Other chapters in this book have pointed at the limits of a formalistic and de-contextualized approach to securitization. They have shown, in different ways, that the social construction of a security issue is a more dynamic, nuanced and complex process than the one described by the Copenhagen School (CS). This chapter deals with the implications of adopting a narrow, textual approach to securitization when analyzing the social construction of global environmental problems as security issues. It thus amplifies the third assumption developed in Chapter 1, while taking seriously some of the methodological precepts offered thereof. The chapter does this by reconsidering some of the debates surrounding environmental security. The first one is related with the opportunity of speaking environmental security: What are the consequences of evoking security? Are they always as problematic as the CS assumes? The case of the environment is a relevant one because the debate is divided between those supporting the term environmental security, suggesting that is a good way to promote action and those who warn against its implications. The second debate is about the practices brought about by securitization: Are they fixed and unchangeable or can they be transformed by securitizing non traditional issues?