It isn't a question of one being more important than the other. Climate change is already having systemic impacts in the form of displacement and migration. Th

It isn't a question of one being more important than the other. Climate change is already having systemic impacts in the form of displacement and migration. This has, for the most part, been internal, however as ecosystems degrade, the people who depend on them will move farther afield to try to at the very least maintain the standard of living they had prior to their displacement. I think it's both important and relevant to raise the security issue - there is a militant core who are in absolute denial over climate change, and unfortunately, a substantial and vocal proportion of policymakers in major developed economies fit into this category. Those same policymakers tend to be extremely hawkish on migration and security issues, so to frame climate change as a threat to security is a potential route to getting them on board. Sadly, the effect so far seems to have been to encourage them to build walls and razor wire fences, as treating the symptoms is quicker and easier than treating the disease. Nobody wants to embark on a costly multi-decadal project that will see them out of power forevermore - so instead they go for the quick wins that they can shout about on the campaign trail. If climate change continues to be framed as a security issue, it will hopefully cause policymakers to think more holistically about their strategy for dealing with it, as if it ends up posing an existential threat to the continued existence of their state, then hopefully this would trump party interests. That said, the UK government seems to be putting party interests ahead of the state, unless of course brexit is actually an attempt to put a ring of steel around the UK to protect it from climate-change-driven mass migration, and the costs therein - but I am probably giving the powers that be too much credit.