Deudney’s article, published in 1990, is one of the establishing pieces of literature on the environment and security debate. He argues that environmental degradation should not be considered a national security threat and that classifying as such is not the most productive way to ensure environmental protection occurs. Light, on the other hand, argues in her 2014 article that the environment and military have a deeply complicated relationship that tie the two together intrinsically in a manner similar to the military-industrial complex described by President Eisenhower. She describes that because the US military is the largest consumer of energy in the nation and has control over 28 million acres of land in the United States it has a unique ability to influence environmental innovation, which is in their security interest. These main claims obviously contradict and I believe they demonstrate an evolution in theory on how scholars think about the relationship between the environment and security as environmental degradation and climate change have become more extreme.
Both Deudney and Light reanalyze logic used by previous scholars to understand the historical and modern cases. Deudney focuses on cases of environmental degradation whereas Light focuses mostly on cases of military intervention based on environmental issues. Light also analyzes and compares environmental regulation on the military in comparison to the private sector and statistics regarding the military’s effect on the environment. Overall, both employ a neopositivist perspective as they are working to create a general understanding of the role of the military in environmental matters and the most beneficial way to respond to environmental issues.
My research will focus on the issues directly brought up by Light — that the military is a major energy user but also actively works to build more sustainable practices. These pieces are good evaluative tools for why this contradiction exists. Deudeney’s research suggests this contradiction exists because a nation’s military is not a good actor for fixing environmental issues and Light’s suggests that the military is actively working to end this contradiction. I hope to take this discussion further and understand how the military conceptualizes their own role in environmental matters.
 Daniel Deudney, “The Case Against Linking Environmental Degradation and National Security,” Millennium, 19 no.3 (1990), 273.
 Sarah E Light, “The Military-Environment Complex,” Boston College Law Review, 55 (2014), 881, 892.
 Deudney, 278.
 Light, 909.
Deudney, Daniel. “The Case Against Linking Environmental Degradation and National Security.” Millennium, 19 no.3 (1990), 273-283.
Light, Sarah E. “The Military-Environment Complex.” Boston College Law Review, 55 (2014), 879-946.