Climate change will cause a lot more damage and loss of life than terrorism has. The consequences will be more like a war and it should be treated as such. Making climate change a security issue immediately pushes it up the agenda in the eyes of many policymakers, security is something that needs to be delt with in a different manner to other political issues.

Just because climate change causes more damage than some security issues does not make it a security issue. No one regards road deaths as a security issue, but it undoubtedly causes more deaths in the west than terrorism does.

Secutiry issues are about dangers to the integrity of a state, something that threatens its ability to govern its territory rather than necessarily being about the number of lives that will be lost. Climate change is such an issue for many states, there are some states that may lose the majority such as Bangladesh or AoSIS of their territory, others who may be so badly affected by issues such as drought and famine that the ability to govern the states may be affected and many more for whom the effects of climate change may lead to protests and riots.

However there are many states where the integrity of their state will not be affected except for loosing small areas of coastline - granted wars have been fought over less, but there is no enemy to fight to regain that territory.

Climate change is an indirect security issue that will lead to direct security issues such as conflicts over natural resources like fresh Water or lack of farmland with developing countries particuarly those with deserts suffering. This will lead to regional and possibly global instability as countries try to either gain access to sources of clean water or control over pipelines similar to possible conflicts over oil

Also a lack of land will increase the amount of refugees seeking asylum in other possibly more developed countries such as the UK. This could create strains and fuel resentment in those countries partly about preferential treatment but also create problems for developed. Alternatively they could go to neighbouring countries straining services despite possible help from the UN.

Be that as it may conflicts over water and the problems that arise from that have not happened yet.

Climate change will lead to desertification, soil erosion, loss of arable land, and droughts. Resources such as fresh water and land will be in shorter supply. Thus nations may wage war to forcibly gain control of these essential resources from other nations.

Experts believe that the effects of climate change are not only negative in themselves, but may also exacerbate existing areas of political and social tension.

As an example, John Ashton, the UK Foreign Secretary's Special Representative for Climate Change, is of the opinion that recent climate change was a factor in the Darfur conflict's "complex roots". Rainfall in northern Darfur had declined by almost 40 per cent over the last century, creating increasing competition for water between previously co-existing peoples.

In a similar vein, Sir Crispin Tickell, the former UK Permanent Representative to the UN, highlights the environmental factors behind societal collapse. The genocidal inter-ethnic Rwandan conflict in 1994, he argues, stemmed partly from a population increase set against a background of land degradation and drought.

Food shortage, death, disease and loss of home will all lead to violence and radicalisation.

Migration due to climate change may also create tension and lead to violence

It has been shown that non-renewables (such as oil) rather than natural resources often lie at the centre of conflicts.

Scarcity of resources doesn't inevitably lead to conflict.

Firstly security issues can also be defined as being a threat to a persons way of life or existence that demands urgent priority and near immediate action to be taken regardless of whether military action is used or not.The opposition in this case is taking what could be described as a classical Realists view of security where the only threat that can be treated by. This something that has been criticised by a number of theorists such as Ken Booth, Jessica Matthews and Barry Buzan as being too narrow

Secondly For some states like the Maldives which are at risk of literally going underwater (well mostly) climate change may represent precisely the form of threat which requires a form of military action whether it is covert or overt. Just because smaller states or developing world states do not have the capabilities to launch an attack doesn't mean that military action should be discounted entirely.

Security issues are issues of war and peace which are likely to involve military action, whether this be a full scale war or counter insurgency, something that is normally a last resort. Also military action normally follows a period where sanctions have been applied such as the invasion of Iraq.

Climate change is however really an issue for regulation of emissions, environment agencies and other internal departments. Like the financial crisis it involves large amounts of money and requires action but this does not include any militry response; Britain did not invade Iceland just because some government money was in an Icelandic bank when the economy crashes.

Just because countries deny that it is a security issue does not mean that it is not, they have simply not caught up to the curve.

LumumbaStanislas Dia-Ping of Sudan asked of the US; "You approve billions of dollars in defence budgets. Can't you approve 200 billion dollars to save the world?" If it really was a security issue this sort of funding would not be a problem, the US funds wars on terror and drugs but wont fund a war on climate change. There are many other countries who act similarly and dont treat climate change as a security issue, security issues are acted upon, it is obvious that most countries are not really acting on climate change.

Opposition's argument comes to a matter of definition of what is security and how do you define it. Education in making people aware of a threat and the solutions in countering that threat can fall under the umbrella of security.

People need to realise some that resources are finite and there are plenty of energy sources that are pretty much infinite (or won't be exhaustible for a few million years) like our sun. The real culprits here are not developing countries but 'developed' countries. I use quotation marks because they are only developed in their economies. Humans have lost their humanity and people need to realise this. The next step in human evolution is that everybody lives with the same level of comfort and at the very least clean drinking water, food and a roof over one's head. Some people are extremely rich and really don't deserve to be when others do not even have a single drop of clean drinking water. This is not a security issue this is a humanitarian crisis and drastic action needs to be taken to combat this not lecturing from the greedy West.