The Canonical Discriminant Model of the Environmental Security Threats

countries and the EU, a canonical discriminant model was built to identify the signifcant factors that infuence the assessment of the efectiveness of climate protection in a particular country or region and the assessment of climate risks. It can be used to assess the level of climate protection efectiveness of countries that have not defned the CCPI 2023. Based on empirical data, we have determined the real weights of the relevant CCPI components in relation to the efectiveness of actions aimed at reducing global warming. We have established that there are additional factors important for assessing climate protection, but the CCPI rating does not consider them. We conducted a comparative analysis of the CCPI index and the sustainable development goals (SDG) index. Te study establishes that the diferences in environmental protection among the world’s countries do not determine the assessment of the level of sustainable development of the world’s countries. Te obtained results can provide information to support decision-making in developing efective strategies and urgent actions to ensure climate protection


Introduction
Global climate change and environmental disasters are among the greatest threats to modern civilization.We need appropriate knowledge and a qualitative study of the problem to prevent these threats.Te World Economic Forum in the Global Risks Report 2023 defned the environmental risks as 5 out of 10, the most important over the 5 years, and 6 out of 10 over the 10-year term [1].Te failure to mitigate climate change was ranked as the frst global risk by severity.Failure of climate change adaptation in the second place in this rating, natural disasters and extreme weather events, biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse, natural resource crises, and large-scale environmental damage incidents are ranked 3rd, 4th, 6th, and 10th position over the long term.
Climate risks are multifaceted, with diverse short-, medium-, and long-term efects of climate change at the local and global levels.Tis is the impact of natural disasters and natural catastrophes.Global warming is exacerbating the growing dynamics of extreme weather events that cause signifcant casualties, destruction, and economic losses [2,3].Often, these disasters are caused by anthropogenic activities.In addition, climate experts and military analysts are also increasingly concerned about the possible testing and use of climate weapons by certain infuential states [4,5].None of the world's governments has recognized the existence or use of seismic weapons, but they can become a signifcant tool for economic and political pressure on other states.Radical climate change on a global scale today is a complex interdisciplinary problem that can no longer be perceived as exclusively scientifc.Tis problem covers economic, social, and political aspects and afects all regions of the world and all population segments.
Climate change has already caused widespread negative impacts on ecosystems and human systems.Land resources, agriculture, food security, forestry, and energy have proven to be the most vulnerable to climate change, although the fuel and energy sector are traditionally considered to be the sector with the most signifcant impact on climate change as the main source of greenhouse gases [6,7].We are particularly concerned about the high rate of oil and natural gas consumption, which results in adverse environmental impacts [8].Te war in Ukraine has worsened this problem [9,10].Global warming has led to sea level rise, caused damage to ground, soil, river, and ocean ecosystems worldwide [11,12].Tis has caused changes and migration of animals and birds, marine biodiversity, and disrupted water balance, quality, and availability [13,14].Te consequences of climate change afect all sectors of the economy, causing a shortage of resources [15].Climate change, combined with the negative efects of urbanization, directly threatens environmental, economic, and social security and provokes serious risks: fooding, heat waves, and natural disasters [16].A large part of biological systems with limited adaptive capacity is particularly sensitive to climate change.Tis signifcantly increases the threat of biodiversity loss.Climate change also has a negative efect on public health [17].It causes thousands of human deaths worldwide every year, mainly driven by the efects of extremely high temperatures on the body, lack of water, malnutrition, and infections.Climate change is forcing thousands of people to migrate in search of a habitable environment [18].
Te infuence of climate change on safety indicators is the most tangible and indicative [19].In the global dimension, extreme weather events are related to climate change, claim thousands of lives annually, and cause enormous damage worldwide [3].Climate change can cause complex risks, posing an increased danger to the stability of states and societies and the emergence of conficts [20].Tese include competition for local resources, danger to livelihoods and migration, natural disasters and catastrophes, food price volatility, instability of cross-border water use, sea level rise and coastal destruction, and unpredictable results of policies aimed at climate change adaptation and mitigation.Te environmental security dilemma is that while environmental preservation is a global issue, each state individually strives to address climate change while protecting its own interests [21][22][23].Environmental security is one of the prerequisites for sustainable development of the world, which moves international relations to a new plane [24][25][26].Climate change poses a global security threat [27,28].Today, the real extent of the damage caused by climate change to humanity remains unknown.However, it is the feeling of insecurity against natural disasters that undermines the sense of security [29].Te negative infuence of natural and anthropogenic climate change will continue to grow.Today, a deep understanding and qualitative analysis of all factors and the scale of the infuence of various factors are needed to successfully prevent catastrophic climate change and develop coordinated strategies to identify, assess, and mitigate climate-related security risks.

Related Work
Scientists and practitioners have long confrmed the impact of climate change on global sustainable development.Te IPCC Synthesis Report presents a generalized assessment of climate change knowledge, dangerous infuences, risks, and possible strategies for preventing climate change [30].Papadopoulos and Balta analyzed the benefts of using big data and analytics to study the impact of climate change on businesses, operations, and supply chains [31].Bhardwaj and Peter studied the possibilities of tools developed for visual climatic analysis [32].Rolnick et al. gave recommendations for using machine learning as a powerful tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting society to climate change [33].Maganathan et al. investigated the infuence of innovations in machine learning and data analytics of innovations on various aspects of environmental science [34].Zennaro et al. explored machine learning potential for climate change risk assessment [35].Haq et al. applied a deep neural network model for time series forecasting of environmental variables [36].Ho computes mutual fund covariance with a market-wide climate change news index [37].Ali and colleagues examine the environmental performance of South and East Asian countries and their association with trade and other economic variables [38].Agnieszka and coauthors created a model to assess climate change competitiveness at a regional level.Tis facilitated the analysis of the region's indicators concerning climate change, enabling the identifcation of vulnerabilities in climate change adaptation [39].Puertas and Marti used cluster analysis and contingency tables based on the 2001 Climate Change Performance Index to study countries' efciency profles in combating climate change.Te authors provided statistical evidence of the relationship between climate change policies, the use of renewable energy in electricity supply, and the reduction of harmful gas emissions [40].However, studies of this kind are insufcient to fully understand the interconnections and dynamics of climatic safety.Diverse research and high-quality results are needed to inform decision-makers.[42][43][44][45][46][47][48].As of now, there are no universally recognized methodological foundations for defning security and its key indicators [49].Various countries have developed metrics for national security [50][51][52][53].Table 1 presents common indicators used to measure a country's national security level.National security is a complex problem that consists of several interrelated components.Also, each of these components is signifcantly infuenced by modern climate change and global warming.Te biggest problem is the escalation of emergencies related to climate change, which in recent years has been defned by most scientists as "global change."Tese changes, in particular, pose serious risks to the life and health of citizens [54], afect the global economy (production, supply, trade, and pricing) [55], change approaches to energy use and agricultural production [6], cause large-scale migration processes of all living beings in search of habitat [56], pose a serious threat to biodiversity conservation and food security [2], and provoke armed conficts over territories and resources [43].Today, there is no universally accepted scientifc explanation for the causes of global climate change.Each country develops its own climate protection strategy.Tat is why diverse research on the selection and improvement of sets of indicators that can measure the level of national security, in particular in the climate and energy dimension, is relevant today.

Climate Change
Performance Index as a Measure of Climate Protection.Countries' eforts to mitigate global warming have proven inadequate as the planet continues to experience rising temperatures.Urgent and efective solutions, bolstered by international collaboration, are imperative to confront the catastrophic consequences of climate change.In this sense, reliable climate protection monitoring tools are extremely relevant.Such tools should reliably identify which countries are doing the most to protect the climate and which countries need to take immediate action to increase the efectiveness of their climate policies.One of the most reliable independent tools for monitoring and evaluating the efectiveness of climate protection is the Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) [57].Because the CCPI calculates scores for merely 59 countries responsible for 92% of global greenhouse gases, we suggested employing the canonical discriminant model to assess the CCPI score for countries absent from this ranking yet infuencing global climate change.We devised this model using the values of key CCPI components: GHG emissions, renewable energy, energy consumption, and climate policy.Tese components condense estimates of all 14 CCPI subcomponents and embody most input data for our intended analysis.Tis indicator enhances understanding and measurement of countries' climate policies on the international level, facilitating the development of joint and efective strategies for climate protection.Financial entities often use this index to evaluate sovereign bonds.Te CCPI provides important information on the efectiveness of climate change mitigation actions taken by governments [57].Tis information aids in creating environmental, social, and governmental ratings, informing decisions on investment redistribution.Financial actors are increasingly investing heavily in zero-and low-greenhouse gas emissions infrastructure and solutions and renewable energy technologies.Tey use the CCPI as a tool to monitor and evaluate the feasibility of making such investments in specifc countries.For example, countries with a top CCPI rating are more attractive to investors.Investing in countries with a bottom CCPI rating is questionable.
Tis paper presents the results of building a canonical discriminant model of the CCPI, enabling the categorization of countries based on their level of risk to global climate security.We are looking for an answer to the question: what is the weight of each of the indicators included in the model in measuring climate protection and testing the hypothesis of the reliability of using the CCPI to assess the efectiveness of climate policies of the world's states in the context of the concept of sustainability.Te fndings can help inform decision-making on actions aimed at improving climate security at the national level and strengthening control over the implementation of joint climate security agreements at the international level.Climate change signifcantly amplifes existing global security threats.It worsens natural disasters, increasing the chances of habitat destruction, biodiversity loss, state instability, human migration, interethnic conficts over natural resource access, and widespread mortality.Te consequences of climate change increasingly imperil national security across the globe [58,59].Te canonical model we have created can help governments better understand the steps they need to take to address climate change efectively.For instance, it aids in revising strategies and opportunities to guarantee targeted emissions, renewable energy utilization, energy efciency, and climate policy values for achieving higher CCPI scores.
Te Climate Change Performance Index has been calculated annually since 2005 for 59 countries (Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Chinese Taipei, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tailand, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Vietnam) and EU.Ukraine was not rated this year because of the Russian invasion.Tese 59 countries produce 92% of global greenhouse gas.Te CCPI is used to ensure the transparency and efectiveness of international climate policy and to compare the efectiveness of climate protection strategies chosen by individual countries.Te efectiveness of actions aimed at climate protection is assessed by the following criteria: GHG emissions, renewable energy, energy use, and climate policy.CCPI can provide signifcant information on climate change and the environmental situation in the country for the authorities and social management (Table 2, Figure 1) [57].
None of the countries assessed by the CCPI demonstrated sufcient results in ensuring climate protection.Teir CCPI scores ranged from 18.7 to 79.61.Terefore, the top 3 (rating very high) remain vacant.Denmark, Sweden, and Chile lead the ranking of countries by CCPI, while Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Kazakhstan received the lowest scores.Te researchers of the NewClimate Institute and Climate Action Network divided all countries into 4 groups (i) High: more than 60 points (ii) Medium: more than 50, but less than 60 points (iii) Low: more than 40, but less than 50 points (iv) Very low: less than 40 points [57] Table 3 represents the components of the CCPI countries.
Te most signifcant measure of the CCPI level is the indicator of global greenhouse gas [57].Te share of fossil fuels is more than 75% of all global greenhouse gases produced by humanity.Reducing its production is an essential component of global energy security.However, countries that receive excessive profts from the sale of fossil fuels do not plan to reduce their production.Te CCPI identifes countries responsible for increasing global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, encourages their compliance with international agreements, and urges other countries to reduce investment in this area.
Te countries' eforts in this area were rated from 5.16 to 34.5 points.Countries worldwide must at least halve their GHG emissions this decade to prevent dangerous climate change.Denmark, Sweden, and Chile lead the ranking of countries by CCPI, while Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Kazakhstan received the lowest scores.All analyzed countries were divided into 5 groups according to the GHG emissions rating: very high: more than 32; high: more than 27 and less than 32; medium: more than 22.5 and less than 27; low: more than 22.5 and less than 19.5; very low: less than 19.5 points.Only two countries (Chile and Sweden) received very high scores in the GHG emissions ranking.Terefore, the top position remains vacant.
Te following indicators are taken into account in equal proportions when assessing the GHG emissions of an individual country:  Te second assessment in the CCPI calculation is renewable energy.Te use of renewable energy continues to grow quickly around the world.However, the global energy system is still heavily dependent on fossil fuels [60], even though wind and solar energy generation is a much cheaper source of power generation [61].Te scores of the analyzed countries ranged from 1.27 to 19.35 points.Te top country in this ranking is Norway, and the last place was taken by the Russian Federation [57].All analyzed countries were divided into 5 groups according to the GHG emissions rating: very high: more than 16; high: more than 9.4 low than 16; medium: more than 6 low than 9.4; low: more than 4 less than 6; very low: less than 4 points.Only Norway received a very high score in the renewable energy ranking.Terefore, the top 2 positions remain vacant.
Indicators are taken into account in equal proportions when determining the renewable energy potential of an individual country: (i) Energy use (total primary energy supply)-current level (including hydro) (ii) RE current trend (excluding hydro) (iii) Share of RE in energy use (total primary energy supply) (including hydro)-compared to a well-below-2 °C benchmark (iv) RE 2030 target (including hydro)-compared to a well-below-2 °C benchmark Te third component of the CCPI is energy use, which depends on economic activity.Tis indicator for the analyzed countries ranged from 4.45 to 17.71 points [57].Te top 3 (rating very high) remain vacant again.Colombia, Egypt, and the Philippines received the highest scores.Canada, Kazakhstan, and Finland are at the bottom.All the analyzed countries were divided into 4 groups according to their energy consumption rating: high: more than 12.95; medium: more than 12.9, less than 14.1; low: more than 10.1, less than 12.9; very low: less than 10.1 points.
Te economic activity of an individual country was assessed by the following indicators (in equal proportions): (i) Energy use (total primary energy supply) per capitacurrent level (ii) Energy use (total primary energy supply) per capitacurrent trend (iii) Energy use (total primary energy supply) per capitacompared to a well-below-2 °C benchmark (iv) Energy use 2030 target-compared to a well-below-2 °C benchmark Te fourth dimension of the CCPI is climate policy.Due to the energy crisis caused by Russia's military aggression against Ukraine in 2022, climate policy was not a priority for countries worldwide.Te Russian Federation received 0 points in this rating [57].It is at the bottom.Denmark is at the top (20 points).Countries were divided into 4 groups according to their political policy rating: high: more than 14.0; medium: more than 7.9 low than 14.0; low: more than 4.0 low than 7.9; very low: less than 7.9 points.
Te overall assessment of each country's climate policy was carried out in equal proportions according to the following criteria: (i) National climate policy performance (ii) International climate policy performance Denmark, Sweden, and Chile top the overall ranking of the leading CCPI countries.Overall, Denmark received the highest score among all the countries analyzed.However, this did not allow it to enter the top three, which remained vacant.Denmark takes high in terms of GHG emissions, renewable energy, and climate policy, but it is only 26th (medium rank) in the energy consumption ranking.Sweden is 2nd in the overall CCPI ranking.It received very high assessments in GHG emissions, high rank in renewable energy, however medium in climate policy, and very low in energy use.Chile takes 3rd in the GHG ranking among the countries analyzed.It receives a very high rating in the GHG emissions, a high rating in renewable energy, a medium rating in climate policy, and a low rating in the energy use measures.
Te Islamic Republic of Iran takes the last position in the overall ranking of countries in terms of CCPI.It received very low assessments in the GHG emissions, renewable energy, and energy use measure, and a low rank in climate policy.South Korea took the penultimate place in the overall ranking for the countries in the CCPI, receiving very low ratings across all main measures.
We developed the model to identify the signifcant dimensions that afect the distribution of 59 countries and the EU as analyzed by Climate Change Performance Index levels (high, medium, low, and very low).Based on this model, we assessed the climate protection levels of countries that are not included in the CCPI rating.Te resulting analytical dependencies can make it possible to determine the CCPI rating for any country not included in this rating based on the numerical values of the four CCPI components taken into account in the model.Te Climate Change Performance Index calculates the index for 59 countries, accounting for 92% of global greenhouse gases.However, countries not included in this ranking also contribute to climate change.
Developing nations require up-to-date information to understand crucial factors and formulate efective climate protection strategies.We can assess the GHG emissions, renewable energy, energy use, and climate policy of these countries.Te CCPI calculates the index for only 59 countries.A rule needs formulation for assigning the analyzed countries to one of the selected groups (high, medium, low, and very low).Using this rule, we can determine the CCPI level corresponding to each country not included in the ranking with the highest probability.
We conducted a canonical discriminant analysis to create a classifcation model that enables us to assess the level of climate protection in countries not included in the CCPI rating and identify signifcant dimensions that infuence the distribution of the 59 countries and the EU analyzed by the Climate Change Performance Index levels (high, medium, low, and very low).Unfortunately, there are no quantitative Complexity estimates of all CCPI indicators in the public domain.Terefore, our canonical discriminant model utilizes only 4 main CCPI components.Tey are the consolidated scores of all subcomponents, so they retain the bulk of the input information sufcient to conduct an adequate analysis.In this section, we discuss multivariate statistical analysis methods that classify observations based on the principle of maximum similarity with training samples.Unlike cluster analysis, these methods do not create new clusters but, instead, formulate a rule to assign objects to existing (training) subsets (classes) by comparing the value of the discriminant function of the object with a specifc discrimination constant.For instance, if a new object with the same features as those under study emerges in the system, we can use discriminant analysis to improve the classifcation results from cluster analysis.Machine learning tools, including generalized linear model, deep learning, decision tree, random forest, gradient-boosted trees, and support vector machine, can predict the class to which the analyzed object belongs to a certain probability and assess the signifcance of each analyzed variable.
Discriminant analysis is widely used in various felds, including economics, psychology, sociology, politics, and other sciences to study multivariate data, regression models, and time series analysis.Chen et al. used discriminant analysis by quantile regression to identify interesting features of climate change and to test changes in each quantile of the innovation distribution.Te results show that the probability of misclassifcation of discriminant statistics decreases with increasing sample size [62].Zhang et al. applied Fisher discriminant analysis to detect drought in an alpine meadow ecosystem depending on various factors of soil water defcit and atmospheric water defcit [63].Paeth et al. utilized discriminant analysis to examine the distinctions between past and future climates based on state-ofthe-art climate model simulations.Tey analyzed several well-known climate indices [64].
Tis study introduces a new approach that utilizes discriminant analysis to improve the diferentiation between levels of overall CCPI ranking by considering the multivariate fngerprints identifed within the space of several climate indicators.Te constructed discriminant model can efciently and accurately consider all the analyzed key indicator factors comprehensively.

Methods and Data
4.1.Discriminant Analysis Classifcation.Discriminant analysis is used to predict which group new observations will belong to if there are already a certain number of previous observations with known group memberships.In fact, it is a task of classifying into predefned groups [65].
Discriminant analysis is a branch of multidimensional statistical analysis that includes methods of classifying multidimensional observations based on the principle of maximum similarity in the presence of training samples.Te discriminant analysis procedure consists of formulating a rule for assigning the studied objects to one of the training known subsets (classes).Objects are assigned to these classes by comparing the value of the discriminant function of the classifcation object with the discrimination constant.For new cases, it is necessary to determine which class it is most likely to belong to.In general, the discriminant function is written as the following linear combination of the analyzed attributes: where x ij (i � 1, n, j � 1, p): discriminant attributes, a 1 , a 2 , . . ., a p : discriminant factors, n: number of attributes, and p: number of cases.
Te coefcients that determine the linear combination (1) are calculated from the condition of the largest diferences in the function between the known classes.
To compare samples by several features, use the coefcient of determination (canonical R) and feature λ (eigenvalue).
Te following formula calculates the coefcient of determination: where SS u : sum of squares of deviations of group averages from the value of the overall average (variability between groups) and SS x : the sum of the squares of deviations of the values of individual cases from the average value for all cases (overall variability).Te closer the value of η 2 is to one, the better the discriminative ability of the attribute x(0 ≤ η 2 ≤ 1).
Eigenvalue is calculated by the following formula: where SS e : the sum of squares of deviations of individual cases from the group averages (variability within groups).Te higher the value λ, the better the discriminant function is selected.Te quality assessment of the classifcation is F-test or Wilks' lambda.Te following formula calculates the F-test value: where p: number of attributes and q: number of known classes or estimate by the signifcant level α (the probability that diferences between groups are random).
To verify the signifcant discriminant function, use the chi-squared test.Te discriminant function is signifcant if α < 0.01.Wilks' lambda is calculated by the following formula: Wilks' lambda is a measure of model uncertainty.Terefore, its value should be as small as possible.8 Complexity

Data.
In this study, the data of the Climate Change Performance Index 2023 and their components (global greenhouse gas emissions, renewable energy, energy use, and climate policy) for 59 countries of the world are obtained from [57].

Results and Discussion
For applied research, we used Statistica software.Te main assumption for the discriminant analysis is that the normal probability is included in the model-independent attributes: GHG emissions, renewable energy, energy use, and climate policy.
Te graphical analysis confrmed that all the predictor variables met the normal probability test.Tus, one of the prerequisites for reasonable use of discriminant analysis is met (Figure 2).
Table 4 shows the estimates of the discriminant function and the independent variables on the basis of which the classifcation function was built.Te Wilks' lambda value is 0.088 ∈ [0; 1] and is close to 0. Tis means that the discrimination is good.F 0.01 (12,140) � 17.58 (Table 3), which is greater than the table value of the F-distribution: F 0.01 (12, ∞) � 3.36.Hypothesis H0: "observations belong to the same class" is rejected.Te discriminant analysis is reasonable, and the classifcation is correct.All independent variables included in the model have high statistical signifcance (p < 0.01).Te GHG emission variable has the highest weight for discrimination, as the Wilks' lambda (0.15) of this variable is the largest.
Table 5 presents the classifcation matrix, and the correctness checks of the training samples are constructed.
From the resulting classifcation matrix, it can be concluded that 2 out of 59 countries (Cyprus and Japan) are incorrectly assigned to the selected CCPI groups.However, the squared Mahalanobis distances of the object "Cyprus" to the "low" group to which it was assigned (1.92) are smaller than those to the centers of other groups (17.25, 1.96, and 13.05).Te value of the squared Mahalanobis distances from the object "Japan" to the center of gravity of the "very low" group, to which it is assigned (1.32), is also the smallest compared to the distances to other groups (8.13, 8.96, 25.29) (Table 6).We conclude that the classifcation of Cyprus and Japan into the previously identifed Climate Change Performance Index groups is correct, and there is no reason to exclude these countries from the analyzed sample.
Table 7 presents the estimates of the discriminant function.Te Wilks' lambda value (0.06) indicates that there is a diference between the groups.Te value of the canonical correlation coefcient is R (0.93).Te value of the chisquared test χ 2 (12) � 133.4 for p < 0.01 is higher than the table value χ 2 (12) � 26.2.Tus, there is a close connection between the discriminant function and the selected CCPI groups.
We conducted the classifcation based on classifcation functions.As a result of the analysis of discriminant functions, we obtained the classifcation function coefcients for each class (Table 8).Te resulting discriminant model is a system of linear equations (linear combinations of independent variables) that will optimally distribute countries into the selected CCPI groups (high, medium, low, and very low).Tese functions can be used to classify new observations.Tey are assigned to those classes whose classifcation values are maximized.
Figure 3 shows a scatter plot of the canonical values.It visualizes the contribution of each of the discriminant functions to the distribution of countries by CCPI groups.
Te built discriminant model shows that the energy use indicator has the greatest weight when assigning the analyzed countries to groups (high, medium, low, and very low) according to the CCPI level.Te second most important is renewable energy.Te lowest weight in determining whether a country belongs to the medium and very low CCPI groups is given to the global greenhouse gas emissions indicator and the climate policy indicator to the high and low CCPI groups.However, these indicators are also important for the CCPI rating.Te intercept value is large in each of the four linear classifcation functions.Tis means that there are still important factors for assessing climate protection that is not taken into account when assessing the CCPI level of the countries under study.
To test the hypothesis that the CCPI is reliable for assessing the efectiveness of climate policies in the context of the concept of sustainability, we conducted a comparative analysis of the CCPI rating 2022 and the sustainable development goals (SDG) 2022.Te Index serves countries ranked by global and regional progress [66], encompassing 57 countries in both ratings.Te results of the comparative analysis show that the CCPI index does not correlate with the overall score measures the overall progress (Figure 4).Te results on the diferences in environmental policy strategies of the world's countries do not support the hypothesis that the CCPI is reliable in the context of sustainable development.Today, the world's countries are not making enough eforts to prevent global climate change, focusing on economic development.
Our model uses empirical data to assess the efectiveness of environmental policies for countries not in the CCPI ranking, enabling comparisons with previous studies on the subject.Tis is important, as climate security is a global issue and requires coordinated action by all countries of the world.

Complexity 11
Te results show that the CCPI rating does not take into account certain factors that are important for assessing climate protection.Climate security is an important component of the overall concept of sustainable development, internal security of countries, and global security, so improving the methodological framework for developing its indicators is an important strategic task.

Conclusion
Humanity is already experiencing the consequences of its excessive, unsustainable exploitation of biological diversity, exacerbated by human-induced climate change.We live of other species (animals, plants, fungi, and microorganisms) and their habitats.Te threat of extinction of other species is a direct threat to the survival of humanity.Environmental security can reduce complex risks to the stability of states and societies and reduce the number of conficts over natural resources.Only a deep scientifc understanding of the interrelationships and main risks of climate security and the formulation of key conclusions can provide useful information support for the development of an efective environmental security policy at the national and global levels.Tis paper introduces the discriminant analysis results of the components of the Climate Change Performance Index 2023 for 59 countries and the EU.Te canonical discriminant model is built to identify the signifcant factors that infuence the assessment of climate risks and the efectiveness of climate protection in a particular country or region.Tis system of linear equations classifes countries (high, medium, low, and very low) according to their level on the Climate Change Performance Index, which is determined based on its components.It can be used to assess the level of climate protection efectiveness of countries for which the CCPI 2023 has not been defned.We have determined the weights of the relevant CCPI components in relation to the efectiveness of actions aimed at reducing global warming.It was found that in assessing the level of climate security, the main focus is on energy use and renewable energy.Global greenhouse gas emissions and climate policy have the least weight.However, these indicators also hold signifcance for the built model.We have established that there are additional factors important for assessing climate protection, but the CCPI rating does not consider them.Te constructed classifcation model takes into account the real coefcients obtained from empirical data and does not require the defnition of subindicators.Tis will make it possible to determine the CCPI score for countries that are not included in the ranking and may use other methodologies in calculating the indicators that are the main components of the CCPI.We conduct a comparative analysis of CCPI and SDGI and fnd that the diferences in the environmental policy strategies of the world's countries do not decisively impact the assessment of their level of sustainable development.Te CCPI measures the efectiveness of the government's actions to mitigate climate change and informs investment redistribution decisions.Investments create the preconditions for economic security.Experience shows that actions aimed at mitigating climate change are not efective.Te relationship between climate change and sustainable development is very complex, as it touches on all components of sustainable development goals.National, food, or water security, migration processes depend on the efects of global warming.Terefore, the efectiveness of the state's

Figure 2 :
Figure 2: Te normal probability of independent variables.(a) Normal probability plot of GHG emissions.(b) Normal probability plot of renewable energy.(c) Normal probability plot of energy use.(d) Normal probability plot of climate policy.
Te development of new methodological approaches and tools can facilitate the 2 Complexity management of current and future climate change risks and improve policies toward a more sustainable future.Despite the unanimity of the world's governments on many climate change mitigation issues, signifcant regional diferences still exist.Our research aims to identify variations in the effectiveness of climate policies across diferent countries and determine the key factors infuencing climate risk assessment.Tis article presents a canonical model for evaluating the efectiveness of climate policies in specifc regions, identifying the most impactful factors on climate protection rates in individual countries, and assessing climate risks.In comparison to previous studies, the main advantages and originality of the research presented here are as follows:

Table 1 :
Te major safety indicators.

Table 2 :
Climate Change Performance Index 2023-ranking table.

Table 3 :
Components of the CCPI countries.

Table 4 :
Discriminant function analysis summary.
Multiple correlation (R-square) for each variable with all other variables that are included in the model.

Table 7 :
Chi-square tests with successive roots removed.
Chi-squared test of discriminant functions.
Chart of the CCPI and SDGI comparison.12 Complexity climate policy also afects its overall security.Renewable energy and energy use indicators have an impact on energy security.Te level of GHG emissions can pose a threat to health security.Abnormal temperatures have led to a decrease in food production as agriculture is not adapted.Additionally, climate change impacts environmental safety, biodiversity, and human migration and can cause political disputes and military conficts over access to habitable areas and water resources.Te problem of environmental security is global and requires global solutions for the use and equitable distribution of natural resources and the fulfllment of commitments by each country to mitigate climate change.Environmental security is a prerequisite for sustainable development and global security.We recommend that decision-makers and climate protection policymakers take decisive and serious actions to mitigate climate change and preserve an environmentally friendly environment.Te world's countries need to rethink the key aspects of measuring climate protection, identify other signifcant factors, and outline new trajectories for shaping strategies to ensure environmental protection and speed up the transition to a sustainable future.