Management 9. Measures Taken for Environmental Protection 10.
Summary and Conclusions Appendix: Twelfth Five Year Plan (201217) on Climate Change Bibliography Index.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

This research work is devoted to providing basic ideas of the
following:

*To explore that climate change happens to be a serious

security threat to international relation.
*To focus on how climate change affects the life of the
people?
*To focus on the changing security concept of the states.
*To focus on Indian foreign policy towards climate change.

HYPOTHESIS
The above narrations raise questions and perceptions of security
or threat based on this the following assumption stand
1.Climate change emerge as a non-traditional security threat.
2.The impacts of climate change on security of human beings
have securitized climate change in Indias foreign policy.
3.India has taken many actions at the domestic level on climate
change in veiw of the threats climate change poses to human
being.
4.Since climate change is global, India has played a major role to
put the burden of combating climate change on the developed
countries.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The present study is based on a content analysis of materials

collected from secondary sources such as books, journals
Newspapers and research articles. The study is a descriptive and
analytical.

SOURCES OF COLLECTION OF DATA

All the data collected here, are secondary in nature which are
collected from books, journals, magazines, news papers , clips
etc.

CHAPTERIZATION OF STUDY
The Research work has all together five chapters :
The Chapter 1 : Introduction: This chapter explains about the
significance of the study, literature review, objectives of the
study, hypothesis, research methodology and chapterization of
the study.

The Chapter 2 : Environmental security a theoretical framework:

This chapter explains the meaning of the concept security . The
sub chapter: traditional or non-traditional security explains the
evolutions of the concept of securitization of climate change with
the view of two research groups, a memorandum from the council
for security cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP) and centre for
East Asian Studies.

The Chapter 3 : Impact of climate change in india: This chapter

evaluates about the impact of climate change such as ; sea level
rise, river bank erosion, coastal erosion, global warming, spread of
diseases etc.

The Chapter 4 : Indian foreign policy on climate change : This

chapter talks about the policy of india towards climate change
negotiations like Kyoto protocol, Copenhagen summit, the Cancun
agreement, The Durban agreement etc.

The Chapter 5: Indias position in the Climate change

negotiations: This chapter deals with the facts and figures of all
the countries in the climate change negotiations but special
attention to India.

The Chapter 6: Conclusion: In the concluding chapter has been

analyzed how far India has been able to combat climate change
having asunder into the centre step of Indias foreign policy at
both domestic and international level. It also include some
remedial measures to be given priority by India in dealing with
the threat posed by climate change.