A panel organized by the Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research (SETA) at the COP31 climate summit in Antalya examined how climate change is reshaping global security, questioning whose interests are protected when environmental threats become a security priority.

The panel, titled "Whose Climate Security? Order, Nature, People and Publics,” brought together academics and policy experts to examine the climate crisis through the perspectives of international order, ecological protection and public opinion.

Held in the COP31 Blue Zone, the discussion explored the consequences of the United States' withdrawal from international climate frameworks, the need to place nature at the center of security policies and growing awareness of climate risks in Türkiye.

Moderated by Prof. Murat Yeşiltaş, director of SETA's Foreign Policy Research Department, the panel featured associate professors Ceren Uysal Oğuz, Senem Atvur and Başar Baysal. The speakers questioned whose security takes priority when climate change is treated as a security issue and whether existing approaches adequately protect vulnerable communities and ecosystems.

U.S. withdrawal effects

Opening the discussion, Oğuz examined the implications of the United States' withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which is scheduled to take effect in February 2027.

She recalled that a presidential memorandum issued in January 2026 initiated the U.S. withdrawal from 66 international organizations and agreements, including the UNFCCC and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Oğuz said the decisions had created gaps in scientific assessments, climate financing and cooperation on energy and technology. The United States had previously contributed more than 20% of the UNFCCC budget, but that funding was no longer being provided, she said.

China, meanwhile, had increased its share of the new budget to 20%, highlighting a potential shift in the distribution of influence within international climate institutions.

Oğuz identified the European Union's regulatory influence, China's dominance in clean energy supply chains and the growing role of middle powers such as Türkiye, Brazil and Mexico as important factors in addressing the resulting gaps.

She argued that coalitions of countries willing to advance climate action could help sustain international cooperation, stressing that such partnerships would complement rather than replace the existing multilateral climate framework.

Ecological security

Atvur challenged conventional approaches to climate security, arguing that nature is frequently treated either as an economic resource to be exploited or as a threat to human survival rather than something deserving protection in its own right.

She presented ecological security as an alternative, describing the planet as a single living system in which humans are part of nature rather than separate from it.

Atvur said the consequences of climate change fall disproportionately on communities in the Global South, future generations and nonhuman species, making the crisis fundamentally an issue of justice as well as environmental protection.

She cited Bolivia, Ecuador, New Zealand and Spain as examples of countries that have introduced legal arrangements recognizing rights or legal personhood for elements of nature.

Atvur called for binding international rules and stronger legal protections for future generations and other species, arguing that nature itself should become a central reference point in security policies.

Survey finds 96% of Turks consider climate change a major problem

Baysal presented findings from a recently published study examining public perceptions of climate security in Türkiye, highlighting widespread concern about the effects of global warming.

According to the research, 96% of the Turkish public considers climate change a major problem, while only 1.2% identify as climate skeptics. The survey also found that 43% of respondents believed they had personally suffered harm from a climate-related event.

Baysal said 65% of respondents viewed climate change as a security issue, with water security emerging as one of their primary concerns.

The research also examined political attitudes toward the crisis. Of 20 lawmakers interviewed, 19 considered climate change both an important problem and a national security concern.

Baysal said the findings indicated considerable public and political support for addressing climate change through what he described as "just securitization," an approach that recognizes environmental threats without overlooking the needs and rights of those most exposed to them.

Militarizing climate security

During the question-and-answer session, panelists considered whether climate change could trigger major conflicts in the future and examined the risks of framing environmental challenges primarily through military and state security.

They acknowledged that linking climate change to conflict could help draw attention to the urgency of the crisis. However, they warned that an approach centered on military responses and national security could deepen existing problems rather than address their underlying causes.

The speakers emphasized that climate change should be understood primarily as a threat multiplier rather than a direct cause of conflict, as environmental pressures can intensify existing political, economic and social tensions.

They argued that climate justice must remain central to climate security discussions, particularly by ensuring that vulnerable communities have a voice in decisions affecting their livelihoods and future.

The panel was organized under SETA's Climate Change and Environment Program. Yeşiltaş said the program had published numerous policy analyses on climate change over the past year and would continue examining its implications for Turkish politics and regional security.